PLANNING BOARD
Newbury, NH 03255
21 December 2004
Members Present: Barbara Freeman, Chair; Al Bachelder, Member; Deane Geddes, Alternate; Dave Thayer, Member; Ron Williams, Member; William Weiler, Member; Ken McWilliams, Advisor from the UVLSPA; and Martha von Redlich, secretary.
· 7:05 Minutes Reviewed:
Minutes of Site Visit to Southview, 10/31/04
Move to accept Mr. Weiler, seconded by Mr. Williams. Approved.
Minutes of Public Hearing, 11/04/04 (See notes by B. Freeman for Corrections)
Move to accept as corrected Mr. Weiler, seconded by Mr. Thayer. Approved.
Minutes of the PB Meeting 11/16/04 (See notes)
Move to accept as corrected Mr. Weiler, seconded by Mr. Thayer. Approved.
Minutes of 12/1/04. No corrections noted.
Move to accept Mr. Weiler, seconded by Mr. Thayer. Approved.
Meeting of Non-Public Meeting, 12/9/04. Mrs. Freeman had a few corrections and passed them around for the members to read. Members were asked to give their corrections to Lacy.
Move to accept as corrected. Mr. Weiler, seconded by Mr. Bachelder. Approved.
o Mrs. Freeman, as chairman, appointed Alternate Deane Geddes as a voting member of the Board for this meeting.
o Case: 2004-022: Final Hearing – Evelyn Davis – Lot Line Adjustment – Route 103 – Map/Lot 020-019-072 & 010-041-134. Mrs. Freeman read the Public Notice. Authorization was included for Mr. Dombrowski to represent Mrs. Davis.
Mr. Dombrowski went over various points of the map in answer to questions by Board Members.
Mr. Weiler moved to accept the application as complete, seconded by Mr. Williams. Approved.
Mr. Dombroski explained why the parcels were being joined. Mr. Dombrowski was asked to indicate on the map which line was being eliminated. A question was asked about Pleasant Street, which is not really a street.
After discussion of the land and highway layouts as they used to be back in 1936, Mrs. Freeman asked for a motion.
Mr. Weiler made a motion that the application be approved, seconded by Mr. Williams. Approved.
Mrs. Freeman directed everyone to sign the mylar, which will be sent to Merrimack County Registrar of Deeds. A copy was kept for the files.
o Review and Approval of Circuit Rider Agreement. Mrs. Freeman
pointed out that the fee had increased but that it was the same agreement as usual.
Mr Weiler made a motion that the agreement be accepted, seconded by Mr. Thayer. Accepted. A signed copy was given to the secretary to give to the Selectmen.
o Review and Approval of Master Plan Update Agreement. Discussion followed about Mr. McWilliams role in the Master Plan. The Board wanted to be sure that Ken McWilliams would be the consultant for Newbury.
Mr. Weiler made a motion that the Update Agreement be approved, seconded by Mr. Williams. Approved.
o Review of Warrant Article Authorizing the Planning Board to Require Preliminary Review of Subdivisions. Discussion followed that this was to be for “major subdivisions,” not “minor.” Mr. MacWilliams said that there was a new RSA stating that a Town Meeting can authorize the Planning Board to require a preliminary review of a subdivision.
New London had asked Mr. MacWilliams about that also and he had gone to town counsel and asked about the wording for a warrant article. This was his suggestion for the rationale. It would be applicable only to major subdivisions and not to minor. Mr. MacWilliams thought that a preliminary review was unnecessary when you were not going to be concerned with road design and drainage and subdivision road control plans.
It was asked of the town counsel if it was necessary to hold a public hearing for this preliminary review warrant article, and he said no, it was just a way that the Board could educate people and get them to support it at town meeting. This would be handled differently than the ballot amendments. It would be on the floor at town meeting and people would have a chance to talk about it, unlike the zoning amendments where you don’t get a chance to talk about them.
Holding public meetings is an option, not a requirement. Mr. Weiler asked if the Board could have a Joint Meeting before deciding whether to have a public meeting. Mrs. Freeman asked if they wanted to have a public meeting before March. She said perhaps they could present the warrant article to the Selectmen in a Joint Board Meeting, and then decide if they want to have a public meeting.
Mrs. Freeman said that if the Board was not going to have a public meeting, then she could just go to the Selectmen with this warrant article.
Mrs. Freeman said that they don’t have to decide right now. Mr. McWilliams said that if you decide to have a public meeting, then you could schedule it at the same time as the second zoning meeting. Mrs. Freeman said no, she was trying to keep it simple with the zoning amendment.
The consensus was that there was no purpose for having a meeting on this warrant article. For instance, how many people show up for budget meetings? Mrs. Freeman said she would take this, with the Board’s approval, to the Selectmen.
· Case: 2004-023: Conceptual Review – JWF Real Estate & Development Corp. – Major Subdivision – Map/Lot 042-790-153. Mr. Jeff Evans from Sutton introduced himself representing this project. He said that they had been before the Board a year earlier with another subdivision.
Mr. Evans handed around copies of the maps, including a second sheet that shows the areas of the lots concerning setbacks, buildable land, and steep slopes. Mr. Evans had come before the Board to discuss his subdivision with regards to the new Zoning Ordinance. He discussed the different setbacks required for forested wetlands and lakes. Mr. Evans’ son Garrett joined the discussion and pointed out building envelopes and setbacks.
Mrs. Freeman asked about a driveway going across a steep slope. Mr. Evans said that if you cross the slope on a diagonal, it would be only 10%. Discussion followed about town roads and ditches. Garrett Evans said that Lacy told him that they could cross wetlands setbacks with Expedited Driveway Permits for crossing any drainages. Mr. Evans said that this seemed to be causing problems and would Mrs. Freeman give him her interpretation.
Mrs. Freeman said that her interpretation was that of course you are allowed to build a driveway crossing the setback for your property line but not in the setbacks for wetlands in the amended regulations..
Garrett Evans said that this means you would not be able to cross wetlands anywhere in the town. His father concurred. Mrs. Freeman said, “You’d have to get a variance.”
Mr. Evans didn’t think this sounded logical for the long-term goal for the town. He and Mrs. Freeman discussed variances for crossing wetlands. He said he sure would like to see the town clamp down on its wetlands violations before it’s in a position to enforce the new regulations. Mr. Evans went on to say that there were many people on the lake constructing in the shoreland protection area and it goes unnoticed. They are building retaining walls.
Mr. Evans felt the town should pay more attention to the lake and not worry about driveways. He said that you can’t cross an intermittent drainage that is in a forested wetland that is five feet wide without a permit and a variance.
Mr. Evans said that he had complained to the town and DES about the violations around the lake. He said he had called the Selectmen’s office about these violations. Mr. Evans said that all these ditches alongside the roads are jurisdictional wetlands.
Mr. Evans said he was trying to submit a proposal, trying to file an application. He felt the hearings for the Zoning Amendments should be finished, but Mrs. Freeman said no, they were not done yet.
Mr. McWilliams said that the Zoning Amendments hearing was scheduled in January and had to be submitted to the town clerk by February 1st.
Mr. Evans felt that the Board didn’t know what the zoning changes said or how they would affect the town. Mrs. Freeman told him that one of the reasons they were having public hearings was to get input from people like Mr. Evans on what’s being proposed.
Mr. Evans said that when he went to a Planning Board meeting, he got paid, so don’t expect him to show up at a public hearing and give them his input.
Mrs. Freeman had no comment.
Mr. Evans said he was saying that the regulations they are trying to impose won’t work. He demanded that Ken McWilliams give him some input. Mr. McWilliams’ response was, “We hear you. “
Mr. Weiler told Mr. Evans that he and anyone else with information about buffers should see the Board and discuss them before the Board put their final proposal before the voters.
Mr. Evans wanted to know when he could make application and Mrs. Freeman told him it was risky right now because there are changes. She felt that he should wait until it was submitted to the Town Clerk on February 1st when it was not going to change any more. It won’t be voted in until town meeting.
Mr. Evans said that it’s not going to work and Mrs. Freeman told him that they hear him. She thought his plan showed that he was working on the problem. He said that nobody could cross any wetland with a driveway and he was upset because he said
the town was not enforcing wetland permits. To cross a road ditch, basically you need a permit, and the Board is saying that is going to require a ZBA variance because you’re crossing wetland.
Mr. Weiler stated that the Board was going to look into it. Mr. Evans thanked him.
Mr. Evans said that he wanted to get the lots off the road; he wanted to work to get the growth off the road, have fewer driveways. The wetland setbacks and well setbacks caused problems with driveways. He said he would rather cross the wetland with a driveway than drive alongside it for four or five hundred feet to get to the building envelope.
Mrs. Freeman said that there was no reason why he couldn’t get a variance for his driveway and Mr. Evans said no, it was just the process, and that the Board didn’t understand that this was going to swamp the ZBA with every building permit.
Mrs. Freeman demurred and Mr. Evans said that the Board was not even beginning to enforce wetlands.
Mr. Evans felt that the rules were forcing him to build along the road because of the width to depth ratio, the inability to cross wetlands, cross through the setbacks. He felt the Board was forcing him right to the road.
Garrett Evans asked if the Planning Board approved the width-depth ratio and did they see a problem with this particular layout. He and his father pointed out that they could do common drives for some of the lots. Mrs. Freeman said that was a good idea. Mr. Evans liked that and said it would reduce the impact on the road.
Mr. Evans said that his son Garrett had been working hard with Lacy to try and follow the regulations. He would be happy to come in, in a non-public session, and discuss all the problems, if the board liked. Mrs. Freeman said they heard him and would get back to him.
Mr. Evans said that he understood that the 4:1 ratio was to eliminate the “bowling alley” layouts. He wasn’t sure if 4:1 was the right way to go.
Discussion followed then about the width to depth ratio. Garrett Evans talked about the definition of the 4:1 ratio. Mrs. Freeman said that the Board had been working on that one for years. Mr. Evans said that he would see if they could come up with any suggestions that might be better than 4:1.
Mr. Evans and his son asked for a better definition of the 4:1 ratio and Mrs. Freeman said that you could average the widest and narrowest to find the ratio. Mr. Geddes asked if the Board would recommend walking the area before a formal submission.
Mrs. Freeman said yes.
The Board discussed what could be built in the setbacks, such as wells.
8:45 Case 2004-024: Conceptual Review – Emily Welsh – Bed & Breakfast and Spa – West Province Road – Map/Lot 026-205-146
Charlie Hirshberg came to the Board as the representative for Emily Welsh. He handed out maps showing the special exception for both uses. The building is currently a tack shop. It was formerly Tom Pirizzoli’s old house, the antique shop. The house is on a .27 Acres. The other parcel is 1.78 Acre. Both are owned by the same person. They need both parcels for the septic system.
They plan to use the existing house plus the barn attached. There will be four guest rooms plus the owner’s quarters. They propose to use the barn for the spa. Mr. Hirshberg showed on the maps where each area was.
The leach field is on the easement piece. It is a relatively new system. It pumps uphill. It is a three-bedroom system now. In order to meet requirements, you have to use both pieces. It would have to be recorded that these two pieces would stay together. Mrs. Freeman suggested they merge the lots. Mr. Hirshberg agreed that was a possibility.
Mrs. Freeman asked how they were getting four guest bedrooms and the owners’ quarters out of a three-bedroom house. Mr. Hirshberg said they have one bedroom downstairs, three bedrooms upstairs, and one in the cottage.
He said the spa will be ground level in the barn and the shed. He showed a couple of different optional layouts. The four bedrooms would be 120 gallons of wastewater and including the owner’s quarters, would be 150.
The spa would be for individuals to come in for exercise and one option would be for a pool for exercise. The septic could not support this. Another option is for a salt-water spa because salt is beneficial. This is like a hot tub that you empty several times a year. The DES approach is that you can discharge it into a small dry well, after it’s been neutralized. Not into the septic system. Another alternative is to have a pumper come and pump it out. Mrs. Freeman said that would be if they were willing to come pump it out. That would require neutralization also.
They are researching other options, besides the tub.
They are also talking about opening it up to people not staying there, so Mr. Hirshberg is figuring the wastewater flow with this possibility.
Parking for a bed & breakfast requires one space per room. In order to get the ten spaces, the owners would park in the back, where the existing septic tank is now. That would have to be changed. The leach field would also be changed. The sum of the two parcels would meet DES’s requirements. It would still be over 75 feet from the brook.
The house is extremely close to the road so some of the parking is in the right of way. One of the restrictions is that the town would not require the house to be moved.
Mrs. Welsh said that the property actually owns to the middle of the street. Mr. Weiler says that nobody can own part of Province Road because it was laid out before the town was.
Mr. Hirshberg says they have established the property lines along the road and in between the Parker property. The other line is the brook, but as far as we know, there is no other certified survey. Utilizing the existing structures and parking on the street side of the house, utilizing the existing well, is it necessary to have a certified survey.
The easement is established by metes and bounds. Mrs. Freeman said that if they are going to merge the lots, they will need a survey. Mr. MacWilliams said if they are existing lots of record, they can be merged. Then Mrs. Freeman asked if they need a survey. Mr. Weiler felt that even if there is a letter saying they own into the road, he felt a survey was needed. It would establish the parking spaces.
Mr. Hirshberg asked what if they were to establish the alignment of the frontage, if they surveyed the front of the property, would that satisfy the problem. Cliff has established it and has set two pins defining the easement, which means he would have had to establish the frontage in order to do that. He may have additional information.
Mrs. Freeman asked if that would also locate the house, in relation to that. Mr. Hirshberg felt that it should.
Mrs. Freeman asked if anyone else had any comments or questions, other than the requirement for a survey with regard to what Mr. Weiler said. Ms Welsh said that the town line angles into the driveway and includes a bit of the porch while in front of the store, the line angles out into the road. Ms Welsh didn’t remember where she saw that paperwork, but she was looking for it. Mr. Weiler said he would be very surprised if the property line went out into the road. He said that road was built before the town and all the lots were placed in relation to that road. The lots border the road.
One of the parking spaces appears to be “car-locked.” The owner spaces are also “land-locked.” Mrs. Freeman suggested they have valet parking. A new configuration was suggested to eliminate the blocked spaces.
Mrs. Freeman asked if Mr. Hirsberg had any other questions for the Board. Mr. Weiler said that they could do elevations in lieu of floor plans. Mrs. Freeman said that they needed the hours of operation. And she said that one of the requirements was that it be owner-occupied or it could not be called a Bed & Breakfast.
Mr. Weiler asked if there were any requirements that the spa be pumped out? Was this a health requirement? The Selectmen are the health officers for Newbury.
Informal Questions Regarding a Different Project
Mr. Hirshberg asked if he could ask a few questions about a project on the lake, a different project. This lakefront lot has steep slopes and is in the process of a sale and he was asked to look into it, relative to what you can and can’t do on this lot.
There is a three-foot ROW for someone to walk down to the lake. It’s relatively flat up near the road. There is room for a footprint 28x50 feet on this section. It’s further than 75 feet back from the lake. This lot needs a new septic system. He tested this area and showed where it should be put.
Physically, there is an area that is potentially buildable but physically between the areas, there are steep slopes. Can you have stairs in this area? It is less than 25 feet vertical. There are contours that measure differently.
The Board agreed that utilizing this new area would not make sense. They felt the owners should utilize the present non-conforming structure. They could stay within the non-conforming footprint and add on in a conforming manner. They can expand the building as long as they don’t make it more non-conforming. Can’t expand into the road setback or onto the steep slope. A new drilled well would cross a slope but not an official steep slope because it’s not 20 feet.
· Mrs. Freeman handed out suggested changes to the subdivision regulations from Cal Prussman. She also had some others from Tom Vannatta. She handed them around and asked the members to be ready to discuss them at the next meeting.
The Supreme Court expanded the regulations to bring in Use variance and Area variance, re: property rights. [see handouts]
· Sign-Off Sheet: this is an update as a result of previous discussion. Mr. Weiler asked if everyone was satisfied and the answer was yes. A motion was made to approve the sign-off sheet. It was seconded. All were in favor.
· Fee Structure: Mr. Weiler presented a new fee structure that was influenced by fees that other Town’s charge.
These fees are higher and would cover inflation and invisible costs.
Mrs. Freeman asked whether the Board needs to have a public meeting? Mr. Weiler said no, just implement.
Mr. Williams made the motion the new fee schedule be approved, seconded by Mr. Bachelder. Passed.
o Mrs. Freeman said that she had emailed definitions for the zoning amendments to everyone and did anyone have comments on them?
Her question was on the additions to the definitions.
· Affordable Housing: See 5.1A
Ken MacWilliams will draft something and email it to everyone. He doesn’t feel that what works for Norwich is necessarily right for Newbury.
· Building Envelope: Ron Williams: the building envelope is determined by omitting from the total lot those areas where construction is not permitted.
· Maximum Density: 5.12.3 It is now 6 Acres, according to 5.2 . You are likely to have less density. Why not say 20 and leave it at 20?
· 5.13 - This paragraph doesn’t let the people know that there is an alternative, according to Mr. Weiler. If a lot is less than 20 Acres and is not going through the development density process, as described in paragraphs of 5.12, then that land shall be restricted.
· The next Public Hearing is January 5th, the next Planning Board Meeting will be January 18th, and the next Public Hearing will be Jan 26th, if needed.
10:20 Motion to adjourn, Ron Williams, seconded by Barbara Freeman.
Respectfully Submitted,
Martha Von Redlich
| 
