Meeting Minutes Approved as written, 6/5/2013
Planning Board
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Newbury Town Hall
Members Present: Kathleen Pearson, Chair; Linda McCamic; John O’Connell; David Powell; John Weis; George Morse (Associate Member)
Staff Present: Martha Taylor, Town Planner
Kathleen Pearson, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
- Joint Meeting with Board of Selectmen:
Selectmen Present: Joseph Story II, Chair; Mike Bulgaris; Geoffrey Walker; Chuck Bear; David Mountain
BOS Staff Present: Kathy Sirois, Administrative Assistant
The Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board continued the discussion that was started at the Joint Workshop on March 20, 2013 regarding the proposed changes to the Table of Use Regulations. D. Mountain said that it made sense to permit municipal buildings by right, but questioned allowing a DPW building in the Upper Green Business District. He also expressed concern about vending machines and kiosks.
J. Story asked why not change other uses to be permitted by right. For example, there is already a gas station in the Upper Green Business District – why not allow this use by right in this district? M. Bulgaris wondered why museums are not allowed by right in the Residential-Agricultural District, since historic house museums already exist in the district. G. Walker asked about establishing something like a decoy museum on the premises. J. O’Connell pointed out that this would be an accessory use and would be allowed. D. Mountain said that historic tourism in Town should be encouraged.
The format of the Table itself was discussed, along with ways to make it more user-friendly, such as including the list of district abbreviations on each page.
The Planning Board gave a status report on the updates to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the Stormwater Regulations. D. Mountain noted that it will be important to provide a standard set of requirements that people need to submit for all applications.
Referring back to the proposed Ground-Mounted Solar PV Installation By-Law, the Boards discussed who should be the Special Permit Granting Authority (SPGA) for solar arrays that are two acres or greater in size – the SPGA has not yet been designated in the draft by-law. The ZBA, the Board of Selectmen, and the Planning Board were all discussed as options. No consensus was reached.
The regular meeting was closed at 7:30 p.m. in order to open the public hearing to consider the zoning amendments being proposed for the May 2013 Annual Town Meeting.
- Public Hearing: Proposed Zoning Amendments for May 2013 Annual Town Meeting:
Kathleen Pearson, Planning Board Chair, opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Linda McCamic, Planning Board Clerk, read the public notice. Martha Taylor stated that the legal notice had been published two times in The Daily News and that the Planning Boards of abutting towns, along with DHCD and the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission, had been notified in accordance with Massachusetts General Law.
K. Pearson introduced the other Board members and then provided a brief introduction to the proposed zoning amendments in the context of the purpose and intent of Newbury’s zoning.
- Proposed Boundary Changes: K. Pearson summarized the proposed boundary changes as follows:
- Byfield Village: To delineate the entire Village District by parcel boundaries and streets rather than by offsets from street centerlines and to reinforce the village character of the district by including the church and the parcels on the southeasterly side of Lunt Street, from the intersection of Lunt and Central to the Library.
- Business & Light Industrial District (Route 1): To delineate the entire district by parcel boundaries and streets rather than by offsets from street centerlines and to expand the land area available for economic development in this district.
- Commercial Highway (Pearson Plaza): To delineate the entire district by parcel boundaries and streets rather than by offsets from street centerlines and rights-of-way and to expand the area to encourage economic development. Currently the district includes only Pearson Plaza, but is the area where development is most likely due to the availability of public water.
Marlene Schroeder, 1 Anchor Way, asked whether the amount of frontage of the lots would affect the development potential. K. Pearson replied that lots would have to be aggregated to allow for their development.
Mark Williams, 31 Central Street, stated that he has been running a business on his property for years and would like to be permitted properly. He is in favor of the change.
- Table of Use Regulations: K. Pearson then summarized the proposed revisions to the Table of Use Regulations, noting that the changes are being made to clean up and clarify uses carried over from the previous version of the Zoning By-Law, including changes to the level of permitting required for some uses.
Mike Olson, 57 Scotland Road, questioned allowing Municipal Uses by right in the Agricultural-Residential District. He noted that Newbury’s agricultural area is unique and that the Town is on the edge of losing its open farm-land to municipal uses, without the benefit of a public hearing or other process. D. Powell replied that the Town has a number of levels of review, including Site Plan Review, which can condition a project, and Town Meeting approval, which would be required for any Town-owned project.
M. Olson added that, depending on location, Conservation Commission approval would be another layer to go through.
Fred Thurlow, 26 Marsh Avenue, said that the biggest threat to agricultural land is residential development.
David Mountain, 9 Larkin Road, said there would be a two-step approval process at Town Meeting – Town Meeting would have to approve the acquisition of the land and would then have to approve the budget for construction.
Norm Rehn, 1 Anchor Way, noted that the first “and” should be changed to “and/or” in the use described as “Establishment servicing automobiles, trucks, aircraft, motorcycles, and household and camping trailers.”
- Accessory Apartment By-Law: M. Taylor briefly described the proposed changes to the Accessory Apartment By-Law.
D. Mountain expressed concern about creating two-family situations on smaller lots with the accessory apartments. K. Pearson replied that the Board also struggled with this. D. Powell noted that a dwelling with an accessory apartment must still meet the Title V septic requirements, which is a limiting factor. J. Weis added that there is a substantial size restriction for the accessory apartment, which creates something that is clearly an appendage. D. Mountain said that classic two-family dwellings are not being built very much and people can live very comfortably in1,000 s.f.
F. Thurlow said that creating two different lot size requirements for detached accessory apartments does not seem consistent and asked why there was a differentiation between detached apartments on 40,000 s.f. lots and ones on 60,000 s.f. lots. K. Pearson said that the Board was not comfortable with creating new structures to house accessory apartments on 40,000 s.f. lots. J. Weis added that many of the revisions were made in response to requests and issues that had come to the Building Inspector.
F. Thurlow then pointed out that the language regarding the “Waiver of Strict Compliance” should be revised, since the ZBA can’t waive zoning, but can only grant variances.
- Ground-Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Installations By-Law: D. Powell outlined the provisions of the proposed Ground-Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Installations By-Law.
N. Rehn asked whether there should be something in the proposed by-law to accommodate scenic views, given the questions that have come up concerning the solar PV application that is before the Town. D. Powell noted that consideration of scenic views has been addressed in the draft.
M. Olson said that with respect to noise, the ambient will vary on different sides of the array. It will be important to be mindful of where the reading is taken. Regarding safety standards, he said that the by-law should reference accepted standards such as RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive). D. Powell noted that the by-law is conditioned in part on what the State is willing to back – the State’s position is that solar PV panels don’t present a risk to health. M. Olson said that compliance should be established by independent labs, not by manufacturers.
F. Thurlow raised a concern about stormwater run-off from the panels. He said that the panels are an impervious surface, like a roof surface – if there is a heavy rain, there will be significant run-off, especially when the ground is frozen, with potential impact on the Little River. J. O’Connell disagreed that the panels will be impervious surface, saying that run-off from a small rain event will be absorbed and rain from a large event will run off in any case, with or without the panels. Requirements for stormwater management will have to be met.
F. Thurlow also suggested that the size of the arrays be given in square feet, not acres.
D. Mountain said that the way the noise requirement is written in the current draft is meaningless and suggested that the Board look at the State’s guidelines for noise produced by fixed machinery. He noted that ambient noise fluctuates – the by-law should define how ambient noise will be measured. A differential of 10 dB is very noticeable. Also, the by-law should reference dB(A), not dB. F. Thurlow asked where the noise should be measured. D. Mountain replied that sound fluctuates depending on the time of day, location, temperature, etc.
N. Rehn followed up on the impervious surface concerns, saying that run-off will vary with the tilt of the panels and asked how the solar array would compare with a development. J. O’Connell replied that development would wipe out the field, whereas the solar panels won’t cause additional off-site run-off. He added that the Town’s illicit discharge requirements would kick in if there were an issue. D. Powell noted that for each application, the impact will depend on a whole range of things, including site conditions, size and tilt of the panels, proximity to wetlands or riverfront, etc. N. Rehn noted that the earth under the panels will potentially not get any water on it.
M. Schroeder presented several points of concern:
- The absence of sunlight under the panels will have an impact – if the vegetation is degraded, there will be further problems;
- The by-law must pay attention to loss of trees;
- The by-law should be more specific about restoration of a site after the array is removed – the site should be restored to its original condition, which will not be easy;
- The by-law should be specific about the visual impact of the solar array and its effect on the economic welfare of the community;
- There should be provision for getting something in return, such as a conservation restriction;
- The impact of noise on things other than people should be considered.
N. Rehn suggested that the Board pay particular attention to significant scenic views. M. Schroeder referenced inventories which divide landscapes into three categories – distinctive, noteworthy, and common. K. Pearson asked how one determines the value of a landscape. M. Schroeder suggested looking at Massachusetts Landscapes on GIS – if a solar array is proposed to be installed in a Distinctive Landscape, it should be looked at twice.
Mary Chick, 34 Newman Road, who installed a solar array on her property in 2000, noted that she has experienced no erosion from her panels. She has moving panels which track the sun, with built-in stormwater control. There has been no impact on vegetation.
D. Mountain had two general comments. First, he said that the stormwater impact for these kinds of things has not yet been figured out – this must be addressed. Second, he asked what the business model is. He noted that solar photovoltaic is fairly marginal and that the land in our area has the greatest value for residential development. He anticipates that Newbury will only get applications for solar photovoltaic arrays in places like Scotland Road, where nothing else can be built.
D. Powell, had two points in response to M. Schroeder’s comments. First, one complicating issue is that these are not situations where the operator owns the land. These kinds of large-scale solar arrays sited in agricultural land are happening very quickly in the state. Second, many of the concerns M. Schroeder raised are Con. Comm issues and not things that the SPGA can condition.
M. Olson said that there is a very tangible property value loss to properties abutting these kinds of installations.
M. Schroeder said that the concept of viewscape is well-established in Massachusetts and there are many ways to preserve viewscapes. Historic inventories of the Town include that information. D. Powell added that one should look at a site in relation to that kind of data and that one can find information that will back it up. K. Pearson agreed that the data was needed and asked where it can be found.
Town Counsel’s review comments on the proposed are pending. The Board therefore continued the public hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting.
Motion: A motion was made by J. Weis and seconded by L. McCamic to continue the public hearing on the proposed zoning amendment to April 17, 2013, at 7:30 p.m., to allow Town Counsel to complete her review and provide comments to the Board. The motion passed unanimously.
The regular meeting was reopened.
- Woodbridge School Special Permit Decision: L. McCamic recused herself and stepped down from the table. K. Pearson designated George Morse to deliberate on the Special Permit Decision in her stead. The Board then reviewed and discussed the revised version of the Special Permit decision for the Woodbridge School.
Motion: A motion was made by J. Weis to approve the Special Permit Decision for the Woodbridge School as amended. The motion passed unanimously.
K. Pearson then excused herself from the meeting and designated J. Weis to act as Chair in her stead.
- Ground-Mounted Solar PV Installations – Financial Surety: G. Morse distributed a draft revision of the section on Financial Surety providing mechanisms for the Surety to be continued upon sale to a new owner and to be adjusted for inflation. J. O’Connell noted that the estimate should be prepared by a professional estimator, not an engineer.
On a motion made by L. McCamic and seconded by D. Powell, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Martha Taylor
Town Planner
| 
