Minutes of Meeting

                                               Lancaster Planning Board

 

Meeting held upstairs in Town Hall                          Wednesday Sept. 12, 2007

 

Those attending: Town Manager Edward Samson, Selectmen David Stickney, Leo Enos, Sr., Allan Carr. And Administrative Services Manager Becky Newton.

 

Regular Board Members:  Chairman Fred Emerson, Vice Chairman Steve Young,

Claude Reed, Les Hilton and Leo Enos Selectmen’s Representative.

 

Alternate Members: John Brooks and Justin Carter.

 

Excused:  Joe Hoey and Aurore Hood.

 

Absent: David Rexford and Leon Rideout.

 

Others attending: Alan Savage, Kay Doherty, Jim and Ann Marie Dubreuil, David Fuller, Tom and Nancy Kingston,  Cid Southworth, Raymond and Annette Dubreuil, Lucy Wyman, Mark Dubreuil, Barry Lunderville, Doris and John Paquette, Betsy Hutchings, Sally Pratt, Dick Morneau, Mark Morel and family.

 

            Chairman Fred Emerson who welcomed all to the meeting called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M.

 

Initial Business:

            To review and approve the minutes of the August 8th meeting.

A motion was made by Leo Enos and seconded by John Brooks to accept the minutes as read.  A vote was called for and the motion carried.

 

            Roll call was taken and at this time the alternate members of the Board were appointed to be full voting members for the meeting.

 

            Chairman Emerson announced at this time that the next Tri-Board meeting would be held on Tuesday September 25th at 6:30 P.M.

 

Public Hearings:

 

Minor Site Plan Review:

 

Case $688 Raymond Dubreuil, Jr. – Applicant requests to construct an outside movie theatre to include 28’ x 20’ projection building and 50’ x 25’ movie screen 12’ off the ground.  (Tax Map P5  Lots 50 & 51)  To review application for completeness.  Discuss and vote on final approval.

 

            Chairman Emerson said that the Board had gone and viewed the site in question and then went around to each Board member to see if they had any further questions or comments.

            Claude Reed – he asked if Mr. Dubreuil would be required to upgrade Causeway St. due to the increased traffic.  Fred Emerson said that it would be up to the Town.

            Leo Enos – Questions were answered.

            Justin Carter – All of his questions had been answered.

            Steve Young – All of his questions had been answered.

            John Brooks – John was not in the area at the time of the site visit, did not go.

            Les Hilton – Said that the screen would be 10 feet instead of 12 feet.  Fencing will be set up so theater would not bother neighbors.

            Fred Emerson – Stated that he did not realize that the lot was as big as it was.

 

At this time Chairman Emerson read the “Draft Conditions” that were presented to Mr. Dubreuil.  (copy of conditions attached to minutes)

            The Board felt that Conditions 7 & 8 needed to have different wording. The Chairman read the following: (see additional condition)

 

Becky Newton said that because we do not know have many cars will be going over the road we may need to have some kind of agreement with Mr. Dubreuil to contribute financially to road maintenance based on traffic counts.  The Town would use the money that Mr. Dubreuil puts up to help up-grade the road. Work will be done by the Town Crew at Mr. Dubreuil’s expense.

Leon Rideout joined the Board at 6:40 P.M.

            Mr. Dubreuil said that he has been doing some up-grading and is willing to work with the Town on that.

            It was asked how late the movies would run.  Mr. Dubreuil said that sometimes a film could break and then they would run over the allotted time.

            Leo Enos asked about Condition 6 – how far apart do the trees need to be.   He was told they would be every 3 feet.

            At this time Chairman Emerson asked if there was anyone on the Board who needed to recuse themselves from the hearing.  Hearing none he preceded.

            Lucy Wyman said that she disagreed with allowing the drive-in theatre under “G – theaters” as drive-in’s are covered under the definition of “outdoor recreational facility” and require a special exception from the Zoning Board.

 

ABUTTERS;

            Lucy Wyman said that she thought the case should go before the Zoning Board as it falls under “special exceptions”.  She sited Page 15 of the Zoning Ordinances – Article “G” as permitted uses. She also read under “Commercial & Industrial”, uses of special exception.  Also a definition that on Page 10 said that it should go for ‘site plan review”.

            Becky Newton agreed that it could go either way.

            Becky Newton said that it was the responsibility of the Planning Board to help the applicant.  Under “G”, this could be interpreted in many different ways.  She also stated that the abutter has the right to appeal any decision that is made by the her.  She also stated that what we have in this case is a “conflicting provision”.

            Edward Samson raised the issue that the Board can make their decision tonight or they have the right to send the applicant to the Zoning Board.

            Lucy Wyman said that she wants the Planning Board to send the applicant to the Zoning Board as a special exception.

            Becky Newton reminded everyone that the applicant was there for a Site Plan Review.

            Barry Lunderville asked if the public didn’t have the right to expect a reasonable man decision.

            Becky Newton said that there were decisions made everyday that people won’t like but a decision has to be made to move the application forward.

            Lucy Wyman asked if site plans applied to both Zoning Board and Planning Board and the answer to that was no.  Site Plan is a Planning Board responsibility and it regulates non-residential purposes.

            Lucy Wyman then said that there was a smell coming from the brook, and was told that there was a water test going on and wondered if there were any results. She felt that Raymond Dubreuil was draining water into the Town sewer and that is not permissible.  All of the terainin has been changed in the area.  She is also concerned with the site of the screen, feels that it should be placed away from her house so that the lights from the cars would not shine on her house.  She feels very strongly about the wetlands and feels that the Board does not seem to be concerned, she stated that she had read all of the ordinances and felt that the Board should too.

            Fred Emerson told her that the Board does not have any authority on the wetlands that is taken care of by the wetlands bureau.

            Lucy Wyman stated that she felt that the Board should get involved with wetlands and on a map done by Gregory Howland it shows that lots 50 & 51 are wetlands.  She said that Raymond Dubreuil built  a house there and permits for lot 50 have been denied.  She further stated that on the Site Plan she would like to see the screen moved.  Lucy supports to taking down of the facility if for some reason the business closes.  She also stated that in 1997 Irene Darby reviewed the area and most of it is wetland. Other issues that she had were the horns blowing, trespassing on her property, trash being thrown out, there are no sidewalks from Sand St. to Coos Junction.

            Annette Dubreuil spoke and said that Lucy has animals that bark at night and they don’t complain and they are in a commercial zone and they pay commercial taxes.

            Noting that there were no other abutters wishing to speak the meeting was opened to the public.

 

PUBLIC;

            Kay Doherty read a letter that she had written to the wetlands board and stated that she was not in favor of the project.

            Barry Lunderville asked if it were prudent for Town to make a decision until the wetlands issue is settled. Felt that the Board should make a motion to table until wetlands issue is taken care of.

            Fred Emerson said that Item 2 of the conditions states that.

            Barry Lunderville said that he doesn’t mean that he can’t proceed. Is there any liability to the Town?

            Edward Samson said that he had met with the Wetland Bureau on June 27th concerning the issue and there were no concerns from lot 50. Wetlands had other concerns up the road by the gate.

            Les Hilton quoted Item 4 of the conditions stating that the owner shall have all approvals.

            Becky Newton said that what is done before approval is at the applicant’s own financial risk.

            Lucy Wyman referred to Article 2 of Standards for Proposed Developments” “L” pertaining to ground water protection.  She stated that there were many references made in the article that fit the wetland issue.

            Raymond Dubreuil spoke saying that the post for the screen were set. There is no rule against setting posts.  The septic smell could also be coming from Sand St. as they are having problems over there. He has put trees behind the screen and cleaned up the junk cars etc. around the area.

            Cid Southworth asked if the screen and poles were put up before coming to the Planning Board. She was told that Ray’s application was in the works when the poles were set.

            Jim Dubreuil spoke and said that there are only poles there no screen.

            Becky Newton spoke and said that they were having conditions at the Board’s request.

            Noting that there were no further comments from the public the meeting was closed to the public and opened only for the Planning Board.

 

PLANNING BOARD;

            The Board was asked if they were in agreement that the application was complete.

John Brooks felt that items 2 & 4  that maybe instead of only saying “prior to operation” it should be “prior to construction or operation.”

            Steve Young said that stating it that way would also protect Raymond Dubreuil.

            Les Hilton said that he didn’t think that Raymond Dubreuil would be putting money into the project if he weren’t planning to go forward with it.

A motion was made by John Brooks and seconded by Les Hilton to change the wording of Items 2 & 4  at the end to read “ prior to construction and/or operation”. A vote was called for and by a show of hands there were 5 for it and 2 against. The motion carried.

 

A motion was then made by Steve Young and seconded by Leo Enos to accept the application as complete.  A vote was called for and the motion carried.

 

The Board then had discussion for final approval.

            Becky Newton said that the Board needed to take care of the issues raised by Lucy Wyman. She requested the Board review the noise, idling engines, trash, bond, etc.

A motion was made by Les Hilton and seconded by Leo Enos that all cars would have to shut off their engines while at the movie.  It will be up to the owner to enforce this issue.  A vote was called for and by a show of hands there were 5 yes and 1 no.  The motion carried.

 

A motion was made by John Brooks and seconded by Les Hilton to have Raymond Dubreuil post a $2,000.00 bond to be used for possible removal of theatre. The Board should also know what is going into the area so that there is nothing hazardous.  A vote was called for and by a show of hands there were 6 yes l abstention.  The motion carried.

 

A vote was called for final approval.

A motion was made by Steve Young and seconded by Les Hilton to accept the plan for final approval.  A vote was called for and the motion carried.

 

            Lucy Wyman asked what happens now.  She was told that Raymond Dubreuil will have to file an application for the Zoning Board special exception hearing and if the Zoning Board does not approve it, he can appeal. Raymond would also be able to present his side of Lucy’s appeal of Becky’s Administrative decision.

 

Revised Site Plan Review:

 

Case #672 – George Sansoucy for a Major Site Plan Review.  Applicant requests to construct 6 duplex units each containing two single family dwellings units for a total of 12 units in an area zoned residential.  Revised to 9 units.  Abutters have been notified of minor revisions. No correspondence received.  Signing of mylar. No public hearing necessary.

            Noting that there were no comments or concerns from the public or the Board the mylar was signed.

 

Minor Subdivision:

 

Case #689 Thomas and Nancy Kingston – Applicant requests a technical subdivision/lot line adjustment in the Commercial Zone for 17-29 Elm Street.  No new lots created.  (Tax map P9-59, 60, 61.) Review application for completeness. Discuss and vote on final approval.

 

            Mr. Kingston spoke and said that they were selling the Carpet Barn and just gave some of the land behind their house to go with it.  The purpose was that all of the buildings meet the proper setbacks and they do.

            A motion was called for the application being complete.

A motion was made by Steve Young and seconded by Leo Enos to accept the application as complete.  A vote was called for and the motion carried.

            A motion was called for Final Approval.

A motion was made by Les Hilton and seconded by Claude Reed to accept the plan for final approval.  A vote was called for and the motion carried.

 

Other Business:

Mark Morel – Morel Road Subdivision

            Mr. Morel spoke and said that they have been working on the subdivision in question since August of 2006.  The road is built.  There had been some confusion with the contactor as to the design of the road.  He was told to do one thing and then did something else.  They also have had difficulty in keeping an engineer.  Mr. Morel thought that the engineer would be going to the site to inspect what was going on and that didn’t happen. He hired another engineer and that one left also.  He now has Richard Morneau as his engineer.  The top of the road is a little over 100 feet and it is over the 12% grade.  He would like the Boards permission to put asphalt on the  road for 1,000 feet to include areas over 12% and “the height of the land”, and he doesn’t feel that there will be any problems because of the grade.  If he has to dig the whole road up to do the paving he would have to go back through all of the permitting process.  There will be no new homes on the road, all of the homes will be back in the woods.  It was asked how long the road was.  He said that from top to bottom the road is 3,000 feet.  He feels that he needs to do the l,000 feet of the road for safety. The entire road is where it should be and the areas that needed to be addressed have been.

            Steve Young asked what was the maximum grade over the 12%.  Mr. Morel said 13.4% that it was 13% and it has been measured every 50 feet.  He said that the figures vary from surveyor to surveyor depending on if you measure grade every 50 feet or every l00 feet, and he has had 4 different ones during the project.

            The road has compacting every 12 inches and it would consist of a combination of re-claimed asphalt and gravel.  The road thickness would be 12 inches and could go down to 16.  There were test dug every so many feet.

            It was asked how wide the road would be.  Mr. Morel said that it is 18’ wide, 9’ off center.  He went wider for better traveling due to curves on the road. There would be no run off.  The road falls into area where it doesn’t need permitting.

            Mr. Morel would like the Board to revisit the conditions so that he can finish the project.  The Attorney General doesn’t need to be in conditions as it is a 12 lot subdivision.  If he does decide to further subdivide in the future he realizes that he would have to come back to the Board.  Becky said that the Attorney General’s office wrote a letter saying he should file.  Becky suggested the file an exempt if the Attorney General’s office would let him.

            Fred Emerson asked Richard Morneau if he was comfortable with the 13% grade. Mr. Morneau said that 13% paved is better than 12% unpaved.  He also stated that the road out of Whitefield into Lancaster was over 13%.  He said that a 13% paved road is less intimidating to travelers.

            Leo Enos asked how thick is asphalt and mix.  He was told that it was recommended to have a 2 inch single course mix.

            Becky Newton asked if he was paving to the height of the land.  Mr. Morel said that they were going to the end of the road, there will be a culvert there, 12-13 feet and then it will be flat for emergency services.  This is by Lot #8.

            Leo Enos asked what the life expectancy of the road would be.

            Dick Morneau said that it should last at least 12 years.  Then do periodic  treatment if necessary on an 8 year cycle.  If it were gravel it would have to be done 2 or 3 times a year.

            Steve Young asked if there was wrap on the steep part.  The answer was yes due to it being steep.  It will make the road stronger and when regarded it will be better.

            Abutter John Paquette addressed Mr. Morel and the Board as to when he might get his water back to his property.

            Mr. Morel said that he had met with the surveyor and DES as of June 1, 2007 to sign papers and has not had any of them returned.  There needed to be paperwork signed by Mr. Paquette, Mr. Morel and the Town.

            Some of the digging that needs to be done is on both of their lands.

            Edward Samson said that he had met with Doris and John Paquette, the surveyor, and two people from DES. At the meeting they discussed how to redirect the outlet to go to the Paquette property. (2/3 rds on Morel and 1/3rd on Paquette)  They do not want the trees disturbed.  They need a guarantee that the trees will not be disturbed.  Edward Samson said he has not had time to take care of some of the issues but will try to get to it soon.

            Mark Morel said that the buffer is on his side and he wants it in writing so to resolve the issue.  He also said that by retrenching the water it would dry up more of the wetlands downstream. He wants the signatures to start digging, he also stated the DES is ok with the drying up of the wetlands in the downstream area.

            Doris Paquette spoke and said that the road has disturbed their brook.  When the culvert was put in it caused the problem. Doris said Mr. Morel did not have permission for this extra culvert.

            Mark Morel said that it was not a wetlands jurisdiction culvert.  It wasn’t illegal to put it in. The culvert was for storm water run off.

            Leo Enos spoke and wanted to know if the Board was meeting for a wetlands problem or the grade of the road.

            Becky Newton said that originally the Board had wanted to have the road paved or to at least pave areas over 8% grade. As to what the Attorney General wants, that is state law and they need to do what the Attorney General’s office wants done, it needs to be followed.

            Fred Emerson read road regulations.

            John Brooks stated that each case is different and the Board has to weigh all the options for that case.

A motion was made by Steve Young and seconded by Les Hilton to amend the 12% grade to allow completion of the road with asphalt all the way to the top. (1,000 feet, 18 feet wide 2 inch single course mix) A vote was taken and the motion carried.

 

There were no Commercial Building permits to be signed.

 

Becky Newton told the Board that there would be a meeting in Bethlehem on October 4th regarding a cell tower in that area if anyone wanted to attend.

 

Noting that there was no further business to come before the meeting a motion was called for to adjourn.

A motion was made by Leo Enos and seconded by Les Hilton to adjourn. A vote was taken and the meeting adjourned at 8:35 P.M.

 

Respectfully Submitted:                                                        Approved:

 

 

Sandra E. Doolan – Clerk                                                     Fred A. Emerson

                                                                                                Chairman