From: Michael Behrendt Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 4:57 PM Subject: Site Regs - comments from Mary Ellen To the Planning Board, Please see the comments below from Mary Ellen Humphrey, Durham Economic Development Director, about the draft new Site Plan Regulations. Michael Behrendt Director of Planning and Community Development (“Town Planner”) Town of Durham 8 Newmarket Road Durham, NH 03824 (603) 868-8064 www.ci.durham.nh.us From: Mary Ellen Humphrey Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 4:50 PM To: Michael Behrendt Subject: hopefully I got everything.... Mary Ellen Humphrey Economic Development Director September 2, 2015 Comments on proposed new Site Plan Regulations To Michael Behrendt, Town Planner The following are some observations regarding the proposed site regulations. A general comment: Some of these requirements may be expensive for smaller projects. Can there be a minimum size and/or a minimum dollar amount value before some of these kick in, rather than just anything over a 2 family building? Article 4 I know this is pretty standard language, but read from the property owner and developer’s perspective, this sounds arbitrary. They can meet all the minimum requirements, but the Planning Board may at its discretion require higher standards in individual cases…..should there be any clear criteria under which the planning board exercises this discretion? Page 5 – In the discussion about waivers, I wonder if it would be helpful to explain the difference between waivers and variances. A lot of people may be confused. Page 12 – 1.1.2 (b) the sentence “The Board and the applicant may discuss proposals in conceptual form only and in general terms….” Sounds odd. I would think they “may” discuss whatever they want to, but the purpose of the preliminary consultation is general in nature and not binding. For Consistency: Section 1.4.2 “every engineer, architect, land surveyor, or soil scientist whose professional seal appears on the plan…” On page 17, Article 2, Number C. This list doesn’t include those same people. Page 19 #7 A Current or recent (which one? Aren’t these the same?) Aerial photograph…Is this something we should require for all applications? Adds expense, so when is it really necessary? Page 20 Please remove Item G. We should not be asking for a purchase and sales agreement. *** This is private, confidential information. *** Item I. Are architectural designs part of a site plan application? Has it always been this way? Under J. number 2. And 3. Does the planning board decide the colors now, as well as the materials? Page 23, 4.1.1 Financial surety – it says “shall be effective for a period of time specified by the Planning Board.” Aren’t there statutory time limits for sureties? (Maybe I’m thinking of Impact fees.) At any rate, should you add these words “or until the project is completed” so sureties aren’t left hanging indefinitely? Maybe specify a period of 2 years? Article 5 The Planning Board reserves the right to retain the services of an outside agency for the purposes of reviewing any traffic impact analysis submitted. Ok, at whose expense? I think that should be clearly stated in the text, as well as any financial limitations on such costs. Page 29, section 3.6.3 Have we always required recycling? Isn’t that a decision at the discretion of the property owner/developer? “The applicant shall document and maintain a file demonstrating its concerted recycling effort for review by the Code Enforcement Officer.” This seems a little much, and adds additional responsibilities to our code office. Why not simply encourage recycling. Page 34 Section 4.1 Make it very clear this section is “encouraged”. Who determines if a building is “eligible” to be on the register of historic places? Opinions are very subjective, as to what is significant. This adds another layer to an already long process, and I’m wondering if it’s statutorily allowed. You’ve just expanded jurisdiction beyond the historic district itself. Might want to check this out for legality. Page 35, is Section 4.4 about Stone Walls new or was it already part of the site plan regs? Using words to encourage rather than “shall” might be a friendlier approach. Page 38 5.3.5 Again, should there be a minimum size before these regs kick in? This may add prohibitive expense to a small project making. Especially 5.3.14 requiring a landscape architect or other qualified professional to design the landscape plan. Page 39 5.4.2 Soil tests for planting? I’m not a horticulture person, but won’t that add a lot of costs to a project. Why not be flexible, and again, require it on larger projects rather than all projects. Page 42 5.8.5 Do parking lot end caps create snow plowing problems? Might that best be a decision of the developer/owner or manager? 5.8.8 (indent is off) Page 44 Section 5.11 Requiring a 3-year written tree maintenance plan, this seems excessive. 5.11.3 We have a Tree Warden? It sounds like the tree police (think Game Warden). Maybe change the title to something a little more citizen- friendly, like Tree Expert, Tree Monitor, or Tree Advisor. Appendix Section – Recommended, but not required, yet some of the language sounds very directive. Page 48 b. Hiring a certified arborist – again, should you have a minimum sized project before requiring this additional expense? Page 49 Section 7 “Town staff should monitor tree protection during construction and evaluate tree health after construction.” Who? Which staff? Code enforcement? Are we arborists? BACK to REGS Page 51 Section 6.1 Number 4) What are adverse effects of lighting from nonrenewable sources, and are they different from the adverse effect of lighting from renewable resources? Confusing meaning. Page 55 © and (f) Redundant language Page 56 (n) typos “ b e “ Page 57 Section 7.5 Should we be requiring recreation? What is the statutory authority to require this? I see there is some discretion on the part of the planning board, which is good. While it may be desirable, if it isn’t statutorily allowed, we shouldn’t be doing it. Page 60, Section 8.4 Number 7 & 8 – Saving ledges, rock outcrops and large boulders? Perhaps break this section down to show which are resources to save and which are hazards to address and/or mitigate. Page 68 & 69 Section 10.2 first paragraph is almost identical to number 3 on page 69… Page 79 Bicycles Section 11.3.3 (f) and (g) Concern that we are requiring bike facilities without knowing they will actually be needed or used. What about senior housing? They may not wish to ride bikes. It’s a good idea to suggest bikes and encourage this, but I’m not sure we should specify exactly how many, where they are, under cover, etc…. Page 93 (b) I think you should define LID again here because an average reader may forget the meaning or have missed it so far back in the document. 15.5.4 Again, there should be some minimum requirements and criteria before requiring a third-party inspection AND OVERSIGHT of construction of storm water management…. Also, limitations on costs might be in order. Page 97 number 2, fix indent Page 110 16.4.7 Durham Traffic Model….Traffic models can be very expensive. Granted it’s on “larger” projects, but perhaps some specific criteria, such as dollar value or number of units, something specific to traffic impacts. Page 114 17.3.2 (b) missing the word “with –“in compliance with all federal,” Under f) indent i. through iv. Mary Ellen Humphrey Economic Development Director Town of Durham, NH mehumphrey@ci.durham.nh.us Office phone: 603 590-1387 Cell phone: 603 496-3237 Please note: I am in the office Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays from 8 am to 5 pm.