Planning Board
Thursday, November 16, 2004
Members Present: Barbara Freeman (Chair), William Weiler (Vice Chair), Al Bachelder, David Thayer, Ron Williams, Lacy Cluff (Alternate) and Ken McWilliams (UVLSRPC).
Mrs. Freeman opened the meeting at 7:04 p.m.
Mrs. Freeman nominated Deane Geddes as an alternate member of the Planning Board. The motion was seconded. All were in favor.
Mrs. Freeman announced that Peter Fichter, alternate ex-officio of the Planning Board, had submitted a letter of resignation. She noted that the
The Board scheduled a public hearing for the zoning changes for December 16, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
The board reviewed the minutes from October 19, 2004 and made corrections. A motion was made to accept the minutes as corrected. The motion was seconded. All were in favor.
Mrs. Freeman said the Tim Hapgood had submitted a building permit to a house that was approved as a cluster development. Tim Hapgood and Doug O’Claire, his builder, were both present.
Mr. O’Claire explained that Mr. Hapgood had a building box of 90 X 105 and would like to add a 16 X 21 addition that would bring him right to the edge of that box.
Mrs. Freeman said that the regulations said that the Planning Board determined the setbacks for cluster developments, but there was no way to tell what the setbacks were.
Mr. McWilliams said that with a cluster development, you can usually build anywhere within the building box.
Mr. Weiler asked how close his neighbors were.
Mr. O’Claire said that the closest house was about 100 feet away.
Mrs. Freeman said that she would have Lacy Cluff look for the original subdivision plan and Paul LaCasse, Code Enforcement Officer, would be in touch with Mr. Hapgood to inform him of the outcome.
Case: 2004-021: Final Hearing - Scott, MacNaughton & Bell Engineering - Annexation/Lot Line Adjustment.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application from Robert H. Scott, Molly MacNaughton and Bell Engineering for final approval of a Lot Line Adjustment on Old Province Road, Map/Lot 041-780-398, Map/Lot 041-762-301, Map/Lot 041-749-263, Map/Lot 041-310-007, Map/Lot 041-346-152, Map/Lot 041-504-125, on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, N.H. If the application is accepted as complete, a public hearing on the accepted application will commence at the same meeting.
Copies of the plan are available for public review at the Town Office Building during regular business hours.
Mrs. Freeman read the above public notice.
The Board reviewed the application for completeness and found that the quote from Article 7.3.9 was missing.
A motion was made to accept the application as complete with the condition of adding the quote from 7.3.9 to the plan. The motion was seconded. All were in favor.
Robert Scott explained that they were looking to do a lot line adjustment between lots 2 and 3.
Mrs. Freeman asked why they wanted to make these changes.
Mr. Scott said that it was at the buyer’s request. He said that it had to do with where they would like to build the house.
Mr. Scott said that he also wanted to do a lot line adjustment between lots 4 and 3 and lot 36 and 37.
Mrs. Freeman commented on the odd shape of lot 36.
Mr. Scott agreed that it looked odd on the plan, but said that it went with the layout of the land.
With no additional questions from the Board, Mrs. Freeman opened the hearing to public comment.
Mark Witchman, an abutter, asked if there was going to be any access changes to Province Road.
Mr. Scott said that there was not.
With no addition comment from the public, Mrs. Freeman closed the hearing to public comment.
Mr. McWilliams commented that the symbol indicating the areas that were being added was missing.
Mr. Scott said that he would add those to the plan.
A motion was made to approve the plan with the following conditions:
1. Amended plan showing the addition of quote under Article 7.3.9.
2. Amended plan showing the addition of symbols for areas to be annexed.
The motion was seconded. All were in favor.
Case: 2004-006: Continuation of Final Hearing - Angel Hawk - Major Subdivision - Sutton & Nelson Hill Road - Map 48 Lot 599-442.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application from Angel Hawk, LLC for a final hearing for a Major Subdivision off Sutton Road and Nelson Hill Road, Tax Map 48 Lot # 599-442, on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, N.H. If the application is accepted as complete, a public hearing on the accepted application will commence at the same meeting.
Copies of the plan are available for public review at the Town Office Building during regular business hours.
Mrs. Freeman read the above public notice and explained that this hearing had been continued.
Bob Stewart from RCS Designs introduced himself as the authorized agent for Angel Hawk, LLC.
Mr. Stewart said that he would like to first have Henry Thomas the Fire Chief address fire protection.
Mr. Thomas said that he reviewed the plans a number of times and had no problem with the road design or pitch of roads. He said that he also reviewed the plans for the cistern and had only one minor modification. He said that he did not see a potential hazard. He said that he understood that this subdivision would be at the edge of Town, but did not feel that they should be discriminated against because of this. He said that it was a ride from the fire house, but there were a lot of properties that were and did not see a potential problem.
Mrs. Freeman asked how he felt about the access onto Sutton Road and the sight distances.
Mr. Thomas said that he did not see a problem. He said that school buses transport children over that road. The road was designed so that they could run a fire truck and meet oncoming traffic.
Mrs. Freeman asked about the response time to that area.
Mr. Thomas said that it would take three more minutes from Birchfield. A fire truck can travel 40 miles per hour on that road.
Mr. Thomas said that if this subdivision was going to be all old farm houses, he would be nervous, but with today’s construction of homes, with the energy code and the Code Enforcement Officer inspecting plumbing and wiring, there was a longer burn time for a home. He said that they had contained fires to one room. He said that new buildings are constructed better and it that gives the fire department more time to get there.
With no further questions from the Board, Mr. Stewart asked Cal Prussman, the Highway Administrator, to address the roads.
Mr. Stewart presented plans of offsite improvements that were developed with several onsite visits with Mr. Prussman and Paul Parker, Sutton Highway Administrator. He said that they looked at road width, existing drainage and the trees. He said that they also worked on the intersection where the proposed road met Nelson Hill Road. He said they also made some changes with the suggestions from Lou Caron, Consulting Engineer. He said that the developer took out some ledge to gain sight distance coming out of the proposed road. He said that the other major change was an area where they cut out a bump in the road. The grade was 17% and they were cutting a section out to make a finished grade of 12%. He then asked Mr. Prussman to go over what he requested of them.
Mr. Prussman said that what he requested was that the road be made 20 foot paved surface instead of the current 15 or 16, removal of a lot of the trees between the stone wall and the road. He said that he wanted everything to be paved from the intersection at Newbury Road all the way up to the Town line and then the cut on the 17% section.
Mrs. Freeman said that the plan did not show the construction all the way to the Town line.
David Eckman from Eckman Engineering said that the full 20 foot depth was at the intersection where the development would be and then it tapered back to the existing width of 18 feet.
Mr. Prussman said that he had requested that it be a full 20 foot width to the Town line, 18 feet was not sufficient for the number of houses that were going in that subdivision. According to the regulations, for subdivisions with more than 5 houses, but less than 30 the minimum road width was 20 feet, with 3 ft shoulders. He said that they would have to grind the existing pavement.
Mr. Stewart said that they could do that. He said that there was certainly enough room.
Mr. Eckman showed the plan of the intersection in front of the subdivision. He said that there was full depth construction and they widened the road to 20 feet with 3 foot shoulders. He said that there was apparently a misunderstanding with continuing the 20 feet, but that they could do that.
Mr. Prussman said that he wanted to see the whole road up to Town speculations. He said that he did not want to see changes in the quality of road.
Mr. Eckman asked if he would consider going down to three inches of pavement.
Mr. Prussman said that he wanted it all to have a good base and then four inches of pavement.
Mr. Eckman said that the best thing to do would be to test what was there and make sure it was good gravel and the right depth. He said that it would not make sense to dig up good gravel and then just put it back down.
Mr. Prussman said that he did not have any further concerns. He asked if they had addressed all of Mr. Parker’s concerns about the intersection.
Mr. Stewart said that Mr. Parker had reviewed the plans and that they also meet with the Selectmen in Sutton, as they did in the Town of Newbury.
Mrs. Freeman asked what the sight lines were like at the intersection as you come down Nelson Hill Road onto Newbury/Sutton Rd.
Mr. Eckman said that they were doing some clearing to help the site distances.
Mrs. Freeman asked if he knew what the actual site distances were.
Mr. Eckman said that they had not mapped it out. He said that it was an existing intersection that they were just trying to improve, but they had done what Mr. Parker and Mr. Prussman had requested.
Mr. Caron said that it appeared to be a few hundred feet.
Mrs. Freeman said that she recalled the RSA’s said that it needed to be at least 400 feet for all season visibility.
Mr. Eckman said that this intersection that they were speaking of was in Sutton and Mr. Parker did not have any issues with it.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Planning Board does need to consider the over all safety of the project, that was why she was concerned about it.
Mr. Caron said that most people would probably be slowing down to about 30 mph to go around the curve, when they were supposed to be going 30 mph all along. He said that he would guess that the average speed on that road was between 40 and 45 mph.
Mr. Eckman suggested more signage near that corner.
Mr. Prussman said that he did not feel that signage was going to be effective in slowing people down.
Mrs. Freeman said that she seemed to recall the Subdivision Regulations had calculations for determining sight line distances. She said according to the regulations, the sight distance should be 455 feet.
Mr. Prussman said that the driveways on Sutton Road meet the criteria.
Mr. Stewart presented the plans showing the driveways. He said that plan C-7 and C-8 showed the driveways onto the existing road.
Mr. Prussman said that the road was a class 5 road, so the driveways met the criteria.
Mr. Caron said that a stopping sight distance for 35 mph was used.
Mr. Eckman said that it was an all season site distance. He said that in all cases, they also had the driveway 2% lower than the grade of the road to keep the drainage off the road.
He said that they also fixed some of the ditches to make them drain a little better.
Mrs. Freeman asked what the grades of the driveways were.
Mr. Eckman said that some of the grades were 15%, which was a perfectly safe grade for a driveway. He said that what people would often do with this type of lot would be to build a split level house with a garage underneath. He said that these were plans showing that someone could put a driveway in. He said that ultimately, it was going to be up to the person that purchased the property, so long as it was within the regulations.
Mrs. Freeman said that lot number 15 looked like the driveway was heading into a wetland.
Mr. Eckman said that they could have cut that back some. It was an error. He commented that it was a tight lot.
Mr. Prussman said he was concerned about whether or not the existing culverts on Sutton Road were going to be able to handle the additional runoff from the houses and driveways.
Mr. Eckman said that all the calculations were included in the application.
Mr. Prussman asked Mr. Caron if he thought it was adequate.
Mr. Caron said that if there were not any existing problems with them now, putting in a few houses was not going to affect them. He said that it was going to need to be monitored. He said that if there was that much washing down, they were not going to have a driveway left. He said that the type of people that were going to be able to afford these houses, were going to take care of their property, however, it does need to be monitored during construction.
Mr. Prussman said that those were all of his concerns.
Mrs. Freeman said that another concern from the last meeting was that there was some road construction in the steep slopes and the steep slope was not noted on the plan. However it was noted on the survey as a steep slope. She said that according to regulations, you were not allowed to build in steep slopes. She said that she also noticed some lots had wells in steep slopes (Lot #5 and Lot #4). She said that construction of wells in steep slopes was prohibited. (Plan B-8).
Mr. Eckman said that those radiuses would have to be moved towards the road.
Mrs. Freeman said that she did not see how they could geometrically do that.
Mr. Eckman said that they would have to have overlapping radiuses.
Mrs. Freeman said that the radius could not overlap the road because of the salt.
Mr. Eckman said that it was tight, but that they would just have to move some stuff around.
Mr. Eckman said that in terms of the road being built in the steep slopes, referred to page C-2. He said that they did an aerial to map the steep slopes. He said they also did some of it manually to lay out the road. He said that the road was on a shelf. He said that the slope had to be 20 vertical feet greater than 25% to classify as steep slopes according to the definition of steep slope in the Zoning Ordinance. He said that this was not the case because of the area that flattens out. He said that it was close, but did meet the regulations.
Mrs. Freeman said that the other issue that the Planning Board had was the density of the development. They felt that it was shoe horned into the site. There was so much steep slope and sensitive areas on this site. She said that she realized that they worked very hard and commended them for that. She said that she felt it would have been a lot better to reduce the density, especially considering how far away it was from the center of Town (safety services).
Mr. Eckman said that there was 92 acres and a rough average would be 4.7 acres per lot for overall density.
Mrs. Freeman said that not every lot could be two acres and they had to go to a larger lot size because of the conditions.
Mrs. Freeman said that some of the lots did not appear to meet the four to one ratio.
Mike, the surveyor, said that he took the average and they did all meet the criteria.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board’s primary concern was the density of the subdivision.
Mr. Stewart said that there were no concerns about density until the site walk and a subcommittee starting discussing changes in the regulations to control density. He said that the Board kept bringing up density, but what really needed to be looked at was if they had buildable lots. He said that he thought that that was the bottom line. He said that they worked hard to include much more information than the regulations required to relieve any concerns that the Board members had. He said that they applied to the Subsystems Bureau to review the subdivision. He submitted the letter from State (See file). He said that the only condition was pending Site Specific approval. He said that this letter should be proof that these lots were safe lots.
Mrs. Freeman said that the letter did not tell her that, it said that the application had been reviewed and disapproved at this time.
Mrs. Freeman also said that Mr. Stewart was right in saying that the Board felt different about the project after the site visit. This site had an impact on how the Board looked at density. However, they gave him every opportunity to come under the old regulations by changing the density. The Board was concerned about safety and the ledges and steep slopes in the area.
Mr. Stewart said that they went through the State who were critical when dealing with wetlands and steep slopes. They asked that they show a 4,000 square foot area for the septic. If you were to look at that area as a layout of a home, you would not see a single story 4,000 square foot home.
Mrs. Freeman said that they were also looking at the driveways.
Mrs. Freeman asked for any other concerns.
Mr. Stewart said that he had another issue he wanted to address. He said that he met with Board of Selectmen, as well as the Highway Administrator, regarding the off site improvements. He said that he did the same in the Town of Sutton. He said that they intended to submit the plans to the Sutton Planning Board regarding off site improvements.
Mrs. Freeman opened the hearing to public comment. She asked that members of the public wait to be recognized and then state their name and where they were from before commenting.
Christine Nelson, an abutter, said that the road coming in from Sutton Mills was a 30 mile per hour posted road. She said she would love to see more signs. She commented that the Sutton Road sign was missing because someone was driving to fast and missed the curve. She said that people do not slow down on that road. She was concerned about what was going to happen to Nelson Hill Road when they did the upgrade, in terms of tree removal. She was also concerned about the blasting and how it could affect her foundation and pool.
Mr. Eckman said that the Road Agent marked the trees that were going to come down on Nelson Hill Road. He said that the entire road was going to be paved. He showed her where on the map the blasting was going to take place. He said that there was criteria that needed to be met and that it was done in small sections. He said that they could also only cause so much vibration.
Dick Wright said that he had several concerns. He said that lot 20 was right in the middle of wetlands and fragmented some important wildlife habitat. He said that that lot should not be allowed to be built on. The other issue is the number on concessions that needed to be made on Town regulations in order for this to pass. He said that these regulations were in place because of poorly planned subdivisions in the past. He asked what happen to Ridge Line Ordinance, this was right on the top of a ridge.
Mr. Weiler said that the Ridge Line Ordinance spelled out specific ridge lines and this was not one of them.
Jeff Bates, an abutter, commented that they had laid out these 4,000 Square foot areas to be built on, but was there any way to control that when someone purchased the lot.
Mrs. Freeman said there was not.
Mr. Bates said that in that case, everything else was just hypothetical.
Mrs. Freeman said that that was correct. They were showing that it was possible to build on these lots.
Mr. Stewart said that what they were showing was that they had a safe area to put a house, well, septic and driveway.
Cal Prussman, Newbury resident, wanted to know what the future plans for the 113 acre parcel that Angel Hawk purchased that abuts this property and the other 64 acre parcel by Cheney Road.
Mr. Stewart said that they did purchase land around this property for future development, but no one was currently working on projects for those lots.
Mr. Prussman said that he has seen subdivisions in the past where they come in with a 20 lot subdivision and then two years later they add on another 30 lots.
Mr. Eckman said that at this point, they had only done boundary surveys of the lots.
Mrs. Freeman asked for any additional questions.
Mr. Bachelder asked Mr. Wright what the concessions he thought that the Board had made for this subdivision.
Mr. Wright said that there was a regulation that a road could be no more than an 8% grade and they were putting one in that was 10%.
Mrs. Freeman said there was a waiver given for the grade of the internal road.
Mr. Wright said that there were lots that did not meet the 4 to1 ratio.
Mrs. Freeman said that they addressed that and if you scale it, it just barely meets the 4 to 1 ratio.
Mr. Wright said that he felt that this project was on the edge. He said that it barely met the regulations and it was maxed out. He felt that it would ultimately be a problem to the Town in terms of maintenance. He said that he would not want to own a house that far from the fire department. He said that a fire truck could not do 40 miles per hour on that road. He said that there were three or four major sharp turns where you could not do even 15 miles per hour.
Mr. Eckman said that he wanted to address some of Mr. Wright’s concerns. He said that they made lot 21 all open space. He said that lot 20 was an eight acre lot, so it was a sizable lot.
Mr. Wright said that someone could put a house right in the middle of the lot.
Mr. Eckman said that most of the houses would be very close to the road because of the steep slopes, leaving the rest forested.
Mr. Wright said that one of the purposes of the master plan was to preserve wildlife. He said that he did not feel that this subdivision did that. He said that it could, but they would need to decrease the number of lots.
Mr. Eckman addressed Mr. Wright’s comment about the 10% road grade. He said that they did request a waiver from the Board to go from an 8% to a 10% grade in the road. He said that they could have built the road according to the regulations, but by putting it at 10%, it minimized the impact to the area and that that was the only waiver they got.
Mrs. Freeman asked for any further questions.
Mr. Bachelder said that he did not feel that the impact studies were accurate. He said that they used the tax rate of 12.88, but the Town did not get all of that money. He also had some concerns about the expected value of the homes. Overall, he felt that the impact study is way over stated.
Mrs. Freeman said that she had not seen anything that changed her mind since the last meeting concerning the overall density of this project. Everything barely makes its.
With no further questions or comments from the Board or public, Mrs. Freeman made a motion to disapprove Angel Hawk application for a Major Subdivision for the following reasons:
The purpose of subdivision regulations is to “promote orderly and planned growth of undeveloped areas of Newbury” (1.3) by “Providing against such scattered or premature subdivision of land as would involve danger or injury to health, safety, or prosperity (1.3.1). Including provisions that will tend to create conditions favorable to safety (1.3.10).
10.4 “Premature Subdivision Development: Scattered or premature subdivision of land as would involve danger or injury to health, safety, or general welfare by reason of lack of water supply, drainage, transportation, school, fire department, or other public services or necessitate excessive public expenditure of public funds for the supply of such services shall not be approved by the Board.”
It is the opinion of the Board that the Angel Hawk development is scattered and premature and, therefore, should be denied.
Angel Hawk is accessed by a substandard road, over 5 miles from the town center and the safety services building that provide fire and police protection. There are currently only three houses in the immediate area of the Angel Hawk site on Sutton Road. The Angel Hawk development will add seven times that number of houses to this area of Newbury. It is premature to the growth of the town to support this amount of development with services in this area.
There are a total of six houses on the entire length of Sutton Road from Gillingham Drive to Nelson Hill Road, which accesses the development site. Increasing the number of households by 21 in this sparsely settled area quadruples the existing house sites on the road. This would potentially quadruple the number of car round trips per day on this stretch of road. Sutton Road and Nelson Hill Road do not meet “Standards for Street Design”, as specified in the subdivision regulations, for an increase in traffic to this degree. Currently, Sutton Road would be classified as a local road in the Newbury “Standards for Street Design”. With the addition of 21 houses the road would be classified as a collector road and would be required to have a 24 foot width rather the existing 20 foot width. In
addition, there are many areas with poor sight lines. Many of these poor sight lines are due to the local topography where Sutton Road travels between a winding section of Shaw/Ring Brook and steep terrain or wetlands on the other side. Sutton Road is an important travel route for many Newbury residents bringing their children to school. Additional traffic will add additional risk. This is a community safety issue.
A number of the proposed driveway curb cuts from Sutton Road to the house sites of Angel Hawk are located where there are steep slopes and limited visibility due to sight distances. This is also a safety issue. The developer has proposed to do extensive tree cutting and grading back of the steep slopes and ledge in these areas to improve site distances. The amount of cutting of both trees and slopes, which will be necessary, will need to be extensive. In addition, the sight distances from lots 18, 19 and 20 appear to have less than the required all-season sight lines of 400 feet.
Sight lines where Sutton Road, Newbury Road and Nelson Hill Road intersect have been proposed to be improved but still do not meet the 400 foot sight line requirement.
Considering the increased traffic on Sutton Road, less than adequate sight lines are a public safety problem.
4.4 Compliance with Zoning Ordinance and Site Plan Review Regulations
“The Board will not approve or modify and approve any plan of a subdivision of land unless all buildings, structures and lots shown on said plan comply with the zoning ordinance of the Town or unless a variance from the terms thereof has been properly granted.”
The Town of Newbury, NH Zoning Ordinance forbids development on steep slopes. “Development” includes “any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, or drilling operation.”
House lots 4 and 5 show wells being drilled on steep slopes. In addition, construction is shown so close to steep slopes that they must be impacted.
Section X – Standards for Subdivision Design, 10.3 Character of Land for Subdivision: Land of such character that it cannot, in the judgement of the Board, be safely used for building development purposes because of danger to health or peril from fire, flood, poor drainage, excessive slope, or other hazardous conditions, shall not be platted for residential or commercial subdivision, nor for such other uses as may increase danger to life or property, or aggravate the flood hazard…”
Section XIII – Standards for Street Design, 13.8 Harmony with Topography: Street and lot pattern design shall give due consideration to contours and natural features of the land, where practical, within the standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Aesthetic values shall be considered rather than rigid straight-line, city block layout of streets and roads.
The Angel Hawk parcel is very rugged and has many beautiful features. There are many ledge outcrops and the overall site exhibits characteristics which indicate extensive granite ledge throughout. There is a great deal of steep slopes and cliffs with sheer drop-offs.
There are many signs of wildlife and there is an extensive wetland along the Shaw/ Ring Brook waterways below the cliffs and outcrops. There are also many stone walls and a series of intact stone cairns, which were likely used, historically, for the support of a maple sugaring “sap lines”. Many of the stone walls and none of the cairns are shown on the site plans and, therefore have not been planned around.
It is the opinion of the Board that the design, density and platting of the Angel Hawk development are unsuited to the character of the land of this site. The site has been laid out without regard to topography, natural and historic features, such as the stone walls and cairns, and the impacts which this extent of construction will have on the surrounding wetlands and the local area in general. The extensive steep slopes and other site features should have resulted in a plan with much lower density than what is shown. In addition, the lots proposed pose questions as to the buildability of the land and the safety of the sites for human habitation.
As stated previously, a number of the proposed driveway curb cuts from Sutton Road to the house sites of Angel Hawk are located where there are steep slopes and limited visibility due to site distances. After stating that there would be little visual impact on Sutton Road from this development in their application, the developer has proposed to do extensive tree cutting and grading back of the steep slopes and ledge from Sutton Road in these areas to improve sight distances. The amount of cutting of both trees and slopes, which is proposed and necessary to correct these poorly located drives, will be extensive and will devastate the Sutton Road Landscape. Even with this the sight distances are not good. This is poor planning and design.
The proposed internal roadway has a generally straight alignment, without regard to the site topography, and thus impacts areas of very steep slopes and heavy rock outcrops. This will necessitate an extensive amount of site work and blasting. It is the opinion of the board that the proposed road could have been designed to work with the topography instead of against it. It is clear that the location of the road was determined to allow more house sites rather than in consideration of the site. There is an existing old logging path, which currently accesses the site. This access was cleared by working with the site’s contours and has not required any blasting and little movement of earth. As such, we see that something else is possible.
The lots themselves are also in question by the board. Some of the lots have so much area of steep slopes that there is barely enough space for the house site, the septic and the well. It is hard to imagine how houses will be constructed without violating the steep slope ordinances during construction. In addition, these lots include cliffs which drop precipitously. We are concerned with the safety of such sites.
Finally, the amount of blasting and excavation that will be necessary to develop the sites as designed and proposed by the Angel Hawk developers will likely hugely alter the natural environment, destroy natural beauty and impact run-off to the streams and wetlands below.
4. This subdivision proposal is inconsistent with the Master Plan for the Town of Newbury 1997 “Land Use Goals”: 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, which follow.
a. To preserve, protect, improve and enhance the natural, scenic, recreational, cultural, and historic resources and the desirable characteristics of the traditional Northern New England land use settlement pattern;
b. to maintain and to improve the accessibility to and the economic viability of existing villages;
c. to ensure that the density, intensity and siting of future development is consistent with the capacities of access, utilities and natural resource constraints to support such land use development;
d. to protect the character of rural areas and their natural resources through continued wise use and enjoyment of natural resources, and by avoiding scattered development and incompatible land uses; and
e. encourage protection measures and preserve sufficient healthy habitats to ensure the continuation of the community’s wildlife and rare plant species resources.
The motion was seconded. All were in favour.
Case: 2003-019: Final Hearing - Briott, LLC - Major Subdivision - Off Southgate Road Map 44 Lot 078-083.
Steve Jesseman from Jesseman and Associates introduced himself as the authorized agent for Scott Falvey, who was also present.
Mr. Jesseman explained that several months ago he filed an application for the Deer Pines Subdivision. He said that the application was accepted as complete at that time. He asked for a continuation and then an indefinite continuation. He said that he would now like to continue the hearing and understood that he needed to pay for the notifications.
Mr. McWilliams said that they would need the plans at least 21 days prior to the meeting. He said that it was virtually a new application. He asked if he was applying under the old or new zoning regulations.
Mr. Jesseman said that he revised the existing plans.
Mr. McWilliams said that he did not think that they could legally continue the hearing because it was not continued to a time and date that was certain.
Mrs. Freeman said that there was a discrepancy between what was expected and what the Board could legally do.
Mr. McWilliams said that they could not legally continue indefinitely.
Mrs. Freeman said that she would need to check with Town Council and would let them know what he recommended.
A motion was made to adjourn. It was seconded. All were in favor. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lacy L. Cluff
Land Use Board Coordinator
| 
