Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Clarification on Dollar General: Site Plan hearing continued until 12/9/15

As I wrote in an earlier post, I did not get to see the end of the PB meeting on 11/18/15 as the video feed cut off at 10:30PM, so I was unsure of the outcome.
The draft minutes of that meeting indicate that the site plan review was tabled until 12/9:

 " After a lengthy discussion it was the decision of the board to continue the hearing to December 9th, 2015 to allow the applicant to make revisions to the plan and to provide the board with further information as requested. These included addressing the gravel issue for the culverts on Moulton Drive with either a performance bond, or tying it to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, rendering of faux dormers verses cupolas, rendering of monument signage, shifting the access easement area 25’ back from Route 25, installation of oil/water separators in the catchment basins, low application rate of salt for the parking lot, ADA compliant crosswalk (NH DOT?), installation of remote access for the RRFB, and to include the following conditions: no overnight parking, limit length of truck idling to five (5) minutes, no deliveries between the hours of 7-8:30 am and 2-3:30 pm while school is in session, no display of outdoor merchandise or display racks, no outdoor signage, pole lighting to be turned on or off not more than 30 minutes prior to or past store hours, and BoS to approve ground signage or pylon signage."

7 comments:

Joseph Cormier said...

2006 ... NH Bar (not NHMA).

"The formerly complex and sometimes contentious process of site plan acceptance in New Hampshire has just been simplified."

https://www.nhbar.org/publications/display-news-issue.asp?id=3210

TITLE LXIV: PLANNING AND ZONING
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LXIV.htm


For Rational Development said...

I still do not understand why an independent traffic safety study was not requested to determine the advisability of allowing eastbound left turns where no left turn lane is provided and to determine whether exiting traffic should be allowed to make left turn from the exit onto Route 25.

At the very least, the Planning Board should have limited exit turns from the parking lot and required that the store pay for any needed new crossing guards for the school at the Blake Road intersection.

I do not look forward to the need for a traffic signal or additional stop signs to impede traffic and to further pollute the air.

Our Planning Board should impose reasonable restrictions to make certain we are all safe and particularly the school children who are going to be most affected.

It is too bad the Board didn't insist on left turn lanes to create a safer intersection as a condition for approval. Even a modicum of widening such as at Fox Hollow would have been preferable to nothing. Just remember how long it took and how much was spent to get the less than satisfactory Fox Hollow improvement, when Blake could have been improved by a conditioned payment from Dollar General.

Joseph Cormier said...

"... the Planning Board should have limited exit turns from the parking lot and required that the store pay for any needed new crossing guards for the school at the Blake Road intersection."

I believe the Planning Board has no jurisdiction, since Rt-25 is a state road, under NH DOT jurisdiction. I believe that is what blogger was suggesting with "... ADA compliant crosswalk (NH DOT?)" above.

DOT turned down the "two entrance" request; one for the store and the other for the residual property that may be developed in the future. One entrance only ... see application following.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwibmv_Aja3JAhVEcD4KHSBrA3oQFggkMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nh.gov%2Fdot%2Forg%2Foperations%2Fhighwaymaintenance%2Fdocuments%2FDrivewayApplication.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGAwgFJp2qsZ5u6lFwTQV8UVURCGw&bvm=bv.108194040,d.eWE&cad=rja



Terence C. Jatko said...

The "death of a thousand cuts" continues with the Dollar General application.These unfortunate applicants are now responsible for the condition of a poorly-designed road entrance two lots downhill? Perhaps they should consult the previous owners of their lot who were somehow able to change the laws of physics and command runoff to go somewhere other than downhill. And now an oil-water separator for parking lot runoff? Where is the oil-water separator for the town hall and library complex parking lot? Oh, that's right, these things are town property and therefore not subject to the whim of the commissars on the planning board. I've got some water troubles on my road on the front side of Red Hill; I wonder if I can convince the planning board to saddle the poor Dollar General folks with fixing those too.

Eric Taussig said...

While I have not attended or reviewed this application, I am aware of several relevant Site Plan Review Regulations, particularly as this facility will impact Blake Rd., a Town road as well as Route 25.

Perhaps the Planning Board, "For Rational Development" and other interested parties should review the following Site Plan Regs:

2. Purpose
The intent of these Site Plan Review Regulations is to protect the public health, safety and welfare; to ensure the adequacy of traffic access, circulation and parking; to ensure the provision of adequate buffers, landscaping and screening to protect adjoining properties against any possible detrimental or offensive uses on the site, including but not limited to, unsightly or obnoxious appearance, smoke, and noise; and to protect against adverse environmental impacts from a proposed development, including inadequate sewage disposal, refuse and other waste and/or inadequate surface drainage.

5) Traffic Impact Assessment and Analysis – All proposed Site Review applications shall be reviewed by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) and Planning Board to ascertain that adequate provisions have been made by the applicant for traffic safety. To facilitate this review, the applicant shall provide a Traffic Impact Assessment and Analysis to document existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of a proposed development project, to describe the volume and effect of projected traffic generated by the proposed project, and to identify measures proposed to mitigate any adverse impacts on traffic. All analyses must meet the minimum requirements of a “Standard” analysis. If any of the following thresholds apply, then an “Advanced” analysis must be completed:
a) Trip generation exceeding 400 average daily trips or 48 peak hour trips. Peak hour is defined as any of the following:
i) AM peak hour (6-9 AM); ii) PM peak hour (4-7 PM);
iii) Saturday midday peak hour (11AM-1PM); and
iv) Peak hour of generator for certain land uses (e.g., school, movie theater)
if it falls outside the three previously listed periods. Analysis of Saturday midday peak only applies to commercial uses with retail trade.

Notwithstanding the threshold criteria above, the Town Planner may require an “Advanced” analysis because of special circumstances. The requirements for a “Standard” or an “Advanced” analysis are contained in the Policy document entitled, “Town of Moultonborough Traffic Impact Assessment and Analysis Standards”.

6) The Planning Board may require that the applicant hire a traffic consultant to prepare a traffic impact study to determine if the development proposal will generate traffic volumes that require traffic control measures such as deceleration or acceleration lanes, adequate turning radii for driveways, or driveways designed with adequate entrance depth.

Anonymous said...

Interesting that the Planning Board said "no display of outdoor merchandise or display racks" but Aubuchon's seems to not have any problem with these activities all across their lot in a much more visible spot. Sounds like spot zoning to me by the Planning Board.

Anonymous said...

Another traffic study is complete *@%*&^.
The state has a kazillion traffic studies going back to the 1800's.
And some here are asking for another traffic study? Huh?
Give me a break !