Planning Board
Tuesday/July 20, 2004
Members Present: William Weiler (Vice Chair), Al Bachelder, David Thayer, Peter Fichter (Alternate Ex-Officio), Travis Dezetoll (Alternate), Lacy Cluff (Alternate) and Ken McWilliams (UVLSRPC)
Bill Weiler called the meeting to order at 6:20 p.m.
The meeting minutes from June 15, 2004 were reviewed and corrections were made. A motion was made to accept the minutes as corrected. Seconded. All in favor.
Case: 2003-019: Continuation of Final Hearing - Briott, LLC - Major Subdivision - Off Southgate Road Map 44 Lot 078-083.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application from Briott, LLC for a final hearing for a Major Subdivision off Southgate Road, Tax Map 44 Lot # 078-083, on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 at 8:30 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.
Mr. Weiler announced that the applicant for the above public notice had submitted a letter requesting that the hearing be cancelled because they were not prepared to present this evening. He said that any subsequent hearings would be notified and letters would be sent to the abutters.
Case: 2004-016: Conceptual Review - Eric Unger - Minor Subdivision - Presented by Clayton Platt.
Clayton Platt introduced himself as the authorized agent for Eric Unger. He said that Mr. Unger owned property on Mountain Road in South Newbury. He owned a large parcel of land with a farm house and would like to subdivide the farm off and eventually build on the remaining property. The piece that he would like to subdivide off was 16.8 acres.
Mr. Weiler asked why he did not want to use the stone wall as a boundary.
Mr. Platt said that he would like to keep his options open for a future subdivision.
Mr. Weiler said that if he does another minor subdivision within five years than it would be considered a major subdivision and he would need to follow those regulations.
Mr. Platt said that he had no plans to do any further subdivisions at this point.
Mr. Platt asked if it would be possible to get a waiver for the topography map. He said that he had the topography for around the house, but not the rest of the parcel.
Mr. Weiler said that he felt a topography map would be appropriate, but Mr. Platt could propose a waiver for the test pits.
Mr. Platt was concerned that it would be a lot of work and money to do a topography map for the lot because it was over 40 acres. Where it is only a minor subdivision, he did not feel it was necessary with such a large lot.
Mr. Weiler said that it would make sense to show the topography of where he was looking to build.
Mr. Platt said that he does not know the particulars yet.
Mr. Weiler recommended that he talk to Mr. Unger about possible locations.
Mr. Bachelder agreed with Mr. Weiler that there should be a topography map if he was to subdivide that piece off.
Mr. Weiler recommended that he use the U.S.G.A. for all parts not surrounding the house. He said that he would like to see the details because a plat makes the land look very flat.
Mr. Weiler asked if there were any other issues.
Mr. Platt asked if a suitable building site anywhere on the lot would be suitable.
Mr. Weiler said to talk to Mr. Unger to find out what his preferred building site would be.
Mr. Bachelder said that he thought that Mr. Unger should have some idea of what he would like to do.
Mr. Fichter asked if the purpose of a topography map was so that the board could see if the parcel being subdivided was suitable for development.
Mr. Weiler said that that was correct and asked if there were any further questions.
Mr. Platt asked if this would also be an annexation because of the road that intersects on of the lots.
Mr. Weiler said that it would be just a subdivision if the parcel was described all on one deed. It has a separate Map and Lot number for tax purposes only.
Mr. McWilliams arrived at the meeting and Mr. Platt asked his opinion on the subdivision.
Mr. McWilliams agreed with Mr. Weiler that the separate Map and Lot number was for Tax purposes only, but felt that Mr. Unger only needed to do an annexation, not a subdivision because he has two lots and he will end up with two lots.
Case: 2004-014: Final Hearing - Magee & Wilczynski - Lot Line Adjustment/Annexation - Circle View Drive.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application from John & Donna Magee and Eric Wilcinski for a final hearing for an Annexation/Lot Line Adjustment on Circle View Drive, Tax Map 49 Lot # 780-136 and Tax Map 49 Lot # 729-144. The application will be sumbitted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 at 7:00 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.
Mr. Weiler read the above public notice.
The Board reviewed the application for completeness. A motion was made to accept the application as complete. Seconded. All were in favor.
Clayton Platt introduced himself as the authorized agent for John and Donna Magee and Eric Wilczynski. He explained that an error was made and Mr. Wilczynski’s foundation was poured 3 feet from the Magee’s property line. Mr. & Mrs. Magee have agreed to deed a portion of their property to Mr. Wilczynski to meet the setback requirement.
Mr. Weiler asked if the Board had any questions.
With no questions from the Board and no public input, a motion was made to approve the application. Seconded. All were in favor. The Board signed the mylar.
Case: 2004-015: Final Hearing - McInnes & Greaves - Lot Line Adjustment/Annexation - Gerald Drive.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application from Donald K. & Jeanette F. McInnes and Richard & Pamela Greaves for a final hearing for an Annexation/Lot Line Adjustment on Gerald Drive, Tax Map 29A Lot # 013-353 and Tax Map 29A Lot # 022-356. The application will be submiitted on Tuesday, July 20, 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.
Mr. Weiler read the above public notice.
The Board reviewed the application for completeness. Included in the application was a Variance from the Zoning Board. A motion was made to accept the application as complete. Seconded. All were in favor.
Timothy Britain from Ransmeier & Spellman introduced himself as the authorized agent for Donald and Jeanette McInnes and Richard and Pamela Greaves.
Mr. Britain explained that when Bolyn Land Investments, Inc. developed the land behind the McInnes’ and Greaves’ lots, both the McInnes’ and Greaves’ had land annexed to their properties. When Clayton Plat surveyed the Greaves’ property for the annexation, he discovered that McInnes’ path, steps and lamp post was on the Greaves’ property. They had been trying for years to resolve this issue. He said that they went to litigation and the Greaves gave a small portion of land to the McInnes’. He showed the Board the proposed lot line adjustment. He explained that the reason the lot line was jagged was to give a minimal amount of property without changing the road frontage. Mr. Britain explained that these lots are non-conforming which was why he had the
Variance from the Zoning Board.
With no questions from the Board or public, a motion was made to approve the application. Seconded. All were in favor. The Board signed the mylar.
Case: 2004-012: Final Hearing - Evelyn C. Davis - Site Plan Review - 889 Route 103.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application for Site Plan Review from Evelyn C. Davis for a Take-Out Restaurant at 889 Route 103, Tax Map 20 Lot #044-145. The application will be submitted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 at 8:00 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.
Mr. Weiler read the above public notice.
The Board reviewed the application for completeness. The Board discovered that the following items were missing:
1. Plan showing boundary lines and location of the telephone lines.
2. Photos or drawings showing the building elevations.
Tom Dombrowski, surveyor, said that the boundary lines were not on the plan because he had not set the bounds yet. He said that the property was located in Park 10 and he was currently working on several lots. He did however say that he had the bounds within several feet and marked those with a highlighter on the plan.
Mr. Weiler asked if he could provide an amended site plan at a later date.
Mr. Dombrowski said that he could do that.
A motion was made to accept the application as complete conditional upon receiving the following items:
1. Amended Plan showing boundary lines and location of the telephone lines.
2. Photos or drawings showing the building elevations.
Mr. Dombrowski presented the plans to the Board. He explained that there would be 12 parking spaces, eleven standard spaces and one handicap space. There would be a paved walkway from the parking lot and a handicap ramp. The main entrance would be located at the northwest corner of the building. He felt there would be adequate parking because the restaurant would be all take out with no seating and only two employees. He said that the back would eventually also be paved. He asked for any questions.
Mr. Bachelder asked about the picnic tables shown on the plan.
Michael Marzelli said that there would be only one or two picnic tables.
Mr. Weiler said that he felt that there was more than enough parking to accommodate those picnic tables.
Mr. McWilliams said that it appeared that two of the parking spaces were in the State right of way.
Mr. Weiler said that there was a letter included in the application from the Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) giving them permission to do that.
Evelyn Davis said that a formal agreement had been signed, but they had not received a copy back yet. Once they receive that, they would provide the Board with a copy.
Mr. Weiler said that the regulations require that there be a landscape buffer of no less than ten feet.
Mr. Dombrowski said that there was a buffer of at least ten feet all the way around. He said that it was twelve feet back at the closest point.
Mrs. Davis said that she had been working with Steve Chellis from D.O.T. and he is pleased that they would like to move the parking because it would make it much safer. They had also taken his suggestions for landscaping.
Mr. Bachelder asked how the sign would be lite.
Mr. Marzelli said that it would be the same size as the current sign and would be lighted with white lights that face down.
Mr. Weiler read the summary that was included in the application (Please see file) and asked the Board if they had any questions.
Mr. Bachelder asked how they would back trucks in for delivery without blocking the back parking lot.
Louis Marzelli said that all of the deliveries were going to be in the morning and they usually only took 10 - 15 minutes.
Mr. Weiler opened the hearing to public comment.
Marion Leonie, an abutter, was concerned about the snow removal and did not want it to block her parking lot.
Mr. Dombrowski said that the front parking lot was what they had problems with in the past, but they had eliminated that lot and could now use it for snow storage. There would also be drainage in that area.
Mr. Weiler asked Ms. Leonie if she was satisfied with that response.
She said that she was and that that was her only concern.
Mr. Weiler closed the hearing to public comment and asked the Board if they had any additional questions.
Mr. McWilliams asked if there was going to be anything screening the dumpster.
Mr. Dombrowski said that any screening would be a problem with snow removal. However, the dumpster would be located in the back of the building and not visible from the road.
Mr. Bachelder said that he was not concerned with screening the dumpster from a Site Plan Review point of view, but did feel that it was a good idea.
With no further questions, a motion was made to approve the application contingent upon receiving the following items:
1. Amended Plan showing boundary lines and location of the telephone lines.
2. Photos or drawings showing the building elevations.
The motion was seconded. All were in favor.
Mr. Weiler said that a Certificate of Completion from the Board was needed before they could open.
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.
Mr. Weiler read the above public notice and explained that this hearing was continued from June15, 2004.
At the previous hearing, the Board approved the application as complete contingent upon submission of the following items:
1. Fire Protection Plan.
2. Agency & Permit Approvals.
a. D.E.S. Subsurface Subdivision Approval
b. Site Specific
c. E.P.A. requires a form to be submitted with 24 hours of beginning work when more than once acre of land is being disturbed.
3. Items A, G, H, D, E & I, Legal documents (Section V.A.8), including conveyances of the roads to the Town.
Mr. Weiler reviewed the legal documents that had been submitted prior to the hearing and asked why there was a covenant restricting lot sales.
Susan Hankin-Birke, legal representative, said that she thought that the Board had required that.
Mr. Weiler said that it was not a requirement.
Mr. McWilliams asked if any land was to be conveyed to the Town.
Ms. Hankin-Birke said that she thought the road was to be private.
Robert Stewart from RCS Designs, authorized agent for Angel Hawk, said that typically they would make the road public.
Mr. McWilliams said that if that were the case, than the Board would need an indemnification or maintenance until acceptance agreement.
Ms. Hankin-Birke asked if the Board required a Declaration of Protective Covenants.
Mr. Weiler said that he believes that the Board had said in the past that that was between the developer and the buyer.
Mr. Stewart asked if the Board had an example of what had been done in the past regarding the indemnification.
Mr. McWilliams said that it was typically just a simple paragraph that was signed by the applicant.
Mr. Weiler said that the indemnification addresses all points where the development intersects with Town property. He said that it was basically for the construction period. The Board needed documents that leave the Town out of any liability.
Mr. Weiler noted that they had supplied item F instead of item E.
Mr. Weiler said that if there was going to be a homeowner’s association, the Board would need documents relating to that (Item I).
Mr. Weiler asked if the fire protection facilities were going to be public or private.
Mr. Stewart said that they were going to be public.
Mr. Stewart said that he did not feel that homeowner’s associations took care of common land and wanted to know what the Board wanted to do about the common land.
Mr. Weiler said that he didn’t know if anything could be said about that at this point, but asked if the public currently used the existing trail.
Mr. Stewart said that the public currently uses the trail for hiking, snowmobiling etc and said that it was addressed in section 3 of the packet, at the top of page two.
Mr. Bachelder said that it did not speak to all of the open space.
Mr. Stewart said that it has been suggested that they re-align the trail, but they did not want to do that because it went off the site.
Mr. Weiler said that they could convey it to the Town.
Mr. Stewart asked how he could do that.
Mr. Weiler said that he would seek advice and get back to him.
Mr. Weiler asked if they had a fire protection plan yet.
Mr. Stewart said that they did not. They were going to need either a fire pond or a cistern, but it was going to depend on what happened with the road as to the location. The fire chief wanted to know the final plans first.
Mr. Weiler asked if he had any State or Agency approvals yet.
Mr. Stewart said that, again, they needed to wait for final approval.
Mr. Weiler said that they would move on to the waiver request for a waiver of the requirement that the access road grade not exceed 8%. The applicant requests that a grade of 10% and less be allowed.
Mr. Stewart submitted the waiver request to the Board.
Mr. Weiler asked what was meant by the length at maximum grade.
Louis Caron, consulting engineer, said that it was the length of the sectors of the road that would be 10%. He showed them on plans C-1 and C-2.
Mr. Weiler asked that they address the other part of the request, the K factor.
David Eckman, Eckman Engineering, said that they would like to reduce it from 18 to 10.
Mr. Weiler asked for any questions from the Board.
Mr. Bachelder said that he did not feel that other streets having steep grades was a valid argument for having this street be a steeper grade.
Mr. Weiler said that he did not feel that that was their primary argument.
Mr. Eckman said that the State standard was 10%.
Mr. Caron said that the Board needed to look at the context of these standards and decide whether 10% was appropriate for this project. However, agreed with the Mr. Bachelder in terms of looking at other roads.
Mr. McWilliams said that the 14% grade on Nelson Hill Road was a separate issue that needed to be addressed in terms of safety of the access to this project.
Mr. Stewart submitted letters from both the Fire Chief and the Highway Administrator (see file) stating that they had no problems with the 10% grade.
Mr. Caron said that a 10% grade was not uncommon for a low use road. He said that he did not have a problem with the 10% grade. The Highway Administrator was the one who was going to maintain the road and he prefers the 10% grade. The other key person is the Fire Chief and if he did not have a problem with the grade then he does not see an issue.
Mr. Fichter was concerned about vehicles coming down that hill in icy conditions and not being able to stop at the intersection.
Mr. Caron said that if a vehicle started sliding at the top of the hill, it would end up in a ditch long before it reached the intersection. The primary problem would be getting up the hill and that was not a safety issue, but an inconvenience.
Mr. Weiler opened the hearing to public comment regarding the waiver request.
Robert Nelson, an abutter, said that vehicles currently slide off Nelson Hill Road and was concerned about fire access on that road. It would be a considerable expense to have all wheel drive vehicles to maintain the road.
Sue MacNamara, an abutter, was concerned about the safety accessing lots 17, 18, and 19.
Mr. Weiler said that the Highway Administrator didn’t seem to be concerned, but the Board would look into it.
Jeff Bates said that the Highway and Fire Departments did not feel it was a safety issue, but it was the Board’s decision. He asked if there were any changes to the common land.
Mr. Stewart said that they were going to make a proposal, but that it would take some time. He said that they may change the open space, but not the trail. He said that they were also going to make some changes with respect to Selectman Wright’s comments about the deer yards.
Mr. Weiler said that they could come back to that issue at the next meeting.
Mr. Weiler closed the hearing to public comment and asked the Board if they had any additional questions or comments regarding the waiver.
Mr. Weiler closed the hearing for deliberation.
Mr. Bachelder said that he was inclined to grant the waiver because the people involved in maintaining the road and the expert all recommended it.
A motion was made to grant the waiver. Seconded. All were in favor.
Mr. Stewart submitted revised plans to the Board and took the old ones back.
Mr. Stewart requested a continuation of the hearing.
A motion was made to continue the hearing on August 17, 2004 at 8:00 pm. Seconded. All were in favor.
A motion was made to adjourn. Seconded. All were in favor. The Meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lacy L. Cluff
Land Use Board Assistant
| 
