TOWN OF BEDFORD February 13, 2017 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

Transcription

1 TOWN OF BEDFORD February 13, 2017 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES A meeting of the Bedford Planning Board was held on Monday, February 13, 2017 at the Bedford Meeting Room, 10 Meetinghouse Road, Bedford, NH. Present were: Jon Levenstein (Chairman), Harold Newberry (Vice Chairman), Chris Bandazian (Town Council), Rick Sawyer (Town Manager), Philip Cote, Melissa Stevens (Town Council Alternate), Charlie Fairman (Alternate), Rene Pincince (Alternate), Mark Connors (Assistant Planning Director), and Becky Hebert (Planning Director) I. Call to Order and Roll Call Chairman Levenstein called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and introduced members of the Board. Mr. McMahan, Mr. Stanford and Ms. McGinley were absent. Mr. Pincince and Mr. Fairman were appointed voting members. Mr. Connors reviewed the agenda. II. III. Old Business Continued Hearings: None New Business: Application Acceptance and/or Public Hearings on Applications: 1. Sheryl B. Hammond, Trustee (Owner) and Vincent and Layla Kasem, Trustee (Owners) - Request for approval of a lot line adjustment between two properties at 194 North Amherst Road and 198 North Amherst Road, Lots & , Zoned R&A. 2. Sherry B. Wilding-White Revocable Trust (Owner) Request for approval of a lot line adjustment between two properties at 147 Nashua Road, Lots 27-6 & , Zoned R&A Constitution Drive LLC (Owner) and 43 Constitution Drive, LLC (Owner) Request for approval of a lot line adjustment between two properties at 35 Constitution Drive and 43 Constitution Drive, Lots & 13-73, Zoned OF Constitution Drive, LLC and 43 Constitution Drive, LLC (Owners) Request to amend conditions of a final site plan approval granted by the Planning Board January 28, 2013 to construct a 44,000 square foot addition to an existing office building and associated site improvements at 35 and 43 Constitution Drive, Lots & 13-73, Zoned OF.

2 Planning Board Minutes February 13, CREG 160 South River Road, LLC (Owner) Request to amend a site plan to change the use of an existing office building to either General Office or Medical Office uses at 160 South River Road, Lot 22-59, Zoned PZ. 6. Encore Retail, LLC (Applicant), ER Bedford, LLC (Owner) Request to amend the conditions of a site plan approval granted by the Planning Board on September 26, 2016 of the Market & Main mixed-use development at 125 South River Road (former Macy s site), Lot & , Zoned PZ. IV. Concept Proposals and Other Business: 7. PVM Perimeter, LLC (Owner) - Request for a conceptual review of a cluster subdivision of one lot into five residential lots and one open space lot at 22 Laurel Drive, Zoned R&A. 8. Nine Sunset Lane, LLC (Owner) - Request for a conceptual review of two potential site plans, including a 1,200 square foot commercial use and four residential units or two self-storage buildings and a single-family home, at 9 Sunset Lane, Lot , Zoned PZ. Mr. Connors stated all the applications have been reviewed by staff and are complete, the abutters have been notified; it is the opinion of Planning Staff that none of the applications pose a regional impact, and the agenda is ready for the Board s acceptance. MOTION by Councilor Bandazian to approve the agenda as amended. Vice Chairman Newberry duly seconded the motion. Vote taken all in favor. Motion carried. 1. Sheryl B. Hammond, Trustee (Owner) and Vincent and Layla Kasem, Trustee (Owners) - Request for approval of a lot line adjustment between two properties at 194 North Amherst Road and 198 North Amherst Road, Lots & , Zoned R&A. A staff report from Mark Connors, Assistant Planning Director, dated February 13, 2017 as follows: I. Project Statistics: Owners: Sheryl B. Hammond, Trustee and Vincent & Layla Kasem, Trustee Proposal: Lot Line Adjustment Location: 194 and 198 North Amherst Road (Lots , ) Zoning: R&A Residential Agricultural Surrounding Uses: Residential II. Background Information:

3 Planning Board Minutes February 13, In November 1990, the Zoning Board of Adjustment approved a variance to allow a home occupation at 194 North Amherst Road with up to four employees. Since ownership of the home has since changed, the home occupation permit is no longer valid. The Planning Board approved a lot line adjustment impacting the eastern boundary line of Lot and two lots to the east in December There are no other planning or zoning applications on file for these two parcels. III. Project Description: The purpose of this plan is to relocate the lot line between Lots and to correct a driveway encroachment and more closely reflect how the land is being used and occupied by the landowners. Both lots include single-family homes and outbuildings. Lot contains acres and is located at 194 North Amherst Road. Lot contains acres and is located at 198 North Amherst Road. The lot line adjustment involves the transfer of one parcel of land as summarized below. Area of Parcels for Adjustment Lot Existing Proposed Change Both lots are located in the Residential Agricultural District and are serviced by onsite well and septic. The minimum lot size in the R&A District is 1.5 acres and the minimum road frontage is 150 feet. Both parcels in this application far exceed the required minimum lot size and the lot line adjustment will not impact the frontage of either lot along North Amherst Road (both lots exceed the town s minimum frontage requirement). IV. Waivers: The applicant is requesting the following waivers of the Land Development Control Regulation for which the Board will need to take action (please see the attached letter from Mr. Shea): 1. Section that requires existing topography to be shown; 2. Section that requires HISS mapping to be shown; 3. Section that requires wetland mapping; 4. Section Lot Size by Soil Type; and 5. Section that requires the buildable area rectangle to be shown. The Planning Staff has no objection to the waivers as the proposed lot line adjustment involves an exchange of a relatively small parcel of land and no building or septic areas will be impacted. Both lots exceed the Town s minimum lot size requirement and appear to be conforming with the

4 Planning Board Minutes February 13, Town s other zoning and land use regulations. The lot line adjustment will simply better reflect how both parcels are being utilized by the landowners. V. Staff Recommendations: The Planning Board needs to vote on whether or not to grant the waivers from the Bedford Land Development Control Regulations, for Sections , , , & as previously described. Staff does not object to granting any of the above waivers. V. Staff Recommendations: The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Board grant final approval of the lot line adjustment for Sheryl B. Hammond, Trustee and Vincent & Layla Kasem, Trustee, 194 & 198 North Amherst Road, Lots & , Zoned R&A, as shown on plans prepared by Sandford Surveying and Engineering, dated November 1, 2016, with the following precedent conditions to be fulfilled within one year and prior to plan signature and the remaining conditions to be fulfilled as noted: 1. Any waivers granted by the Planning Board shall be noted on the plans. 2. All recording fees shall be submitted to the Planning Department at the time of recording. 3. A letter shall be submitted to the Planning Department by a Licensed Land Surveyor certifying that all boundary monumentation has been set as noted on the approved plan, or the boundary monumentation may be set and shown on the plan. Raymond Shea, Sandford Surveying and Engineering, was present to address this request for the applicant for a lot line adjustment. Mr. Shea stated this is a lot line adjustment of two properties located on the south side of North Amherst Road. 194 Amherst Road is on the east and 198 is on the west. The lots are both over five acres, they were created back in late 1960 s or early 1970 s, and I believe both houses were built in 1985 so they have been there for quite a while. The common line is an almost 900-foot long line undelineated and you really don t know where it is unless you survey it. The driveway for 198 comes in and crosses slightly over the lot line and part of the yard area for 198 is also slightly over the lot line. 194 was in last year, I believe, for a lot line adjustment with abutters on the east, and during that time some questions arose as to where the line between 194 and 198 was so we worked with the other surveyors, did some work out there, and found that there were a couple of encroachments and also the utility pole for 198. The owners of 194 and 198 have agreed to move the lot line about 30 feet down by the house and have an angle point and this resolves the encroachment of the driveway, the telephone pole and their part of the yard. It is fairly straightforward. There is about a 0.28 acre transfer between the two; the lots are still over 5 acres.

5 Planning Board Minutes February 13, Mr. Shea stated we have asked for waivers for items that we feel aren t pertinent to the lot line adjustment. The lots are of substantial size, the line is to resolve the encroachment issue, the septic and well areas on neither lot are being affected, there is a brook crossing, just a little wetland crossing to the driveway up front, and there is a brook outback but otherwise there is substantial uplands for the uses on the property and they clearly meet the minimum buildable areas. Chairman Levenstein asked for comments or questions from the audience. Daniel Merk, 14 West Drive, stated my property shows up as Lot , which is just below. The map that I have looks slightly different than what I am seeing here so I was hoping we could clarify that. Chairman Levenstein stated I have been given a copy of the tax map showing the different lots. The tax map isn t an official survey; the map that is shown here is an official survey, so that is based upon what the deeds show the property as. That is the only reason there would be a difference between the two. MOTION by Mr. Cote that the Planning Board grant the waivers from the Bedford Land Development Control Regulations, for Sections requires existing topography to be shown, requires HISS mapping to be shown, requires wetland mapping, Lot Size by Soil Type, and requires the buildable area rectangle to be shown. Mr. Fairman duly seconded the motion. Vote taken - all in favor. Motion carried. MOTION by Mr. Cote that the Planning Board grant final approval of the lot line adjustment for Sheryl B. Hammond, Trustee and Vincent & Layla Kasem, Trustee, 194 and 198 North Amherst Road, Lots and , Zoned R&A, as shown on plans prepared by Sandford Surveying and Engineering, dated November 1, 2016, with the following precedent conditions to be fulfilled within one year and prior to plan signature and the remaining conditions to be fulfilled as noted: 1. Any waivers granted by the Planning Board shall be noted on the plans. 2. All recording fees shall be submitted to the Planning Department at the time of recording. 3. A letter shall be submitted to the Planning Department by a Licensed Land Surveyor certifying that all boundary monumentation has been set as noted on the approved plan, or the boundary monumentation may be set and shown on the plan. Mr. Pincince duly seconded the motion. Town Manager Sawyer stated after looking at that tax map I think what you are mentioning is that this plan shows like a bend on your property line, whereas the tax map show it straight across. Now that we have an updated survey plan, the tax map will be updated with that new line based on this new plan. They just get refined as years go on. It won t be done until after April of 2017, so they all go to the tax map people after April, that is the magic date, and we usually get them back in late summer. You can check in with the Planning Department after the summer is over. It will also be posted online. Chairman Levenstein stated on the Planning

6 Planning Board Minutes February 13, Board s website they will show a copy of this plan if you want to make copy of that so you can see what it shows. Chairman Levenstein called for a vote on the motion. With all members voting in the affirmative, the motion carried. 2. Sherry B. Wilding-White Revocable Trust (Owner) Request for approval of a lot line adjustment between two properties at 147 Nashua Road, Lots 27-6 & , Zoned R&A. A staff report from Becky Hebert, Planning Director, dated February 13, 2017 as follows: I. Project Statistics: Owners: Sherry Wilding-White Revocable Trust Applicant: Sherry Wilding-White Revocable Trust Proposal: Request for final approval of a lot line adjustment Location: Lot 27-6 & , 147 Nashua Road Existing Zoning: R&A Residential & Agricultural Surrounding Uses: Residential, vacant land II. Background Information: The application includes two properties located at 147 Nashua Road. The first parcel (Lot 27-6) is acres with a historic residence and barn, originally constructed in In August 2016, the Planning Board approved a subdivision of Lot 26-7 to create a new 4.5 acre building lot (Lot ). III. Project Description: The purpose of this plan is to relocate the lot line between Lots 27-6 & Currently both lots are located in the Residential & Agricultural District. One parcel contains a house which is served by onsite well and septic system and the second lot is undeveloped but was recently approved as a new building, also with onsite well and septic. The lot line relocation will convey acres of back land from Lot 27-6 to Lot Area of Parcels for Adjustment (acres) Lot Existing Proposed Change There are no new building lots being created as part this application and none of the building setbacks, lot frontage, or well areas will be impacted as a result of the lot line adjustment. The plan transfers a small area of land within the flood zone of Riddle Brook (along the rear property line). The lot line adjustment is needed to make Lot contiguous with Lot

7 Planning Board Minutes February 13, which is also owned by the Applicant, to allow Lot to remain in current use tax assessment. IV. Waiver Requests: The applicant is requesting the following waivers of the Land Development Control Regulations for which the Board will need to take action (please see the attached letter): 1. Section that requires existing topography to be shown; 2. Section that requires HISS mapping to be shown; 3. Section Minimum Buildable Areas; and 4. Section Lot Size by Soil Type. The Planning Staff has no objection to the waivers, as the smaller lot is becoming larger and the proposed area of both lots is greater than the required minimum lot size. The owner also recently created lot and both lots contained more than the required acreage and buildable areas. V. Staff Recommendations: The Planning Board needs to vote on whether or not to grant the waivers from the Bedford Land Development Control Regulations, for Sections , , & as previously described. The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Board grant final approval of the lot line adjustment plan, prepared for Sherry Wilding-White Revocable Trust (Owner), Lots 27-6 & , Zoned R&A, as shown on plans by Sandford Surveying and Engineering dated December 28, 2016, with the following precedent conditions to be fulfilled within one year: 1. Any waivers granted by the Planning Board shall be noted on the plans. 2. All recording fees shall be submitted to the Planning Department at the time of recording. 3. A letter shall be submitted to the Planning Department by a Licensed Land Surveyor, certifying that all boundary monumentation has been set as noted on the approved plan, or in lieu of a letter, the final subdivision plan to be recorded may be submitted noting that the bounds have been set. Raymond Shea, Sandford Surveying and Engineering, was present to address this request for a lot line adjustment for the applicant. Mr. Shea stated this is a lot line adjustment between a 6.3 acre lot with an existing house and a vacant 4.5 acre lot at 147 Nashua Road. These two lots were once one lot, and this past summer we brought an application to the Board to subdivide them. At that time we created the line that ran in from Nashua Road and then angled to the back corner of the existing house lot. The owner is in the process of selling the lot with the house and she owns the lot to the north of the house, owns the vacant lot, and owns a lot across the street. In order to keep them in current use

8 Planning Board Minutes February 13, they need to be contiguous. The current use definition of contiguous does not include meeting at a point, so we have to slide that lot line down so that there is more continuity between the lot to the north of the house lot and Lot 6-4, which is the vacant lot that was created last summer. That is the sole purpose of this subdivision to keep the definition of current use continuity so that the three lots that the applicant owns will remain in current use if she is able to sell the house lot. Mr. Shea continued the waivers that we are asking for are for information we provided this past summer for wetlands, high-intensity soils mapping, buildable areas, and the small sliver of land of about 0.2 of an acre, that is being swapped between the two lots, is essentially all in wetlands down by the brook so it has no bearing on the buildability of either lot. We feel those waivers are reasonable. Chairman Levenstein asked for comments or questions from the audience. There were none. MOTION by Mr. Cote that the Planning Board grant the waivers from the Bedford Land Development Control Regulations, for Sections requires existing topography to be shown, requires HISS mapping to be shown, Lot Size by Soil Type, and Minimum Buildable Areas. Mr. Fairman duly seconded the motion. Vote taken - all in favor. Motion carried. MOTION by Mr. Cote that the Planning Board grant final approval of the lot line adjustment plan, prepared for Sherry Wilding-White Revocable Trust (Owner), Lots 27-6 and , Zoned R&A, as shown on plans by Sandford Surveying and Engineering dated December 28, 2016, with the following precedent conditions to be fulfilled within one year: 1. Any waivers granted by the Planning Board shall be noted on the plans. 2. All recording fees shall be submitted to the Planning Department at the time of recording. 3. A letter shall be submitted to the Planning Department by a Licensed Land Surveyor, certifying that all boundary monumentation has been set as noted on the approved plan, or in lieu of a letter, the final subdivision plan to be recorded may be submitted noting that the bounds have been set. Mr. Pincince duly seconded the motion. Vote taken - all in favor. Motion carried. Chairman Levenstein recused himself from the following application. Vice Chairman Newberry was appointed Acting Chairman Constitution Drive LLC (Owner) and 43 Constitution Drive, LLC (Owner) Request for approval of a lot line adjustment between two properties at 35 Constitution Drive and 43 Constitution Drive, Lots & 13-73, Zoned OF. A staff report from Becky Hebert, Planning Director, dated February 13, 2017 as follows: I. Project Statistics: Applicant: Riley Investment Properties

9 Planning Board Minutes February 13, Owners: 35 Constitution Drive, LLC & 43 Constitution Drive, LLC Proposal: Request for amendment to conditions of approval Location: 35 & 43 Constitution Drive, Lots and Existing Zoning: OF - Office Surrounding Uses: Office II. Background Information: In February 2012, the Planning Board reviewed a conceptual site plan for the redevelopment of 35 & 43 Constitution Drive. The proposal at that time was to construct a 36,000 square foot two-story office building adjacent to the existing building at 35 Constitution Drive, linked to the existing building by a 3,350 square foot atrium. The concept included site improvements on both properties to accommodate additional parking and to provide access to the lots. On January 28, 2013, the Planning Board approved a site plan for the construction of a 44,000 square foot addition to the existing general office building at 35 Constitution Drive with associated site access, parking, drainage and landscape improvements at 35 & 43 Constitution Drive (Lots and 13-73). The approved plan includes extinguishing the existing lot line and merging the two lots to create a single parcel of approximately 11 acres. The lots are currently developed with buildings and parking areas. On January 27, 2014, the Planning Board approved a 1-year extension for the conditions of the 2013 approval to be met. On January 26, 2015, the Planning Board approved a 2-year extension for the conditions of the 2013 approval to be met. On January 9, 2017, the Planning Board approved a 2-year extension for the conditions of the 2013 approval to be met. III. Project Description: The purpose of this plan is to relocate the lot line between Lots and for financing and development purposes. As the Board is aware this type of lot arrangement has become common in Bedford and around the country to suit today s financing and legal requirements. Similar lot arrangements were created for Outback Steakhouse, Kohls, Carrabbas, Bedford Hills, Wayfarer and Bedford Highlands. The lot line adjustment will allow both the office buildings at 35 & 43 Constitution Drive to remain on their own lots with shared access, parking and drainage facilities. The Applicant has laid out the new lot line to accommodate the proposed building addition at 35 Constitution Drive and the associated site improvements. There are no proposed changes to this previously approved site plan. Area of Parcels for Adjustment (acres) Lot Existing Proposed Change

10 Planning Board Minutes February 13, Both lots will meet the minimum frontage and dimensional requirements for parcels within the Office District. As a result of the lot line adjustment the parcel at 35 Constitution Drive will become conforming with regards to lot frontage. As a condition of approval the Applicant will need to provide a parking, access and utility easements for the amenities shared between the two lots (condition #4). IV. Waiver Requests: The applicant is requesting the following waivers of the Land Development Control Regulations for which the Board will need to take action (please see the attached letter): 1. Section which requires pavement for parking and circulation driveways to be setback at least 30 feet from the property line. Planning Staff has no objection to the waiver, provided an easement is established for the shared parking and access. V. Staff Recommendations: The Planning Board needs to vote on whether or not to grant the waiver from the Bedford Land Development Control Regulations, for Sections as previously described. The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Board grant final approval of the lot line adjustment plan, prepared for 35 Constitution Drive, LLC & 43 Constitution Drive, LLC (Owners), Lots & 13-73, Zoned OF, as shown on plans by Keach Nordstrom & Associates, with a revision date of January 27, 2017, with the following precedent conditions to be fulfilled within one year: 1. Any waivers granted by the Planning Board shall be noted on the plans. 2. The Planning Director and the Department of Public Works Director shall determine that the applicant has addressed all technical review comments to the Town s satisfaction. 3. All recording fees shall be submitted to the Planning Department at the time of recording. 4. A letter shall be submitted to the Planning Department by a Licensed Land Surveyor, certifying that all boundary monumentation has been set as noted on the approved plan, or in lieu of a letter, the final subdivision plan to be recorded may be submitted noting that the bounds have been set. 5. Prior to the plan being recorded all required easement documents for shared access, parking and utilities between Lot & Lot shall be approved by the Planning Department and recorded with the plan. Jason Lopez, Keach-Nordstrom Associates, Inc. was present to address this request for a lot line adjustment.

11 Planning Board Minutes February 13, Mr. Lopez stated we were before the Board just a few weeks ago extending the conditions of approval on this. This is a site plan that has some history going back about five years now. The conditionally approved site plan is proposing a building off from 35 Constitution Drive, and in doing so, to put together the financial package we need to have both buildings on separate lots. Instead of the original site plan proposed lot consolidation we are not going to be able to do that for the financing package, so we are looking to do a lot line adjustment instead. Currently there is a lot line pretty tight to 35 Constitution Drive. We are looking to move that over to create a 2.6-acre lot and take that from 43 Constitution Drive, and that would put a bulk of this sides parking and some of the parking under the power lines that would then put that on the lot for 35 Constitution Drive. This lot line would require a joint blanket easement over the properties for the shared parking, shared utility, and shared drainage, and that can be put together and presented if this plan can be conditionally approved simply to move that lot line over. Should something go wrong with the conditionally approved site plan, we have looked at the parking calculations and the requirements and this layout would work for existing conditions, and obviously the goal is to ultimately have this line available for the conditionally approved site plan, which we have laid out in a manner that would work well with that future parking layout. Mr. Lopez continued with this we are required to have one waiver and that would be for parking and drive aisles within 30 feet of a property line. Vice Chairman Newberry asked could you post an image of the proposed development for reference, the same one in the Board s packet. This shows the proposed building? Mr. Lopez replied that is correct. This is the plan that was conditionally approved so we are looking at taking that adjusted lot line and run it down the edge of the sidewalk and then we are going to go right down this edge of the parking. That whole drive aisle, the new drive entrance, would be on 43 and then once you get just a little bit into the property, this whole drive aisle would be onto 35 Constitution Drive. Mr. Pincince asked are there impacts on parking? Mr. Lopez replied we did the parking calculations based on right now, this lot line adjustment plan is based on existing conditions and on parking we are required with the smaller building to have 60 spaces and we have 101 spaces currently. With the other building, the larger one, we are required to have 201 spaces and we have 318 spaces. Vice Chairman Newberry asked for comments or questions from the audience. There were none. MOTION by Mr. Cote that the Planning Board grant the waiver from the Bedford Land Development Control Regulations, for Section requires pavement for parking and circulation driveways to be setback at least 30 feet from the property line. Mr. Fairman duly seconded the motion. Vote taken - all in favor. Motion carried. MOTION by Mr. Cote that the Planning Board grant final approval of the lot line adjustment plan, prepared for 35 Constitution Drive, LLC and 43 Constitution Drive, LLC (Owners), Lots and 13-73, Zoned OF, as shown on plans by Keach

12 Planning Board Minutes February 13, Nordstrom Associates, Inc., with a revision date of January 27, 2017, with the following precedent conditions to be fulfilled within one year: 1. Any waivers granted by the Planning Board shall be noted on the plans. 2. The Planning Director and the Department of Public Works Director shall determine that the applicant has addressed all technical review comments to the Town s satisfaction. 3. All recording fees shall be submitted to the Planning Department at the time of recording. 4. A letter shall be submitted to the Planning Department by a Licensed Land Surveyor, certifying that all boundary monumentation has been set as noted on the approved plan, or in lieu of a letter, the final subdivision plan to be recorded may be submitted noting that the bounds have been set. 5. Prior to the plan being recorded all required easement documents for shared access, parking and utilities between Lot and Lot shall be approved by the Planning Department and recorded with the plan. Councilor Bandazian duly seconded the motion. Vote taken - all in favor. Motion carried. Chairman Levenstein recused himself from the following application. Vice Chairman Newberry was appointed Acting Chairman Constitution Drive, LLC and 43 Constitution Drive, LLC (Owners) Request to amend conditions of a final site plan approval granted by the Planning Board January 28, 2013 to construct a 44,000 square foot addition to an existing office building and associated site improvements at 35 and 43 Constitution Drive, Lots & 13-73, Zoned OF. A staff report from Becky Hebert, Planning Director, dated February 13, 2017 as follows: I. Project Statistics: Applicant: Riley Investment Properties Owners: 35 Constitution Drive, LLC & 43 Constitution Drive, LLC Proposal: Request for amendment to conditions of approval Location: 35 & 43 Constitution Drive, Lots and Existing Zoning: OF - Office Surrounding Uses: Office II. Background Information: In February 2012, the Planning Board reviewed a conceptual site plan for the redevelopment of 35 & 43 Constitution Drive. The proposal at that time was to construct a 36,000 square foot two-story office building adjacent to the existing building at 35 Constitution Drive, linked to the existing building by a 3,350 square foot atrium. The concept included site improvements on both properties to accommodate additional parking and to provide access to the lots.

13 Planning Board Minutes February 13, On January 28, 2013, the Planning Board approved a site plan for the construction of a 44,000 square foot addition to the existing general office building at 35 Constitution Drive with associated site access, parking, drainage and landscape improvements at 35 & 43 Constitution Drive (Lots and 13-73). The approved plan includes extinguishing the existing lot line and merging the two lots to create a single parcel of approximately 11 acres. The lots are currently developed with buildings and parking areas. On January 27, 2014, the Planning Board approved a 1-year extension for the conditions of the 2013 approval to be met. On January 26, 2015, the Planning Board approved a 2-year extension for the conditions of the 2013 approval to be met. On January 9, 2017, the Planning Board approved a 2-year extension for the conditions of the 2013 approval to be met. III. Project Description: This request is to amend the precedent conditions of Site Plan approval granted by the Planning Board on January 28, 2013 for the construction of a 44,000 square foot addition to the existing office building at 35 Constitution Drive. The project also included site access, parking, drainage and landscape improvements at both 35 & 43 Constitution Drive (Lots and 13-73). Please see the attached letter from Keach Nordstrom Associates requesting changes to conditions #6, #7 & #8, as well as a copy of the original notice of decision. The applicant seeks to remove condition #6 which requires the applicant to merge the properties at 35 & 43 Constitution Drive into one lot. Condition #7 requires the applicant to obtain a variance to allow two free-standing signs on one lot. Staff agrees these conditions will no longer be needed if the Planning Board approves the pending lot line adjustment plan. Staff would recommend that conditions #6 & #7 be replaced with a requirement that the lot line adjustment plan is recorded prior to plan signature and that the site plan be updated to show the new lot line. Condition #8 requires the applicant to address all remaining technical comments prior to plan signature. One of the remaining technical comments is for the applicant to provide documentation that National Grid approves the proposed site improvements within the easement area. The utility easement bisects both lots and large portions of the existing parking lot and proposed improvements are within the easement area. The applicant is in the process of obtaining the agreement but has been unable to resolve the request with National Grid. They would like to revise the condition to allow the agreement with National Grid be provided prior to certificate of occupancy for the building. Staff does not support delaying the agreement with National Grid and would recommend that the condition remain. It is our understanding that the existing easement does require National Grid to approve new construction within the easement. It is common for the Planning Board to require land owners obtain approvals from utility companies prior to construction to avoid the Board signing off on improvements that the applicant does not have permission to build.

14 Planning Board Minutes February 13, IV. Staff Recommendations: Planning staff recommends that the Planning Board replace conditions #6 & #7 with the following conditions and that all other conditions from the January 28, 2013 approval remain in effect for 35 Constitution Drive, LLC (Owner) and 43 Constitution Drive, LLC (Owner) 35 & 43 Constitution Drive, Lots and 13-73, Zoned OF in accordance with the engineering plans prepared by Keach-Nordstrom Associates, Inc., last revised December 5, Prior to plan signature, the lot line adjustment plan between 35 & 43 Constitution Drive shall be recorded. 7. Prior to plan signature, the site plan shall be revised to illustrate the new lot line location and amend all relevant site plan notes to take into the lot line adjustment. The following condition is provided if the Board decides to amend condition #8: 8. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, documentation that National Grid approves of the proposed site improvements within the easement area shall be provided. Jason Lopez, Keach-Nordstrom Associates, Inc. was present to address this request for amendments of conditions of approval. Mr. Lopez stated this is the same property as the last application. The conditions of approval included a condition for voluntary merger of parcels needed to be completed prior to the signing of the Mylars and with the conditional approval of the lot line adjustment. The lot merger form is no longer required so we would like to have that conditional of approval removed. Condition #7 required a variance to be obtained to allow two free standing signs on a site where only one is allowed or one of the existing free standing signs shall be removed. Again, with the lot line adjustment we have two separate parcels, therefore, both lots will be in compliance with one sign, and therefore, that condition is no longer required. We would like to have that removed. The third condition that we would like to discuss is Condition #8, which reads The Director of Public Works and the Planning Director shall determine that the applicant has addressed all remaining technical review comments to the Town s satisfaction. One of the comments from VHB s letter stated, Portions of the proposed development are located within the existing PSNH easement that crosses the site. Documentation should be provided that the proposed improvements are allowed within the easement. That easement is now under operation of National Grid; we have been in communication with them for a number of years now and they issued a letter requesting modifications. Back in November I submitted those modifications and we were told in about two to four weeks we would have a response. After about five weeks I followed up and there was still no response. We have been going back and forth. Back on January 6 th my contact at National Grid stated that he checked with the engineering department and we still had no answer. On January 20 th I followed up again checking on the status, no response, finally got a response on January 27 th saying that he got word back from engineering, and they said there are only a few issues still not resolved in the newest plans and these will have to be addressed however, revised plans would not have to go back to engineering again, just a quick review to ensure the issues are addressed. I am putting together a short list, which I will get out to you on Monday, which would have been January 30 th. I followed up on February 2 nd,

15 Planning Board Minutes February 13, no response; I followed up again today and still no response. This has been ongoing trying to get a response from them, we have not been able to get contact or get information easily from them so the applicant has asked that that condition be removed. I will ask the Board s opinion on that statement first. Vice Chairman Newberry replied I think as a general practice and rule the Board would not support removing that requirement. Mr. Lopez stated one that I think would be a little more reasonable of a request was the conditions of approval required National Grid s response prior to the signing of the Mylars. I know the applicant has very strong interest in this building, we have been working with contractors, but we haven t had a response from National Grid, we are not able to give final Mylars, therefore, financing packages cannot be set up, strong commitment dates to the end user cannot be given, so the request would be to modify that condition to allow the documentation to be provided prior to occupancy permit instead of signing of the final Mylars. That will then give us the time to work this out with National Grid while working to make commitment dates, order parts and materials that they need. There are lead times on construction and supplies that they are eager to get in the works. Vice Chairman Newberry responded having said that, as a rule, the Board would not support that, the Board will also vote on that request before the evening is done. Vice Chairman Newberry asked what exactly do you propose is going to be happening within the right-of-way that National Grid is still not in agreement on? Mr. Lopez replied with the conditionally approved plan we are raising that parking area, the area out behind the new addition, we are raising that about 4 to 5 feet and they didn t want that to go up much more than 2 or 3 feet maybe in a few areas. I had to work up a plan that lowered that whole parking area down. Right now we have a conditionally approved plan but I also have a plan working with their modifications upon their approval, something that they will agree to, and then we would have to bring that back to the Board. It is premature to bring it to the Board if they are not going to buy off on it and agree to those modifications, but given the conversation I have had with my contact, it sounds like engineering has accepted most of the items. There are still a few minor things that would need to go back to engineering, so that would lead me to believe that we are pretty close to coming to an agreement, but again, I haven t been able to get any of that in writing. I am not sure on the final request that they will have. Vice Chairman Newberry stated either way, if I understand it; you are not going to be able to change anything out there until you have a sign off by National Grid in their right-of-way. Mr. Lopez responded that is correct. Vice Chairman Newberry stated regardless of whether the Board maintains Condition #8 or not. Mr. Lopez responded if we could provide the approval at the time of occupancy, that allows the final Mylars to be signed, which allows the financing package to be finalized, the construction materials can start to be ordered, and begin the building permit process. Vice Chairman Newberry stated my concern would be that the Board is signing off on something that may or may not happen. Ms. Hebert stated typically we do require easements or agreements with utility companies to be in place prior to the Planning Board endorsing the final plan to avoid the Board approving something where the proper permissions may not be in place for construction. I feel like prior to Certificate of Occupancy, in this case, is too late in the game. For a Certificate of Occupancy the parking lot would need to be completely constructed, landscaping in place and we would want to know that the National Grid permission had been granted long before that stage in construction. An alternative is if the Board is considering granting relief to Condition #8, it would be to extend providing agreements from National Grid that they have approved

16 Planning Board Minutes February 13, construction to set a time that is prior to any construction on site. That way the owner could get their financing in place, the plans could be signed, but no construction could begin until staff had a copy of the National Grid approvals. Councilor Bandazian asked does prior to issuance of a building permit work? Ms. Hebert replied I don t believe that works for their financing. Mr. Lopez stated I don t know the answer to that question if it would work for that. I know that they need to have signed Mylars to complete the financial package, but I am not sure how that would impact the building permit. Town Manager Sawyer stated I would agree with what the Planning Director just recommended, which is prior to any construction on site being the language. We have done that a few times in the past with other requirements with bonding, for instance, in some cases when applicants have asked. I don t have a concern with that being the case and that would certainly make sure that they wouldn t do any work without the approval from National Grid being in place. I also wanted to ask Ms. Hebert, are you okay with the existing Condition #8 language going away? Have you and the Public Works Director approved all the other technical comments or do we need to keep that in place? Ms. Hebert replied we would want to keep that condition in place. I guess it would be a new Condition #17 that prior to construction occurring onsite, documentation that National Grid approves the proposed site improvements within the easement area shall be provided. Town Manager Sawyer asked amending Conditions #6 and #7 and add Condition #17? Ms. Hebert replied sure. Mr. Pincince stated in National Grid s requirement or their hesitancy to give approval strikes me as they have a concern. I don t know the area and whether or not their transmission lines are in the ground or over overhead, but in any case, their concern is about being too close to their transmission lines. To give a blind approval and to proceed with construction and not fully understanding that that has been addressed, to me is not very appropriate to do. Town Manager Sawyer responded these are the large Canadian power lines that go through town and you see them at Route 114 and you see them at Market Basket, and we had a very similar condition on the Market Basket site plan. What that applicant ended up doing was actually raising the poles up through the parking lot and that is how they were able to satisfy the height clearance issue between the ground and the lines. There are a number of ways they can solve them and this is very common. Mr. Pincince asked if they get agreement with National Grid to do that work, presumably at their expense and as we sit here tonight deliberating a decision one way or the other, we don t know just exactly what they are going to do. Town Manager Sawyer responded I agree, but I would say Market Basket is the best example where we gave a very similar condition, as I recall, and they worked it out prior to the site work being initiated. I have every confidence that they will be able to come to terms with National Grid. Ms. Hebert stated we hold a preconstruction meeting with the contractor and the owner prior to any construction occurring on site, so we do have conditions that happen after the plans are signed but before construction starts. Mr. Pincince asked but you have issued the building permit at that point? Ms. Hebert replied not necessarily, but we don t allow construction, usually site work to start until there are some conditions that typically fall in place after the plans have been signed but before construction can begin, and they include a preconstruction meeting and sometimes bonding for offsite improvements and things like that. Town Manager Sawyer stated as I am looking at the approval letter, there were four prior to commencement of work conditions on the original approval, so it is very common to do it prior to commencement of work. Mr. Lopez stated National Grid s engineers have taken a look at it and they made requirements of things that we needed to change, and it appears that we have addressed most of them, that it doesn t

17 Planning Board Minutes February 13, need to go back to engineering from what my contact is telling me, so it is not that they are saying that we can t do anything, it is they have certain stipulations that we need to meet and apparently there are still a few outstanding items that appear to me, from the limited he gave, they seem to be minor in nature and not having to go back to engineering. We are close; the only thing is I can t get a response from them. Mr. Pincince stated so when you can t response, then your recourse is to go to someone above whoever it is that you are speaking to and demonstrate to them the gravity of the situation. Mr. Lopez responded I believe some conversations have taken place already but that would be through the attorney not through our office. Vice Chairman Newberry asked would staff be comfortable with modifying what is currently referenced as Condition #8 to Condition #17 of prior to construction? Ms. Hebert replied yes, I would be comfortable with a revised condition. Mr. Pincince stated but you would be issuing a building permit but construction would not be started. Ms. Hebert replied there is no portion of the building within the easement area, so the work that needs National Grid approval has to do with parking lot, drainage and the utilities, so yes. Mr. Pincince stated I am just saying that your leverage at that point is reduced because you have issued a permit. Ms. Hebert replied it is and it isn t. We have a process in town where we have a preconstruction meeting and even if the building permit has been issued, no work can begin until we have held this preconstruction meeting with the contractor and the owner. That is when we really tie up these conditions that need to happen prior to commencement of work. We do have a process in place for regrouping and making sure that those conditions are satisfied. I am comfortable with the revision. Vice Chairman Newberry asked so a revised condition should also include words to the effect that at the preconstruction meeting is when they would need to provide documentation from National Grid that they had agreement to proceed? Ms. Hebert replied sure. I am comfortable with prior to the commencement of work to prior to the construction onsite because we don t allow construction to start until we hold this preconstruction meeting. That is when we really go down the checklist and make sure everything is in place. Vice Chairman Newberry stated I was just thinking that by specifically citing that then there is no question. Ms. Hebert responded sure. Vice Chairman Newberry asked for comments or questions from the audience. There were none. MOTION by Mr. Cote that the Planning Board replace Conditions #6 and #7 with the following conditions and that all other conditions from the January 28, 2013 approval remain in effect for 35 Constitution Drive, LLC (Owner) and 43 Constitution Drive, LLC (Owner) 35 and 43 Constitution Drive, Lots and 13-73, Zoned OF in accordance with the engineering plans prepared by Keach- Nordstrom Associates, Inc., last revised December 5, Prior to plan signature, the lot line adjustment plan between 35 and 43 Constitution Drive shall be recorded. 7. Prior to plan signature, the site plan shall be revised to illustrate the new lot line location and amend all relevant site plan notes to take into account the lot line adjustment. The following condition shall be added to the plan:

18 Planning Board Minutes February 13, Prior to any construction occurring onsite and prior to the preconstruction meeting, documentation from National Grid approving the proposed site improvements within the easement area shall be provided. Town Manager Sawyer duly seconded the motion. Vote taken - all in favor. Motion carried. Chairman Levenstein returned to the meeting. 5. CREG 160 South River Road, LLC (Owner) Request to amend a site plan to change the use of an existing office building to either General Office or Medical Office uses at 160 South River Road, Lot 22-59, Zoned PZ. A staff report from Mark Connors, Assistant Planning Director, dated February 13, 2017 as follows: I. Project Statistics: Owners: CREG-160 South River Road, LLC Proposal: Change of Use Location: 160 South River Road (Lot 22-59) Zoning: PZ Performance Zone Surrounding Uses: Office buildings, NH Route 101 II. Background Information: The two-story office building at 160 South River Road occupies a prime location in Bedford s Performance Zone at the intersection of South River Road and Meetinghouse Road and adjacent to an interchange for NH Route 101. According to Assessing records, the office building dates to In 2002, the Planning Board reviewed concept plans for façade changes to the building, but those plans never advanced past the concept stage. In 2015, the Planning Board approved a waiver to the Performance Zone sign regulations to allow multiple freestanding banner signs affixed to light poles at 160 South River Road and the neighboring office building to the south at 166 South River Road. In May 2016, the Planning Director issued an administrative approval to provide a driveway connection between the subject parcel and 166 South River Road. Change of Use applications may be approved administratively in Bedford if the proposed area falls under 5,000 square feet. This application is before the Planning Board because the building at 160 South River Road includes 37,200 square feet, exceeding the threshold for administrative approval. The building owners have identified Derry Medical Center as a tenant to lease approximately 18,000 square feet, occupying the entire second floor of the building. III. Project Description: The applicants are seeking a Change of Use approval from the Planning Board to allow the building to house either General Office or Medical Office uses. Under the Town s Land Development Control Regulations, the parking requirement for Medical Office uses is more stringent than those for General Office uses. The Medical Office parking requirement is 3.52