Let the record show that immediately prior to the meeting a reception was held in the Portsmouth Room to honor Arthur Parrott, former Chairman of the Planning Board, and Faye Goldberg for their service to the board.

Prior to proceeding with the meeting, Mr. Smith stated that he wanted to publicly thank Arthur Parrott and Faye Goldberg for their work in serving on the board; that Mr. Parrott was a member and subsequently chairman since 1983 and Ms. Goldberg had been a member since 1994 coming over from the Historic District Commission to which she was appointed in 1993.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Mr. Hopley moved to accept the minutes as presented. Ms. Clews seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 5-0 vote with Ms. Roberts abstaining.

A. The application of Bernard and Agnes Maxam for property located off Coach Road wherein a Conditional Use Permit is requested as allowed in Article VI, Section 10-608(B) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a 9,100 s.f. building for office and manufacturing use within an Inland Wetlands Protection District. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 297 as Lots 4-3 and 4-3A and lies within an Industrial district. Plans are recorded in the Planning Department as 10.3-01. (This application was tabled at the Board’s November 15, 2001, meeting to this meeting and should be retabled.)

Mr. Hopley moved to take the application off the table. Ms. Clews seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 6-0 vote.

Ms. Clews moved to table the application to a time uncertain. Mr. Hopley seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 6-0 vote.

Mr. Holden informed the Board that the applicant wasn’t prepared to move forward at this time and is continuing in his efforts. At some point, the application will be back before the board. Abutters would be notified at the appropriate time so they will be informed.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

B. New Franklin School – report on back gate issue

Mr. Holden read the recommendation resulting from the neighborhood meeting into the record.

He stated that the neighborhood meeting held on December 13th was a quality meeting and very effective; that the neighbors appreciated the opportunity to meet with the School Department.

Report: Administrative staff from the departments of School, Public Works and Planning met with some ten residents of the area around this school. There was much discussion on the project and how the site conditions could be refined further so as to best satisfy the objectives of the School Department and, at the same time, reduce adverse impacts on the neighbors to this site. Towards this end, all parties cooperatively worked out the following refinements, which are being incorporated into the overall development plan for this facility. Indeed, these refinements are to some degree not limited to the site plan but are more a further coordination of internal administration. As a working tool, this meeting should be regarded as being positive. The following approaches are now being incorporated, as appropriate into this project.

1. Traffic Safety Committee will consider how best to increase enforcement in the area of Myrtle Avenue, perhaps by using the STEP program, which has been used in similar situations and to consider the placement of additional signage, including, STOP signs and/or other measures;
2. Parking areas accessed from Myrtle Avenue will be signed to the effect – STAFF PARKING ONLY and DO NOT ENTER;
3. School Principal shall designate who will use these spaces;
4. To the extent possible, all parties are seeking the removal of the jersey barriers;
5. The location of the gate that controls access to the site from Myrtle Avenue will be located in close proximity to the school [10’];
6. The gate is to be manually controlled, though other options could be considered by the School Department, if the situation should warrant additional measures;
7. The School Department will indicate when the gate is to be opened and thereby serve to identify the times it is to be closed;
8. Issues with gate openings/closings are to be reported to the School’s Principal or to the Business Administrator of the School Department [similar to practice in use at the High School];
9. The School Department will coordinate trash pickup so that it conforms to City Ordinances;
10. Trash service will not use Myrtle Avenue to access/egress the school site [existing condition, as well];
11. The School Department to work with the City on the timing of capital improvements to Myrtle Avenue, including, paving and sidewalks [some work may be needed due to pending water line work to this school].

No other issues remain to be considered.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

A. The application of the City of Portsmouth, owner, and Exchange City, applicant, for property located at 25 Granite Street (the Wentworth School) wherein a Conditional Use Permit is requested as allowed in Article VI, Section 10-608(B) of the Zoning Ordinance for the construction of an addition to the existing gymnasium within an Inland Wetlands Protection District. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 217 as Lot 5 and lies within the Municipal district.

The Chair read the notice and opened the Public Hearing.

Philip Ross of 9 Cody Road, Freedom, New Hampshire addressed the board. The proposal is to have the gymnasium section come out on three sides of the building approximately 16’. The reason for the expansion of the gym is to bring the programs of Exchange City to the school. There would be a section, about 7’, that would intrude into the wetland buffer.

Mr. Smith stated that it was his understanding that the proposal had been reviewed by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Ross replied, "that is correct".

Mr. Holden spoke to the City’s 100’ wetland buffer adding that the school was obviously constructed before the wetland buffer regulation was in place. The proposed minimal expansion would accommodate a municipal need for this particular use; that the expansion would not affect the wetland; only going into the buffer. Mr. Holden explained that the project would be going through the Site Review process and would be back before the board.

Mr. Ross explained that the program itself is an entrepreneurial program for fifth and sixth graders.

Attorney John P. McGee, Jr. addressed the board and stated that he was present representing the Heritage Hill Condos, a direct abutter to the project. He stated that the abutters were concerned about drainage and they were looking for assurances that no additional drainage would come towards their property.

Attorney McGee then spoke to the pond that exists between the buildings and Maplewood Avenue. He stated that when Osprey Landing (Wentworth Acres) was put up in 1940, the Federal Government condemned the land and subsequently granted a flowage easement to that area now a pond. However, the right to flow onto that property is where the addition is planned. He pointed out that there is a drain near the boundary line between the condo property and the school property.

Attorney McGee stated that there has not been much of a problem during the past few years; however, he pointed out that during high water levels, the pond area gets very high. He wanted to make sure that the drain is maintained, it being his feeling that it is the responsibility of the City to maintain it.

Mr. Coker asked if the condos were to the south of the school with the reply being in the affirmative.

Ms. Clews inquired if Attorney McGee was speaking to the drain in the road going into the complex. Attorney McGee responded that such was a different drain. The drain he is talking about is near the boundary and actually on City property. Ms. Clews stated that it was her understanding that it was Attorney McGee’s concern that the drain may not be functioning.

The Chair made three calls for speakers. There being no further speakers, the Chair declared the Public Hearing closed.

Mr. Holden interjected that the Conservation Commission conducted its review and issued a favorable recommendation. From his conversations with Attorney McGee, it was Mr. Holden’s opinion that the drainage issues would be looked at by the Planning Board during the Site Review process.

Ms. Roberts moved approval as presented. Mr. Coker seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 6-0 vote.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

B A compliance hearing will be held on a site plan that was approved by the Planning Board on February 17, 2000, for Brora LLC for property located off Commerce Way, Dovekie Way, Portsmouth Boulevard, Shearwater Drive and Market Street for a consolidation and resubdivision plan and a traffic mitigation plan associated with future commercial development within Osprey Landing. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 216 as Lots 1, 1-5 and 1-8B and Assessor Plan 217 as Lots 2-1838 through 2-1844 and 2-0300 and lies within the Office Research and Mariner’s Village Overlay districts.

The Chair read the notice and opened the Public Hearing.

Mr. Holden commented that the request was somewhat unusual for the Planning Board; not particularly unusual for the Board of Adjustment. This Public Hearing came about through the Site Review process which considered various applications whereby improvements were made to travel ways and existing City streets. A Site Review Agreement and bond assured compliance with the plan.

Now that the project is 99% complete, the applicant desires to have the release of their bond. Normally, the City’s administrative staff reviews the plan which, if satisfactorily completed, allows the release of the bond.

In this instance, the issue involves an abutter in the immediate area. The abutter has correctly taken advantage of the process to request compliance. The issue before the board involves a small area of the overall project.

Mr. Holden went on to state that an irrigation system was not part of the approved plan. Because of its location in the right-of-way, an easement would be required that would go to the City Council.

Mr. Holden reiterated that absent the request for a compliance hearing, the bond release would have been handled by administrative staff. The question also arises as to what extent the issue involves the City.

Hank Stebbins, an attorney from Manchester, addressed the board and stated that he was representing the developer. He spoke to improvements to Market Street, Commerce Way, Dovekie Way (now Portsmouth Boulevard). He stated that they had worked closely with the City and its departments and reminded the board of the extensive process involving the board, the Planning and Public Works Departments. Attorney Stebbins stated that improvements had been made to the infrastructure, at great expense, without any particular development.

He then referred to a package submitted to the board including letters from abutters. One letter was from Martin Torres. Attorney Stebbins reminded the board that Martin Torres had appeared before the Planning Board at the time of site plan review. Mr. Torres resides at the corner of the intersection of Commerce Way and Portsmouth Boulevard. Attorney Stebbins worked closely with Mr. Torres and had a landscaping plan approved before construction was started. Mr. Torres’ letter advises of compliance in accordance with the landscaping plan.

Another letter is from Doornoch LLC who owns property on the northerly side of Portsmouth Boulevard. A substantial change was made to allow for the continuation of Commerce Way through to Portsmouth Boulevard. The letter confirms that the work was done and was done well.

Tain Properties Associates submitted a letter confirming that construction had been done in accordance with the approved plan.

John Madden, owner of Osprey Landing, submitted a letter confirming that the work that had been done was valuable and a significant community improvement.

Attorney Stebbins then discussed the items that remain to be done; such as, some minor paving work; and an easement with regards to an irrigation system on Portsmouth Boulevard. Attorney Stebbins went on to explain that Portsmouth Boulevard being a major entranceway to a multi-use zone, that extensive consideration had been given to landscaping. It was felt that the developer should maintain and operate its own irrigation system to ensure that the trees and shrubs are properly watered.

Attorney Stebbins informed the board that the developer had worked closely with the neighbors; had private deliveries of notices to the neighbors and had meetings with the neighbors.

Attorney Stebbins then talked about Mr. McGovern’s property being subject to a 20’ landscaping easement which runs all along that side of Portsmouth Boulevard. The purpose of the easement is to provide a substantial buffer between commercial traffic and residential properties. The easement was acquired from Bantry Bay Associates and Mariner’s Park Associates specifically to be used as a buffer.

Attorney Stebbins pointed out that Mr. McGovern never attended the numerous public hearings or any of the neighborhood meetings. It was Attorney Stebbins’ opinion that Mr. McGovern has a private dispute with a developer regarding how his (Mr. McGovern’s) land was being used.

Attorney Stebbins went on to state that they have tried to negotiate with Mr. McGovern; that on at least three occasions they thought they had an agreement only to have Mr. McGovern withdraw. Attorney Stebbins commented that it was very difficult to reach accord.

Attorney Stebbins spoke to a 3’ berm that runs along that side of Portsmouth Boulevard for plantings to be planted as a significant buffer. During the process the dirt was laid too far over the easement line. When the error was brought to the developer’s attention, the whole process was reversed. The berm has been constructed in accordance with the easement plan.

Mr. McGovern is concerned about the water that builds up in his back yard and how it would drain. Attorney Stebbins noted that with Mr. Torres’ property, the water was flowing across the road and creating puddles. The road was reworked to make sure that didn’t happen.

Attorney Stebbins stated that a drain was put in along side of the berm; subsequently Mr. McGovern indicated that he didn’t want the drain.

Attorney Stebbins stated that they have encouraged Mr. McGovern to hire a lawyer and go to court. Attorney Stebbins asked that the bond be released subject to certain conditions.

Mr. Coker asked Attorney Stebbins to respond in twenty-five words or less to the Attorney’s contention that the issue is a private property right. Attorney Stebbins referred to the developer’s rights within the easement area. Attorney Stebbins spoke to a drainage structure initially put in by Mr. McGovern, that they (the developer) would be glad to remove it. The Planning Department had asked that it be allowed to stay so that water wouldn’t pond.

Attorney John P. McGee, Jr., addressed the board and stated that he was representing Mr. and Mrs. McGovern. He commented that his clients were told that if they didn’t like it, "sue us". Attorney McGee went on to state that the site review process is a public process; that the McGoverns were not notified of many of the meetings; that they (the McGoverns) have constantly expressed their concerns to the developer and City officials when things were done on their property.

Attorney McGee spoke to an electrical conduit associated with the berm. The developer put it in with the understanding that the City wanted it. It was Attorney McGee’s contention that if the City wants it, then the issue is properly before the Board.

Attorney McGee went on to talk about a drain that was going nowhere. It was his opinion that the entire berm has helped to create a channel thus creating a drainage problem. Attorney McGee questioned the elevations on the street pointing out that the street was in fact raised.

Attorney McGee then wondered how long the developer would be responsible for the landscaping; that if the City wants a drain, who would maintain it.

Attorney Stebbins reiterated that private property disputes should be taken care of through the court system. He stated that Mr. McGovern wanted some money and the developer said, "no"; that is why the issue is before the board. He went on to state that the developer spent millions of dollars and was being hijacked for ten thousand dollars.

Attorney McGee responded that the McGoverns were not attempting to hijack anyone; that they were asking for the encroachment to be removed and to have their property returned to the way it was.

Mr. Coker asked if Attorney McGee’s client’s asked for ten thousand dollars, "yes or no". The Chair ruled that the question was irrelevant; that the board was not judge and jury here.

Mr. Holden interjected that the issue before the board is whether the approval granted by the board was completed satisfactorily. To wander from that would not be a service to the municipality adding that he was sorry the attorneys had brought this up (referring to the money issue).

Attorney McGee stated that he was also sorry it had been brought up.

It was stated that should suit be brought, the party of interest would be the representatives of the applicant; that is, the parties would be the McGoverns and Brora LLC.

James Joseph McGovern, Jr. of 21 Oak Hill Drive, Dover, NH, the son of the McGoverns, spoke to the issue of an easement for drainage purposes adding that a previous attorney had asked for a sum of money in return for the easement; that the previous attorney was asked to be removed.

John Kane, one of the principals of the owner/developer, stated that in no case had they said, "sue us"; that they have reached out and tried to be reasonable; that the demand to "pay us" was the breaking point with the interpretation being that it was all about money. Mr. Kane went on to state that they don’t want to go to court; that they want to come to a resolution; but they seem to be at an impasse.

The Chair made three calls for speakers. There being no further speakers, the Chair declared the Public Hearing closed.

Mr. Holden commented that the issue before the Board is whether the approved site plan was constructed as presented. He pointed out that there are three areas where additional work is still needed; one is paving. The second issue is the easement for the irrigation system. The third issue regarding landscaping is being addressed.

Mr. Holden commented that in the field, the City has approved the relocation of utilities to allow for certain trees to remain; that was considered a minor approval at staff level. He reiterated that absent this dispute, the plan would not have come back before the board. He stated that the issue is a private property dispute; that the Deputy Director of Public Works, David Allen, was present to answer any questions the board might have.

Mr. Holden went on to state that City administrative staff has met with the applicant individually, the abutter individually and all parties collectively to no avail. That is what brought the issue to the board.

Dave Allen, the City’s Deputy Director of Public Works, stated that the City had an inspector on the job. Mr. Allen spoke to relative compliance with the site plan. He went on to state that the City had not requested the drain; that it was not relevant to the project; that it was negotiated between the property owner and the developer; that it was nothing the City requested; nothing the City feels is necessary.

Mr. Coker asked if the City had provided any input as to the location/.construction of the drain. Mr. Allen replied that he would have to turn to the inspector on the job.

David Desfosses, engineering technician with the Public Works Department, stated that the City had no input on the drain regarding location or material type. He stated that the drain was almost entirely constructed before he arrived on site; that the developer had installed it for the property owner.

Ms. Clews asked about the conduit for the electric service. Mr. Desfosses stated that the City did not approve that aspect; that the City approved the berm. Mr. Holden interjected that the City does not want the maintenance responsibility.

Mr. Coker stated that he found this, the first compliance hearing during his three years on the board, to be very interesting. It seemed to him that the issue revolved around the landscaping easement adding that he is not a lawyer. He referred to his grandmother’s saying that no good deed ever goes unpunished. He stated that he felt there were enough outstanding questions as to whether the right thing had been done, to hand this over to the City Attorney for an opinion. It was Mr. Coker’s feeling that landscaping meant landscaping, it didn’t mean drainage.

Mr. Holden replied that the City Attorney had been involved in discussions; that somebody has to take an action. Mr. Holden stated that the easement is a private property easement. The City is not a party to it. Court actions would come from the board’s action. He went on to state that the City has done all it could in this regard; that his recommendation would be to hold $40,000 and release the remainder of the bond.

Mr. Coker asked if the City Attorney had stated that the City has no interest. Mr. Holden replied, "correct".

Ms. Clews commented that when the board looks at plans, it doesn’t typically look at irrigation. Mr. Holden replied that the irrigation system is within the right-of-way; that the City does not want the responsibility of maintaining it. Ms. Clews stated that with a legal question like this, she would feel more comfortable with the City Attorney being present.

Mr. Holden encouraged the board to take a stance one way or another on the site plan adding that if this goes to court, the City wouldn’t be the one bearing the entire onus; that the applicant has the real interest in seeing that this gets resolved.

The Chair stated that the evidence from the department indicates that the plan has been complied with minus some three items that could be covered with a bond for $40,000.

Mr. Coker moved that the board finds compliance with the site plan and that the bond should be released as appropriate. Mr. Hopley seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 6-0 vote.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

C. The application of Thomas Vento, trustee of the Vento Grantor Trust of 1996, for property located at 102 Marne Avenue and Mark R. Neubauer for property located at 101 Marne Avenue wherein Preliminary and Final Approval is requested for a lot line verification which shows the Vento lot as having a lot area of 18,293 s.f. and the Neubauer lot as having a lot area of 6,557 s.f. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 222 as Lots 43 and 44 and lies within a General Residence A district.

The Chair read the notice and opened the Public Hearing.

Attorney Charles Griffin addressed the Board stating that he was representing Thomas Vento. Attorney Griffin referred to a submitted packet and exhibits. He informed the Board that in 1974 the Ventos bought their lot as part of an approved three lot subdivision; that a house was built upon the lot and they have lived there ever since. In 1976 the Pratts bought a small strip of land upon which to construct a carport; thereby no longer parking their car on the street. Neither party was aware that Planning Board approval was necessary. The transfer was made via a deed.

The request before the board is to approve the 1976 transfer via a lot line verification plan.

Attorney Griffin went on to state that today’s regulations governing a General Residence A district require a minimum lot area of 7,500 s.f. and 100’ of continuous frontage. The Neubauer lot is a non-conforming lot of record. The Vento lot has some 43’ of frontage. With the lot line verification plan, the Neubauer lot will become less non-conforming. The Vento lot would be left with some 18,000 s.f. well in excess of the minimum required. The rub comes in the reduction by some 25’ in frontage. Attorney Griffin pointed out that the paved portion of Marne Avenue is only some 25’. The Vento lot lacks adequate frontage. The front boundary line is just under 100’.

The Chair made three calls for speakers. There being none, the Chair declared the Public Hearing closed.

Mr. Hopley moved to grant Preliminary Approval subject to the following stipulations contained in the department’s memo. The motion was seconded and passed on a 6-0 vote.

1. That Board of Adjustment approval be received for the inadequate frontage on the Vento lot;
2. That a mylar suitable for recording in the Registry of Deeds be submitted to the Planning Department for final approval; and,
3. That permanent boundary monuments be established as per the requirements of the Public Works Department.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

D. The request of Coventry Assets Ltd. for property located at 755 Banfield Road wherein an amendment to an approved site plan is requested. The changes involve the reduction of the building footprint from 25,276 s.f. to 22,440 s.f. and the relocation of the driveway entrance from Constitution Avenue to the place where the driveway now exists with associated site improvements. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 274 as Lot 1D and lies within an Office Research district.

The Chair read the notice and opened the Public Hearing.

A. Robert Thoresen addressed the board and stated that he was a principal in Coventry Assets, Ltd. He spoke to two minor amendments to a previously approved site plan for property that was previously owned by GGA Properties.

The original approval was granted by the board in March of 2000. In December of 2000 a one year extension was granted meaning that site plan approval would expire in March of 2002.

The entrance drive has been relocated on Constitution Avenue to where it actually is. The relocation will preserve a mature stand of trees. He commented that department staff viewed the

site last summer and that the City’s Parking and Transportation Engineer, John Burke, saw no problem with the relocation.

The size of the building has been reduced from 24,580 s.f. to 22,000 s.f. Mr. Thoresen explained that at the time of the original approval, the building had not been designed. A mostly one-story building has since been designed. Where the site slopes, the building will be two-stories high. The parking demand has been reduced to 102 spaces. One hundred six spaces will be provided. Fifty per cent open space was provided with the original approval. Now it will be over 52%. Lot coverage has been reduced to just under 11%.

It was Mr. Thoresen’s opinion that the changes would be very minor with the amended plan having less impact on the site than the project previously approved.

The stipulations from the Technical Advisory Committee have been incorporated on the plan as requested.

Harold Ecker of 422, 425 and 875 Banfield Road asked if the driveway would be where the mud hole is. Mr. Thoresen replied that the area is unimproved; that it is a mud hole right now; however, the area will be improved. Mr. Ecker commented that everything is fine. Mr. Holden interjected that the City was relieved.

The Chair made a last call for speakers. There being none, the Chair declared the Public Hearing closed.

Mr. Coker spoke to the parking lot on the easterly side of the property which appears to lie very close to a wetland. Mr. Thoresen replied that it falls outside of the 75’ buffer in place at the time of the original approval; that no Conditional Use Permit was required.

Ms. Roberts moved to approve as presented with the following stipulations from the department’s memo. Mr. Hopley seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 6-0 vote.

1. That all utilities be stubbed prior to the City’s placement of a finish coat on Banfield Road next Spring (April, 2002). Of specific concern is the underground electrical which will be going across Banfield Road;
2. That the site plan indicate the appropriate grade lines at the rear of the building;
3. That a note be added to the site plan that a warning tape will be placed on the sewer force main;
4. That a recommendation was made that the applicant’s engineer check the roof drain that comes off the right corner of the building to see whether a catch basin would be appropriate;
5. That the site plan shall indicate the new existing utilities; such as, the new 20" water main;
6. That a recommendation was made that the applicant’s engineer look at any possible conflicts with the water main running right alongside the sewer manhole (see sewer manhole detail on sheet 5);
7. That the pump station shall be relocated in an attempt to save a stand of mature trees; and,
8. That the landscaping plan shall be approved by the Planning Department.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

E. The application of Aphrodite Georgopoulos Revocable Trust, owner, and 1900 Lafayette Road, LLC, applicant, for property located at 1900 Lafayette Road wherein site plan approval is requested for the construction of three (3), three-story office buildings with each building having a footprint of 5,504 s.f. with related paving, utilities, landscaping, drainage and associated site improvements. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 267 as Lot 8 and lies within an Office Research district. (The Planning Board granted site plan approval at its September 21, 2000, meeting; however, the approval has since lapsed.)

The Chair read the notice and opened the Public Hearing.

Greg Whalen, a member of the LLC, applicant on this petition, addressed the board and spoke to the review by the Technical Advisory Committee on December 4<sup>th</sup>. The committee recommended approval of the re-approval with one slight change regarding a 4" valve. That notation has been made on the submitted plan. The project has not changed at all in its concept since its original approval. The project will remain alive as long as market conditions dictate.

Bob Reynolds of 1801 Lafayette Road spoke to the quarry operation going on across the street from his house.

Mr. Holden asked if quarrying operations were being conducted on this particular lot. Mr. Reynolds replied in the affirmative and referenced two or three different piles of dirt approximately 20’ high. He stated that the City should at least send somebody over to wash his windows once in awhile.

Mr. Whalen informed the board that the operation is occurring on the lot adjacent to this particular project; that none of the activities were occurring on the lot in question.

Mr. Holden indicated that the City would take a look at what the action is and would communicate with Mr. Reynolds.

There being no further speakers, the Chair declared the Public Hearing closed.

Mr. Holden indicated that if a request for a one year extension had been submitted in a timely fashion, the extension would have been granted automatically. He commented that several City interests are addressed by this application, in particular, a service road and that staff would recommend Site Review Approval be put back in place.

Mr. Jankowski moved approval of the re-approval subject to the following stipulation from the Technical Advisory Committee. Mr. Coker seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 6-0 vote. That the site plan indicate a valve for the 4" water service.

Mr. Holden interjected that the board would be taking this up while Mr. Sullivan was in warmer climes (Mr. Sullivan living across the street from the water tank). Mr. Holden pointed out that David Allen, the City’s Deputy Public Works Director, was present should the board have any questions of him. It was pointed out that the Council was looking for the board’s input as to color. Lettering is not being considered at this time. The intent is to build the tank and see how it sets in with the neighborhood. The suggested theme wad cloud related vs. green related. The intent is to have the water tank disappear as much as possible.

Ms. Clews commented that she had driven cross country back and forth to Denver, Colorado. She stated that she saw water tanks that looked like globe-shaped hot air balloons and commented that they were absolutely gorgeous.

Ms. Clews suggested the cumulus color from the color chart. The remainder of the board agreed with Ms. Clews although Mr. Coker stated that he would abstain.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

2. Renaming of a limited portion of Winchester Street

Mr. Holden explained that recently emergency personnel had trouble finding a certain section of Winchester Street; that there is a concern for a resident in the area and the ability of emergency services to quickly locate the property. The thought is to rename a certain section to Little Street. He did point out that having gone through one renaming, there are residents who are interested in preserving the Winchester name, in preserving family names.

It was Mr. Holden’s opinion, however, that the board would be seeing additional requests concerning Winchester Street. As an aside, he commented that he had met with Dorothy Vaughan and was surprised to discover the history of the area and likened the Winchester family name to that of Frank Jones in terms of land holdings. He mentioned that other family names may be appropriate. It was Mr. Holden’s feeling that the area could be better recognized for 911 purposes adding that this was the start of a process.

The Chair reminded the department that the board has an approved list of potential street names.

Mr. Coker moved to recommend to the City Council that a portion of Winchester Street be named Little Street. Ms. Clews seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 6-0 vote.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

3. Ralph’s Truck Sales – request to release easement

Mr. Holden stated that an amended site plan eliminated a previously approved drainage basin as additional drainage had been installed in the area over the years. The easement is no longer necessary. He recommended that the easement be given up subject to the review and approval of

 

the Public Works Department adding that the land encumbered by the easement should go back into production.

Ms. Clews so moved. Mr. Hopley seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 6-0 vote.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

4. Deer Street Associates – request for rezoning

Mr. Holden commented that the City Council had referred a request to rezone a particular piece of land to the board for a report back with recommendations. Mr. Holden expected to receive a report from the requestor sometime in the near future and asked that the board instruct him (Mr. Holden) to subsequently work on the department’s report.

Mr. Holden jokingly stated that Mr. Thoresen did not have his homework in on time and asked that the board table the matter to next month’s meeting.

Ms. Clews so moved. Mr. Hopley seconded the motion which passed on a 6-0 vote.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Mr. Holden stated that a request has been made to the City Council concerning how the Livermore Street right-of-way should be handled, more specifically, portions of a paper street. He pointed out that residents in the area are interested and some were present who may wish to speak to the process. Mr. Holden suggested a work session be scheduled with interested parties with a report back to the board.

Joan Jones of 32 Livermore Street stated that the matter had come to her attention and another neighbor’s attention unofficially. What initially concerned them was that nobody was notified. She stated that she had a number of issues in that the land has always been park land enjoyed by the entire City of Portsmouth.

She pointed out that when one buys a home in a Historic District, any changes that are made are reviewed by the Historic District Committee. She stated that no one was notified that this change was being considered. To allow the loss of any park land within the City is a concern to all residents of Portsmouth.

The Chair tried to explain that this matter is a referral from the City Council; that the process is just beginning.

Mr. Holden interjected that no permanent change has been proposed or considered; that the Council has asked the board to report back adding that permission had been granted for the use of the City’s right-of-way in facilitating construction at 46 Livermore Street with the right-of-way to be returned to its original condition.

Mr. Smith commented that the Historic District Commission reviews exterior changes to the physical façade of a building. Such items as fencing and roadways do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Historic District Commission.

The question was asked if the process would be open to the public with Mr. Smith replying, "absolutely".

Mr. Holden reiterated that there would be a report back to the City Council; that the Planning Board, through its staff, would work with the residents of Livermore Street to see what changes should be made. The City Council will have to decide what it will do with the recommendation adding that public comment is what makes this thing work.

Mr. Smith commented that as a resident of the City, he just went through a work session process, and it works.

A resident of 127 Gates Street, Shirley Spengler, stated that she would like to hear when the work session was going to take place; that direct abutters along the street would share information. The suggestion was made that if one would call the department, staff would certainly be glad to inform anyone of the time.

A resident of 283 Pleasant Street expressed concern about the process. Mr. Holden stated that the final decision rests with the City Council adding that there is no requirement for public notification.

Kent Kirkpatrick of 11 Howard Street stated that he was on the Board of the Friends of the South End and expressed his interest in the process. He stated that Haven Park is very, very special to the residents of the South End. Mr. Holden interjected the more the merrier on this inferring that the more people attending a work session, the better.

Bob Henkel of Wentworth Street wondered about the definition of an abutter; that everyone on Wentworth Street looks out onto the park. The statement that there is no requirement for an abutter notice in a situation such as this was reiterated.

Lee Roberts of Howard Street asked that any work session be scheduled during the evening hours. Mr. Holden commented that there would be at least one evening meeting before a report would be issued to the board.

It was the consensus of the board that the department would work with the residents of the area.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Mr. Holden commented that emergency services have a problem in locating the Planned Unit Development off Hoover Drive and have approved the use of Pheasant Lane as a street name for a private drive. Mr. Hopley just wanted to be sure that the residents of Pheasant Lane realize it is not a public street. Mr. Holden stated that such would be noted in the recommendation to the City Council. It was so moved. The motion was seconded and passed on a 6-0 vote.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

1. Request for conditional acceptance of Odiorne Point Road (Tucker’s Cove, Phase III)

Mr. Holden explained that the Deputy Director of Public Works concurs with the recommendation that conditional acceptance be had which would allow the City to take over plowing duties.

Mr. Hopley so moved. The motion was seconded and passed on a 6-0 vote.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

2. Request for conditional acceptance of Wholey Way

Mr. Holden stated that this request was essentially the same as the prior one for Odiorne Point Road. It was the consensus of the Board that such a recommendation could be forwarded to the City Council.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Mr. Holden commented that Ms. Porter had met with the department and provided several articles on outdoor lighting including materials from the Office of State Planning which would prove helpful in the preparation of revised Site Review Regulations. He asked the Board to afford Ms. Porter a few minutes to share her expertise.

Jane Porter of 3 Edwards Street stated that the board had been supplied with materials about light pollution that should be self-explanatory. She urged the board to give the matter of light pollution issues and solutions some attention. She spoke to parking lots as being particularly bad as far as glare from light fixtures is concerned. She also spoke to the intersection of Junkins Avenue and South Street and the glare from the lights blinding her so she could hardly see the street. She suggested that perhaps the Planning Department could ask Public Service of New Hampshire to use more appropriate lights so that the light does not go all over the place. She stated that she was not an expert; that she was more or less getting the ball rolling on the issue.

The Chair commented that the board appreciated her concern; that the issue was something to continue working on. He stated that the City does have a light ordinance that primarily deals with private residences. He went on to point out that with such buildings as City buildings public safety is an issue; however, he felt that there was new technology out there to keep lights on streets and sidewalks and not in people’s back yards and bedrooms.

Ms. Roberts asked if Ms. Porter knew of any other communities that might be working with PSNH. Ms. Porter replied that she did not know of any.

Mr. Coker encouraged her and applauded her for her efforts commenting that as a member of the Downtown Association, he is interested in noise pollution. However, he pointed out that regulations concerning light pollution would not happen overnight; that it is an educational process.

Lee Roberts of 40 Howard Street stated that she was thrilled that Ms. Porter had taken on this task. She also spoke to the blinding glare at the South Street/Junkins Avenue intersection and seconded what Ms. Porter had said.

Items not on the Agenda.

Mr. Holden reported to the board that a lot consolidation deed for the Grays was in the process assuring the board that the lots would be consolidated and the issue would be eliminated.

Mr. Holden informed the board that the Capital Improvement Program would be before them in January.

He (Mr. Holden) spoke to the scheduled January 3, 2002, meeting to receive the City’s Cultural Plan from the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee with the thought that the plan would be incorporated into the City’s Master Plan.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

7. ADJOURNMENT was had at approximately 9:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara B. Driscoll

Acting Secretary for the Planning Board

These minutes were approved by the Planning Board at its February 21, 2002, meeting.