HOLDERNESS PLANNING BOARD
PO BOX 203
HOLDERNESS, NH 03245
Minutes: February 18, 2010
Members Present: Todd Elgin, Earl Hansen – Chair, Carl Lehner
Members not Present: Randy Currier, Peter Francesco, Suzanne Peoples-Selectman Liaison, Ron Huntoon and Bob Snelling
Staff Present: David Lorch – Planner
Others Present: none
Call to Order: Mr. Hansen called the meeting to order at 6:32 P.M.
Roll Call: Mr. Hanson called the roll.
Approval of Minutes: Mr. Hanson moved to approve the minutes of January 21, 2010 as written, seconded by Mr. Elgin. Motion passed.
Applications: none
Other Business
Chairman Hanson read into the minutes the response letter from Administrator Johnson to David Moore regarding funds in escrow for Squam Farm Campground Resort.
Discussion of suggested updates to the Site Plan Regulations.
Board members discussed the State RSA enabling Site Plan Regulations. Next, the Board discussed section III of the Holderness Site Plan Regulations labeled - Procedures “No building permit for non-residential or multi-family use shall be issued until approval of the site plan by the planning board has been granted, and, where applicable, a Special Exception has been granted by the Holderness Zoning Board of Adjustment.” The Board determined that any development activity that is non-residential and which requires a building permit should require Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board.
Next the Board examined the Site Plan Regulation sections I. Authority which reads: “… The Town of Holderness Planning Board adopts the following regulations governing the review and approval or disapproval of site plans for the development or change or expansion of use of tracts for non-residential use or for multi-family dwelling units…”. The Board concluded that the words – development, change, and expansion were broad terms and when applied to a non-residential project, required Site Plan Review.
The Chairman proposed a hypothetical situation where if a shoe store typically sold 100 pairs of shoes a month, expanded its inventory and 200 pairs of shoes per month, would this be considered an expansion of use? The group concluded – no. But if the store expanded its size and built an addition, this would constitute an expansion of use, and so would require Site Plan Review.
The Board then considered other scenarios that require Site Plan Review. The Board quickly reviewed a list of possible circumstances distributed by the Planner, which may require Site Plan Review.
The Board concluded that expansion of commercial buildings, expansion of a parking area, construction of animal pens, kennels and accessory buildings for agricultural businesses, ground equipment for cell towers, and change in the use of a building would all require Site Plan Review. Cases which would not warrant Site Plan Review, according to the consensus of the Board included: paving a gravel parking lot or a single large sign pole such as the type found at a gas station.
In regard to making any changes to the text of the Site Plan Regulations, the group felt generally the body of the regulations did not warrant any changes. The Planner will bring in a legal reference regarding the fact the Planning Board can waive specific requirements for a complete Site Plan application but can not waive the requirement for Site Plan review.
Planner’s Report
The Board can expect at March meeting an application for gravel excavation, Luscher’s Site Plan application and a site plan to add ground equipment at the cell tower location.
8:46 Adjournment
Respectfully Submitted,
David Lorch
Planner
Minutes Approved: March 18, 2010
Corrections:
Page 1, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: Change The Board determined that any to The Board discussed this portion of site plan regulations that indicates that any.
| 
