Planning Board
Tuesday/June 15, 2004
Members Present: William Weiler (Vice Chair), Al Bachelder, David Thayer, Ron Williams, Peter Fichter (Alternate Ex-Officio) and Ken McWilliams (UVLSRPC)
Bill Weiler called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.
The meeting minutes from May 18, 2004 were reviewed and corrections were made. A motion was made to accept the minutes as corrected. Seconded. All in favor.
Mr. Williams said that he will be attending an impact seminar and will discuss it at the next work session.
Case: 2004-012: Conceptual Review - Clark Davis - Deli - 889 Route 103.
Thomas Dombrowski introduced himself as Clark and Evelyn Davis’s representative. Clark and Evelyn Davis were also present.
Mr. Dombrowski said that the Clarks were renovating a 1310 square foot building, not including the porch. He explained that the front area is currently paved and was used for parking for the previous real estate business. He said that they would be removing this pavement and putting in lawn.
Mr. Davis said that the parking lot was located in the highway right of way and they didn’t like the idea of backing out into the highway.
Mr. Dombrowski said that part of the new gravel parking lot would be located in the State right of way, but they would get approval from the State.
Mr. Davis said that the property had an existing well and septic. He said that the septic was just put in last year and had been approved for commercial use. It has been approved for 300 gallons a day. They have submitted a request for change of use with D.E.S.
Michael Marzelli said that his brother, Lou Marzelli, and himself are looking to lease the property from the Clarks and open an Italian deli. They plan to serve coffee, ice cream and take-out food.
Michael Marzelli passed out a preliminary layout of the deli.
Lou Marzelli said that the restroom would be for employee use only, not the public. He thought that they would use well under 300 gallons a day.
Mr. Dombrowski said that they would put lights in the back of the building for night parking.
Mr. Weiler said that there is no light ordinance, but recommended that they select lighting that does not expose the bulbs and if the lights are on a post, have a fixture directing the light towards the ground.
Mr. Weiler asked if the Board had any questions.
Mr. Williams asked about the number of proposed entrances.
Mr. Davis said that there would be two entrances, one for the public and one for the employees.
Mr. Williams asked what type of sign they intended to put up.
Mr Davis said that there was an existing sign that was 4X6 and an existing post for it. They plan to put up the same size sign on the existing post.
Mr. Williams said that he would like to see the landscaping plan. The regulations require at least ten feet of landscaping between the business and road.
Mr. Fichter asked if it was an issue that part of the road was paved and part of it was gravel.
Mr. Davis said that there was a runoff issue that he has been working with the Town and the State to resolve. The Town has agreed that the water issue needed to be resolved before winter.
Mr. Fichter asked if the water was emanating from private property.
Mrs. Davis said that it was.
Mr. Dombrowski asked if they could submit the final application in July.
Mr. Weiler said that they could as long as he submitted it at least 21 days prior to the next meeting.
Case: 2004-013: Public Hearing - Town of Newbury - Highway Garage - South Road.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application from the Town of Newbury for Site Plan Review of a new Highway Garage on South Road on Tuesday, June 15, 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.
Mr. Weiler read RSA 674:54, paragraph 2. He explained that this hearing was for informational purposes only and no decision would be made by the Planning Board.
Charles Hirshberg from CLD Engineers introduced himself as the authorized agent for the Town of Newbury.
Mr. Hirshberg presented the proposed plan for the site. He explained that they would like to put the Town Garage on a 3.02 acre parcel of land that was subdivided off of Walter Graf’s property.
Mr. Hirshberg said that the Town was proposing to put a 150' X 100' building, a salt shed and site related items. The access would be off of South Road.
Mr. Hirshberg explained that this property was part of Mr. Graf’s gravel pit and showed the area that had been disturbed on the plan. He explained that they would be utilizing just over 2 acres of the property. He showed the areas that would be graded and vegetated. He explained that everything drains away from the building.
Mr. Hirshberg said that the salt shed would be located in the back of the site about 100' from the building.
Mr. Hirshberg explained that they would have a self contained closed drainage system on the site with tanks that would periodically need to be pumped out. He said that the yard area will be gravel and that all of the equipment will fit inside.
Mr. Hirshberg said that in terms of a construction schedule, they were waiting for Mr. Graf to move off site and needed some additional soil examination, but were planning to start fairly soon. They would like to be in the new garage before winter.
John Bruss from Bruss Construction presented the building plans to the Board and explained the building layout. He explained that there would be a 7' high concrete wall with three separate bays and a 14' wood structure above the wall. He said that both the garage and salt shed would have a metal roof and metal siding.
Mr. Bachelder said that he was concerned that this site was over an aquifer and does not understand how spills are really going to be contained.
Mr. Hirshberg said that both the trench drain and the wash bay have drains that are self contained. The drainage goes into a closed system. He also said that E.P.A. requires a spill prevention plan.
Mr. Fichter asked if there was any protection in the salt shed area.
Mr. Hirshberg said that the salt shed has a similar self contained system and said that nothing goes into the ground.
Mr. Hirshberg said that they have done test pits and the soil changes from sand to silt and the water table is about 7 to 8 feet below grade.
Mr. Fichter asked about access and traffic. He asked if the South Road access was the only access or if there was a right of way across Mr. Graf’s property.
Jim Powell, Selectman Chair, said that they did have some discussions about a possible right of way across Mr. Graf’s property, but made the decision to have their own access. However, they could use Mr. Graf’s road in the case of an emergency.
Richard Wright, Selectman, said that the Town may also use Mr. Graf’s road to access his gravel.
Mr. Weiler asked where truck sanding units would be stored.
Calvin Prussman, Highway Administrator, said that they have not decided. They will store them in their current location until they decide, but there is plenty of room on site.
Mr. Williams asked if there were any showers.
Mr. Bruss said that there were two showers and showed there locations on the plan.
Mr. Hirshberg added that there was also an eye wash and first aide station.
Mr. Williams asked where the roof drain was for the salt shed.
Mr. Bruss said that it was not necessary to have one because the shed is pushed back into the banking.
Mr. Fichter asked if metal buildings had reasonable life spans, especially as a salt shed.
Mr. Bruss said that the metal building may be an issue at some point, but it would be an issue with any material that was used.
With no further questions from the Board, Mr. Weiler opened the hearing to public comment.
Scott Falvey from South Road asked for clarification that this project could not be vetoed.
Mr. Weiler said that that was correct.
Mr. Falvey said that he did not feel that the Town chose an appropriate location. He was concerned that the salt and any spills would eventually get into the aquifer. He also mentioned that at the hearing to have Mr. Graf’s property subdivided, Mr. Wright said that the Town would be getting an easement across Mr. Graf’s property and now they were not. He is concerned about the increase in traffic on South Road. He said that his pond and well are located directly across the street and was concerned about contamination.
Mr. Prussman said that when he was sanding/salting the roads, it was a lot closer the Mr. Falvey’s well than it was going to be in the new salt shed.
Mr. Prussman went on to say that when this project was presented at Town Meeting, it was discussed in length and he does not recall any objections then. He felt that if Mr. Falvey was concerned about the location then he should have been at Town Meeting.
Mr. Weiler said that the purpose of this hearing was so that the Board could hear the proposed project and the public’s comments and offer advice.
Mr. Falvey said that he felt that an easement across Mr. Graf’s property would help reduce the traffic.
Bill Syverstein from South Road said that he was against the location of this Highway Garage and felt that it was contradictory to what the Master Plan says. He felt that putting it in a residential area was the worst possible location and was very disappointed in the Town’s and Selectmen’s decisions.
With no further questions or comments from the Board or public, Mr. Weiler declared the hearing finished.
Mr. Weiler asked if the Board would like to make any written comments within 30 days.
Mr. Bachelder said that he thought that the Board should agree on the comments.
Mr. Weiler made a point that the State Route 103 goes through the aquifer and someone could open a gas station along that road. Any uses should be done in a careful way.
Mr. Fichter said that there were two issues. The first being the vulnerability of the aquifer and the second was the traffic. The Board needed to consider whether there was another location for this site and if all the technology available has been used.
Mr. Weiler suggested that any Board member who felt that they would like to make a written statement to the Selectmen put it in writing for discussion at the next Work Session.
Case: 2004-002: Final Hearing - Hewitt Realty Trust - Minor Subdivision
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application from Hewitt Realty Trust for final approval of a Minor Subdivision on Cloudland Lane, Map 30 Lot # 133-521, on Tuesday, June 15, 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 application was withdrawn.
Case: 2004-009: Conceptual Review - Eric Fuchs - Minor Subdivision - 193 Route 103 - Map 50 Lot 625-308 & Map 50 Lot 649-290.
Robert Stewart from RCS designs introduced himself as the authorized agent for Eric Fuchs.
Mr. Stewart explained that Mr. Fuch’s owned two pieces of property with frontage on Routh 103. He would like to do an annexation/lot line adjustment to give one of the lots 250' of lake frontage.
Mr. Stewart explained that the smaller of the two lots would then be made slightly larger and have lake frontage and the other lot would still be conforming.
The Board said that they did not have any problems with what he was looking to do.
Case: 2004-006: 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 May 18, 2004.
Mr. Weiler said that when the Board reviewed the application for completeness at it’s past meeting, the application was not accepted as complete because the following items were missing or needed to be addressed:
1. Police protection, under the impact assessment.
2. Visual impact, in the Impact Study.
3. Department sign-off sheets (Do not need sewer or Department of Transportation).
4. Impact on surrounding conservation (Mr. Weiler said that if nothing was effected, that needs to be stated.
5. Soils report prepared by soil scientist or engineer showing suitability of soils for the proposed development (It is implied, but needs to be addressed literally).
6. Fire protection plan.
7. Items A, G, H, D, E & I, Legal documents (Section V.A.8), including conveyances of the roads to the Town (Mrs. Freeman said that the descriptions of the easements can be described on the plans). Also needs to talk to the Fire Chief concerning ownership of the cisterns.
8. Agency & permit approvals.
9. Plan B-5, Lot 16 is missing a driveway plan.
10. Plan D-5, Shows detail of retaining wall, but not the location on the plat.
Robert Stewart from RCS Designs introduced himself as the authorized agent for Angel Hawk, LLC.
Mr. Stewart said that Police Protection (Item #1) was included in the original application, but said that he would meet with the Chief to address any issues that he may have.
Mr. Stewart said that all of the Department Sign-Off Sheets (Item #3) were submitted to the Board and were now part of the file.
Mr. Stewart submitted a Visual Impact Statement (Item #2), Conservation Impact Statement (Item #4) and Soils Report (Item #5) to the Board (Please see file).
Mr. Stewart said that the fire chief would work out a fire protection plan (Item #6) when the roads and lots were approved. He will needed the finer details to do this.
Mr. Stewart said that the legal document would be submitted (Item #7). Susan Hankin-Birke, the legal representative for Angel Hawk, was supposed to attend this hearing.
Mr. Stewart said that he felt it would be premature to get the agency & permit approvals when the Board has not accepted the application yet (Item #8).
Mr. Weiler said that what he was saying regarding the fire protection plan and agency and permit approvals made sense, but he needed to put that in writing when he submitted the application. He also needed to put what permits and approvals were needed.
Mr. Stewart said that he would need the following approvals:
1. D.E.S. Subsurface Subdivision Approval
2. Site Specific
3. 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.
David Eckman from Eckman Engineering also mention that page 2 of section 2 in the application packet addressed fire protection services. It said that “on-site cistern is proposed and will be located as required by the Fire Department. Minimal impact is projected based on the fact that no anticipated expansion of the fire department is required as a result of the additional 21-houses proposed in the Town of Newbury.”
Mr. Weiler asked Mr. Stewart when he was planning on getting the Subsurface Subdivision Approval.
Mr. Stewart said that he planned on applying for it after the application had been accepted, but before the final approval.
Mr. Stewart explained that lot #16 (Item # 9) had a separate driveway easement from the cul-de-sac across lot #8.
Mr. Stewart said that plan C-2 showed the location of the retaining wall that was detailed on plan D-5 (Item #10).
Mr. Weiler said that it needed to be labeled.
Mr. Stewart agreed.
A motion was made to accept 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.
The motion was seconded. Three members voted in favor and one member abstained. The motion carried.
Mr. Weiler asked Mr. Stewart to present the project.
Mr. Stewart presented an overview of the subdivision. He explained that the proposed project was a 21-lot subdivision located on Sutton Road and Nelson Hill Road. He said that 9 lots would be accessed by the existing Town road and the remaining lots would be accessed by the proposed road.
Mr. Stewart said that the road was engineered by Eckman Engineering and had been designed to town standards. However, they would like to talk to both the Highway Administrator and Conservation Commission about constructing the road at a 10% grade to decrease the total impact on the area. He said that the primary goal was to minimize on-site disturbance. Mr. Stewart went on to say that the state design regulations advise that roads do not exceed a 14% grade in hilly areas.
Mr. Stewart said that he was taking into consideration a suggestion from Richard Wright with respect to the deer yards in the area and the Master Plan. They were looking into increasing the open space.
Mr. Stewart said that Nelson Hill Road needed some work and they have talked to the Highway Administrator, Calvin Prussman, and are planning to meet with him and the road agent from Sutton to look at how to fix the current situation. They would like to widen and improve the existing road without disturbing the rural character.
Mr. Stewart said that he realized that the road issue will talk time to work with. He said that he is willing to work with the Police and Fire Departments, as well as the Conservation Commission to maintain safety while minimizing the impact on the environment.
Mr. Stewart said that he also understood that he would need to submit a waiver if they chose to go with the 10% grade.
Mr. Stewart submitted a check for $5,000 to start the process of having an independent engineering consultant look at the project. He said that he did not know if the Board had an engineer in mind, but he was very happy with Lou Caron on the Whitethorn Subdivision.
The Board agreed that Lou Caron would be a good choice for a consulting engineer.
Mr. Weiler asked Mr. Stewart if he was looking for something from the Board tonight regarding the 10% grade.
Mr. Stewart said that his intension was to do the least amount of disturbance as possible and would like the Board’s opinion.
Mr. Williams said that he was going to need to show how much they would be reducing the disturbance by going from an 8% grade to a 10% grade.
Mr. Eckman said that they are able to meet the 8% grade requirement, but it is not their preference. He said that Nelson Hill Road has a 14% grade and felt that a 10% grade would be consistent with the area. He said that he does not feel that an 8% grade would be the best design because they would have to go through a lot of bedrock.
Mr. Weiler said that he was concerned with the 10% grade and how cars will fair on it in the winter.
Mr. Stewart said that it would be the same as how they fair on Old Post Road that was a 14% grade.
Mr. Stewart said that he would like to start the engineering process and get Mr. Caron’s feedback.
Mr. Weiler said that he would get in touch with Mr. Caron to start the process.
Mr. Weiler said that he would like to spend about 15 more minutes with questions from the Board and then turn it over to public comment.
Mr. Bachelder said that he had some questions on the impact studies, but felt it was a little early in the process to address those.
Mr. Williams asked for clarification that lot 21 was going to be accessed via a driveway easement across lot 20 off of Sutton Road.
Mr. Stewart verified that that was correct.
Mr. Weiler asked Mr. Stewart if he had had conversations with Cal Prussman, the Highway Administrator.
Mr. Stewart said that he had talked to Mr. Prussman regarding the grade of the road and how to improve Nelson Hill Road.
Mr. Bachelder asked him to address common land.
Mr. Stewart said that there was a trail running through one of the properties and that the total common land was 2 acres.
Mr. Weiler asked if he had looked at site differences for the driveways.
Mr. Stewart said that he had and asked that Mr. Prussman expand on it.
Mr. Prussman said that the state regulations require that they most adequately protect the safety of the public. However, he was concerned about how the watershed from these 8 additional driveways were going to effect the Town’s culverts and ditches.
Mr. Eckman said that they submitted studies with the application and the increase was going to be very minimal.
Mr. Williams said that they have these studies, but they need to be verified by the consulting engineer.
Mr. Prussman said that he would like the studies to be verified because all 8 of the driveways pitch toward Sutton Road.
Mr. Eckman said that they have pre-development and post development plans on plans WS-1 and WS-2.
Mr. Prussman said that he also felt that Nelson Hill Road needed to be upgraded. He would also like to know their long term plans because he knew that Angel Hawk had also purchased a 64 acre parcel on Cheney Road. He saw Eckman Engineering surveying the lot and would like to know their future plans.
Mr. Stewart said that this was the only proposal that he was aware of and had no knowledge of any future plans.
Mr. Prussman said that he wanted to be sure that the roads were constructed properly for future plans.
Mr. Stewart said that he understood his concern, but did not have any knowledge of any future plans.
Mr. Weiler opened the hearing to public comment.
Richard Wright, Selectman, said that he had walked the property and was concerned about the amount of wetlands and steep slopes in the area. He thought that the Board needed to upgrade the lot standard.
Mr. Wright said that he was particularly concerned about lots 20 & 21 because lot 21 was primarily wetlands and lot 20 had some wetlands and where the house was proposed was a habitat area and a deer yard. He would like to propose that they eliminate the house on lot 21 and move the house on lot 20 closer to the road. He would also like to encourage them to put in a trail easement that goes out to the road.
Mr. Stewart said that there appears to be a lot of steep slopes because of what the Planning Board considers a steep slope. Newbury considers a steep slope to be any slope 25% or greater, but the state considers a steep slope to be any slope 35% or greater.
Robert Nelson from Sutton Road said that he was concerned about safety on the corner of Poor Farm Road and Sutton Road. He said that a lot of high school students traveled that road to and from school. He was also concerned about how some of the lots were going to be accessed and if they were going to be crossing wetlands.
Mr. Stewart said that there are no proposed wetland crossings.
Mr. Nelson said that he was on the Sutton Fire Department and wanted to know how the retention ponds were going to be maintained and how accessible they would be. He also thought that they needed to talk to the fire department to see how they will access the home during the winter with such steep slopes. Mr. Nelson said that he would like to see the wetlands and wildlife protected as well. He was also concerned about future development and the impact of that.
Marci McNamara said that she and Sue McNamara had submitted a letter to the Planning Board and addressed those points in the letter (Please see file).
Jeff Bates from Newbury said that he was concerned about the drainage onto Sutton Road.
Mr. Eckman reiterated that they have done calculations and the increase in runoff will be very minimal.
Mr. Bates asked if the consulting engineer would do his own calculations.
Mr. Weiler said that the consulting engineer would look at the applicants figures and determine whether or not they were accurate.
Mr. Bates said that the developer needed to upgrade the roads, not the Town or the taxpayers. He was also concerned that the common land was all wetlands.
Mr. Stewart said that he would take these concerns into consideration.
With no further questions from the Board or public, a motion was made to continue the hearing on July 20, 2004 at 9:00 pm. Seconded. All in favor.
Case: 2003-019: 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 continued until July because they were not prepared to present this evening. A motion was made to continue the hearing on July 20, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. Seconded. All were in favor.
A motion was made to adjourn. Seconded. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lacy L. Cluff
Land Use Board Assistant
| 
