Planning Board
Tuesday, February 16, 2005
Members Present: Barbara Freeman (Chair), William Weiler (Vice Chair), David Thayer, Al Bachelder, Travis Dezotell (Alternate), Deane Geddes (Alternate), Lacy Cluff (Alternate) and Ken McWilliams (UVLSRPC).
Mrs. Freeman called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m.
Mrs. Freeman appointed Travis Dezotell and Lacy Cluff as voting members.
The Board reviewed the minutes from 01/05/05 and made corrections. A motion was made to accept the minutes as corrected. It was seconded. All were in favor.
The Board reviewed the minutes from 01/18/05 and made corrections. A motion was made to accept the minutes as corrected. It was seconded. All were in favor
Mrs. Freeman handed out materials on the process for the public hearing for Angel Hawk.
Mr. Bachelder distributed CD’s containing PDF minutes and Indexed Case #s for each Board member to have as a reference.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board needed to review the Subdivision Regulation draft that corresponded with the proposed zoning changes. A meeting was scheduled for 02/23/05 at 7:00 p.m. at the Newbury Safety Services Building.
Case: 2005-002: Final Hearing – John R. Davis and Clark and Evelyn Davis – Annexation – Lot Line Adjustment – Tax Map 020-084-062, 020-072-043 & 020-046-050.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application from John R. Davis and Clark and Evelyn Davis for Final Hearing for an Annexation/Lot Line Adjustment on Route 103, Tax Map 020-084-062, 020-072-043 & 020-046-050, on Wednesday, February 16, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the Newbury Safety Services Building at 952 Route 103 in Newbury, NH. If the application is accepted as complete, a public hearing on the application will commence at the same meeting.
Copies of the plans are available for public review at the Town Office Building during regular business hours.
Mrs. Freeman read the above public notice.
Bob Stewart from RCS Designs introduced himself as the authorized agent for Clark and Evelyn Davis and John Davis. He submitted a letter for the file.
John Davis was present at the hearing.
The Board reviewed the application for completeness. A motion was made to accept the application as complete. It was seconded. All were in favor.
Mr. Stewart presented the plan to the Board and explained that they would like to do a lot line adjustment. He said that they were starting out with two lots and they would be ending with two lots. He showed where the existing lot lines were and where the new ones were to be. He explained that John Davis was annexing 0.28 acres to Clark and Evelyn Davis and Clark and Evelyn Davis were annexing 1.02 acres to John Davis.
Discussion took place on who the railroad right of way belonged to.
Mrs. Freeman said that she talked to Dennis Pavlicek, Town Administrator, who had talked to Bart Mayer, Town Attorney. Mr. Mayer said that the right of way did in fact belong to the Davis’s and not the Town.
A motion was made to approve the application. It was seconded. All were in favor.
The Board signed the mylar and gave it to Mrs. Cluff to be recorded.
Case: 2005-003: Final Hearing – Fairly Stable, LLC – Site Plan Review –
B & B and Spa - Tax Map 007-419-072 & 007-354-039.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application for Site Plan Review from Fairly Stable, LLC for a Bed and Breakfast and Therapeutic Spa at 2 West Province Road, Tax Map 007-419-072 & 007-354-039, on Wednesday, February 16, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Newbury Safety Services Building at 952 Route 103 in Newbury, NH. If the application is accepted as complete, a public hearing on the application will commence at the same meeting.
Copies of the plans 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. A motion was made to accept the application as complete. It was seconded. All were in favor.
Charlie Hirshberg introduced himself as the authorized agent for Fairly Stable, LLC. Emily Welsh, the owner of Fairly Stable, LLC was present.
Mr. Hirshberg explained that the building was existing and had an existing well. He said that the current well was a dug well and that they would be putting in a drilled well. He said that there was an existing septic on an adjacent piece of land that they had an easement for. He said that they would be replacing that with a larger one. He said that the parking was all existing and that there was room for 11 cars. He showed the parking spaces on the plan. The parking would be adequate because there would be four guest rooms, one owners quarters and a maximum of two cars per hour other than guests who were staying at the Inn. He said that they would also like the option of putting a room above the existing guest house.
Mrs. Freeman said that he would need to remove two of the parking spaces, spaces 1 and 7 on the plan because they were not accessable.
Mr. Williams asked why there was such a large landscaped area adjacent to the parking spaces.
Mr. Hirshberg said that it was existing and the owner liked it.
Mr. Williams said that if he put a room above the guest house that that would make five guest rooms.
Mr. Hirshberg said that if they were to do that then they would eliminate one of the other rooms and make the owners quarters larger.
Mr. McWilliams said that that needed to be clear on the plans.
Mr. Hirshberg asked if the Board could limit it to four guest rooms as a condition.
Mr. McWilliams said that the fire chief was going to need to sign off on the plan, so there can only be one set of plans. He will need a solid plan as to the layout.
Mr. Hirshberg said that he would have a structural engineer look at it to determine where the fourth guest room could go.
Mr. Williams asked if the sanitary system was approved for this facility.
Mr. Hirshberg said that he was not sure if they were going to need a permit from the Department of Health in order to operate a spa.
Mrs. Freeman said that they may need that.
Mr. Bachelder asked how the spa was going to be drained.
Mr. Hirshberg said that the spa did not use a lot of chemicals and the ones that it did use dissipated over time. He said that the State will allow mini dry wells to drain them.
Mrs. Freeman said that she did not feel that that was a satisfactory answer and that the Board was going to need to see how it was going to be discharged. If there was to be a mini dry well, it needed to be on the plan.
Mr. Bachelder asked if it was an option to have it hauled off.
Mr. Hirshberg said that that would be an option, but not necessary because there were so few chemicals used. He asked if it would be acceptable in the septic approval process, to have DES approve a dry well.
Mrs. Freeman said that it would.
Mr. Bachelder asked if they had approval to be able to expand the septic since it was on an easement.
Mr. Hirshberg said that the deeded easement allows for the expansion as long as it was under 900 gallons per day. If it were larger than that, it would require different setbacks.
Mr. Bachelder said that the property owner should have to sign off on the expansion.
Scott Falvey said that that was not necessary because the deed allowed for the expansion.
In that case, the Board asked for a copy of the deed showing that.
Mrs. Freeman asked if the Board felt that there were too many conditions to make a decision on this plan tonight.
Mr. McWilliams said that they would need clarification on the dry well.
Mr. Weiler said that he felt that they needed to have a more solid plan. He commented that the title block was not to the specifications in the regulations.
Mrs. Freeman opened the hearing to public comment.
With no comments from the public, a motion was made to continue the hearing to March 15, 2005 at 8:00 p.m. at the Town Office Building. The following items needed to be addressed at that meeting:
1. Remove two parking spaces (spaces #1 and #7).
2. Septic plan with location of dry well.
3. Sign off sheets from the department heads.
4. Copy of deed showing easement and permission to expand.
Case: 2005-004: Final Hearing - Susan Carl - Cottage Industry Site Plan Review – Electrolysis - Tax Map 051-425-529.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application for Site Plan Review (Cottage Industry) from Susan Carl for an electrolysis business at 57 Route 103, Tax Map 051-425-529, on Wednesday, February 16, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. in the Newbury Safety Services Building at 952 Route 103 in Newbury, NH. If the application is accepted as complete, a public hearing on the application will commence at the same meeting.
Copies of the plans 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.
Mrs. Freeman noted that Ms. Carl was requesting a number of waivers.
Mr. McWilliams said that the Board may want the fire chief to look at it to check for fire extinguishers and exits.
Mrs. Freeman asked what floor she would be operating her business on.
Ms. Carl said that she would be operating it from a walk out basement.
Mrs. Freeman said that the application seemed complete except for the waivers. The Board addressed each of the waivers as follows:
1. A motion was made to waive the requirement for the fire chief to sign off on the plan. It was seconded. 5 were in favor and 1 opposed. Waiver was granted.
2. A motion was made to waive the requirement for the road agent to sign off on the plan. It was seconded. All were in favor. Waiver was granted.
3. A motion was made to have Department of Transportation sign off on the plan. It was seconded. All were in favor.
4. A waiver was submitted for permits and approvals. Mrs. Freeman asked if a permit from the State was required. Ms. Carl said that it was and it would need to be inspected. Mrs. Freeman said that the Board could not waive this requirement and that they would need a copy of that.
5. A waiver was submitted for the elevations. Mr. Weiler said that he would like to have photos of all four sides of the structure. Mrs. Freeman said that the Board would not waive this requirement, but that the photos would suffice for this requirement.
A motion was made to accept the application as complete with the condition of photos from all four sides of the structure and State inspection and Department of Transportation sign-off. It was seconded. All were in favor.
Mrs. Freeman asked when the building was built.
Ms. Carl said that it was built in 1967 and she purchased it three years ago.
Mr. Geddes asked what her hours of operation would be.
Ms. Carl said that she would be open Monday through Friday by appointment only.
Mrs. Freeman opened the hearing to public comment.
With no comments from the public, a motion was made to approve the application with the condition of photos of all four sides of the structure and State approval. It 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 Newbury Planning Board will conduct a Public Hearing to reconsider its decision on the Application from Angel Hawk for a final hearing for a Major Subdivision off Sutton Road and Nelson Hill Road, Tax Map 48 Lot # 599-442, which was denied on Tuesday, November 16, 2004. This Public Hearing will be conducted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 at 8:00 p.m. at the Newbury Safety Services Building at 952 Route 103, Newbury, N.H.. If the Board votes to rescind its decision it will reopen the Application to consider revised plans submitted by the applicant.
Mrs. Freeman read the above public notice.
Mrs. Freeman explained that the developer of Angel Hawk came before the Board willing to modify the plans extensively and wrote a letter in that regard. The letter listed the conditions under which the Planning Board would reconsider their decision to deny the application. The Board reviewed each of the items as follows:
1. The development would have no more than fourteen lots. The new plan showed only 14 lots.
2. There shall be no road construction or development in the steep areas between stations 1375 and 1475 on the current subdivision access road. This section of the road must be relocated or removed. The section of the road was removed.
3. Reduce the number of driveways entering onto Sutton Road. In particular, reduce the number of driveways in proximity to the curve on Sutton Road, in the vicinity of Poor Farm Road. Improve sight distances for all driveways to meet AASHTO standards (Design Controls for Stopping Sight Distance and For Crest of Vertical Curves). Provide drawings documenting sight distances for all driveways on Sutton Road. The number of driveways was reduced from 6 down to 2.
4. For all lots sited on the ridge of the development, limit cutting of trees to the specifications found in the Town of Newbury Zoning Ordinance Skyline/Hillside Conservation Overlay District (Article XVIII). Deed restrictions and the homeowners association documents on these lots shall assure that these regulations are followed in perpetuity. The homeowners association documents shall contain a provision for Town enforcement of the restriction. Susan Hankin-Birke read the deeds and restrictions (Please see file).
5. Define the location of the Building Envelope for each lot. The Building Envelope is defined as the entire area where the house, accessory structures, septic and well are permitted to be constructed. The Building Envelope shall exclude zoning setbacks and any undevelopable areas including wetlands, the 75 foot wetland buffer, surface waters, the 75 foot shore land buffer, 100 year flood plains, steep slopes and deer wintering areas. Indicate on the plan how the Building Envelope shall be accessed from the street. Deed restrictions and the homeowners association documents shall indicate these as the only areas where construction will be permitted. The homeowners association documents shall contain a provision for Town enforcement of this restriction. All building
envelopes were shown on the plan.
6. Map deer wintering areas on the subdivision plans. There shall be no fragmentation of deer wintering areas by construction of roads, buildings or any other development. The development’s homeowners association by-laws and covenants and the deeds to lots will prohibit construction and development of any kind in these areas. The deer wintering areas were mapped out on plan.
7. Map all stonewalls and cairns (cultural features) on the subdivision plan. These cultural features shall be preserved. Restrictions on their removal shall be included in the development’s homeowners association by-laws and covenants and the deeds to individual lots. They were all located on the plans B7 and B10.
8. Provide easements and guarantee the preservation of the existing trail and public access for the length of the trail where it is on the development parcel. Provide and show an easement for a new trail connected to this trail on lots now shown as 20 and 8. The homeowners association by-laws shall provide for the maintenance of the trail. Susan Hankin-Birke read these documents (Please see file).
Mrs. Freeman noted that the letter stated that the applicant realized that these may not be the only issues and that addressing these items did not guarantee an approval.
Mrs. Freeman asked if the Board had any questions.
Mr. Bachelder asked if they had any information on the sight distances on the two driveways on Sutton Road.
David Eckman, Eckman Engineering, said that that information was located on plan C7 and the sight distance for both driveways was 250 feet.
Mrs. Freeman asked if there was any place where the graphs referred to a legend in the building envelope.
Mr. Eckman said that a note or legend could be added.
Richard Reeves, developer, said that it was in the deeds.
With no further questions from the Board, a motion was made for the Board to rescind its decision to deny the Angel Hawk subdivision subject to continuing review of the revised plans. It was seconded. All were in favor.
Mrs. Freeman said that the application was now re-opened.
Mr. Reeves said that they made all of the requested changes and believed that this was a very workable plan. He said that Mr. Eckman was available to answer any technical questions.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board was very familiar with the plan, but asked that Mr. Eckman briefly highlight the improvements that were made.
Mr. Eckman said that it was a 92 acre parcel that they originally were trying to subdivide into 21 lots. They had now cut that down to 14 lots. He said that they shortened the interior road so as to keep out of any steep slope areas. The number of driveways on Sutton road was decreased to 2 from 6 and the sight distances were 250 feet. The trail used to lead to the open space, but it had now been extended to the road with an easement and maintenance agreement. The deer wintering areas that Mr. Wright had identified were all being protected and they had located all of the cairns and stone walls on the plans.
Mr. Weiler noted that lots 13 and 14 shared a common driveway. He said that he felt that it would be better to enter at lot 13 instead of 14 because the road was straighter there.
Mr. Eckman said that they chose the location because of the topography, but that they could certainly make that change.
Mrs. Freeman asked what size the building envelopes were.
Mr. Eckman said that he was not sure.
Mrs. Freeman said that the well and septic needed to be inside the building envelope.
Mr. Eckman said that their building envelopes were consistent with the skyline overlay district where the well and septic did not need to be in the building envelope.
Mrs. Freeman asked the Board if they wanted the well and septic to be inside the building envelope.
The Board decided that the well and septic could be outside the building envelope.
Mrs. Freeman commented on the shape of lot 14 and asked why he did not shorten the lot since the back of it was all deer yard.
Mr. Reeves said that he intended to purchase that lot and wanted to keep it the shape that it was.
Mrs. Freeman said that that was fine, it was just an odd shape.
Mrs. Freeman said that she would like to have the Board’s consulting engineer, Lou Caron, review the revised plans.
Mr. Reeves said that he would accept that if it were a requirement, but that he would like to get moving on the project.
Mr. Eckman commented that they had minimized a lot of the impacts, but had not changed other factors.
Mrs. Freeman said that she did not feel that the review process was going to take long.
Mrs. Freeman opened the hearing to public comment.
Richard Wright from Morse Hill Road said that they had addressed his previous concerns regarding the wildlife. However, he had heard that Angel Hawk had purchased some land adjacent to this property totaling 410 acres. He said that in the past, the Board had required that they present the total plan and asked if they were going to require that of this developer.
Mrs. Freeman said that in this case it may be advantageous not to require that of the developer because they would need to apply under the new regulations for any further development. She said that the new regulations were more restrictive.
Jeff Bates, an abutter, said that he felt that it would be in the Town’s best interest to know their entire plan.
Cal Prussman, Highway Administrator, commented that he had asked these questions on the May 17, 2004 meeting, but had not had a response.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board would need to discuss if they would like to make it a requirement or not.
Robert Nelson, an abutter, commented that one of the driveways accessed from Sutton Road was very steep and he was concerned about the drainage and the impact on the road. He also commented that the stone wall that was drawn on the plan continued all the way to the road.
Mr. Dezotell commented that there was also another junction off of the cairns that was not shown.
Mr. Eckman said that he would look at it again. He addressed Mr. Nelson’s concern about the driveway and said that plan C7 showed that it was going to be cut in and therefore did not feel that it was an issue.
Mr. Nelson asked if the property owners were going to be able to cut down additional trees for views.
Mrs. Freeman said that would not be able to because it was going to be restricted.
With no further questions, Mrs. Freeman closed the hearing to public input.
Mr. Weiler said that he would like to pursue the assessment impacts for any adjacent properties in the Subdivision Regulations.
The Board agreed that that would be a good idea.
Mrs. Freeman commented that the plan was much improved and more sensitive to the land.
Mr. Bachelder corrected some typos on the plans where they still referred to 21 lots on plans B1 and B3.
Mr. Eckman said that he would make those corrections.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board would need a letter from the applicant in order to continue.
Ms. Hankin-Birke said that she would send one tomorrow.
A motion was made to continue the hearing on March 15, 2005 at 8:30 p.m. in the Town Office Building. It was seconded. All were 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 Newbury Planning Board will received submission of an application from Briott, LLC for a final hearing for a Major Subdivision off Southgate Road, Tax Map 51 Lot # 694-483 on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 at 9:00 p.m. in the Newbury Safety Services Building at 952 Route 103 in Newbury, N.H. The application was accepted as complete on May 18, 2004. A public hearing will commence on the accepted application.
Copies of the plans are available for public review at the Town Office Building during regular business hours.
Mrs. Freeman read the above public notice.
Steve Jesseman from Jesseman and Associates introduced himself as the authorized agent for Briott, LLC. He said that with this revised plan, he had tried to address the concerns of the public and Planning Board, primarily, the issue of crossing the railroad bed. He said that there was a lot of objection to it, so they re-investigated entering in another area where they did not need to cross the railroad bed. He said that at the last hearing, they had ended the discussion with the request to waive the dead end road length limit of 1,500 feet.
Scott Falvey introduced himself as the owner of Briott, LLC and then introduced his brother, Mathew Falvey and said that he was going to be heading this project.
Mathew Falvey introduced himself and told the Board of his background and then introduced Tim Higginson, an engineer from Jesseman and Associates.
Mr. Higginson said that he was going to focus on what had been revised from the previous plan. He said that the primary point of access had changed and no longer crossed the railroad bed. He said that they would still need the waiver from the 1,500 foot requirement. He said that the boulevard design that they had presented was a very safe design to overcome the issue of a dead end road.
Mr. Higginson noted that on Plan K1, the deer wintering areas were being protected. He said that they had also merged a couple of the lots near Beals Brook and a couple of other lots to enlarge the conservation area to 20 acres. He said that they had additional drainage and erosion control plans in place.
Mr. Higginson said that they had revised the plans in terms of the materials and amounts used for the construction of the roads per the Highway Administrator’s request (Please see letter in file).
Mathew Falvey noted that they were also going to be paving Southgate road 50 feet to the east and out to Route 103.
Mr. McWilliams asked how long the dead end road was.
Mr. Higginson said that it was 3,200 feet to the end of Deer Pines Road.
Mr. McWilliams said that he did not think that that was the farthest point.
Mrs. Freeman read Cal Prussman’s letter (Please see file).
Mr. Higginson said that they planned to work with the independent engineer in terms of sight distances and other issues, but needed acceptance of the waiver on the dead end road distance in order to continue.
Mr. McWilliams asked why they could not continue the road all the way through.
Mr. Higginson said that it would require crossing the railroad bed that had been determined to be common land. He said that their client owns lot 11. However, documentation on their ability to cross it without all of the owner’s approval was unclear.
Scott Falvey said that they had initially proposed to cross over the railroad bed as was part of the original Southgate plan in 1988. At the last hearing, it was determined that their right to do that was questionable. He said that the abutters claimed that their ability to cross it was not available. He said that it would be a very expensive legal battle. He said that he had tried to accommodate the abutters, but had been unable to negotiate because they felt that if they did not allow them to cross it, the subdivision could be minimized.
Mr. Weiler said that it would greatly enhance the subdivision if it had a through street.
Mrs. Freeman asked what the distance of the street was to the far hammerhead.
Mr. Higginson said that it was 3,700 feet.
Mr. McWilliams asked if they had considered a cluster development in order to shorten the road.
Mr. Higginson said that they had looked at it, but that it did not meet the goal of the client. He said that the development potential for this lot was 59 lots and they would only be developing half of its potential.
Mrs. Freeman said that she had heard that comment before, but felt that it was erroneous because of the characteristics of the land.
Mr. Higginson said that he understood that.
Scott Falvey said that it would not be feasible to shorten the road because they needed to go in 1,000 feet for the first driveway.
Mrs. Freeman asked what the slope of the road was.
Mr. Higginson said that it was a maximum of 8%.
Mrs. Freeman said that she would like to address the issue of the boulevard. She said that it was true that it was the Planning Board’s idea back in the conceptual design of the project. She said that since then, the Highway Administrator had stated that he did not feel that it was a good idea. She said that the Board needed to determine if they were willing to grant a waiver or not. She said that if they were not willing to grant it, they were going to need to come up with another plan. She said that the Board may also want to get the input of the fire chief.
Mr. Bachelder said that he would not be willing to grant it at this point because the State of New Hampshire called for 1,000 feet and felt that Newbury was being very liberal in extending it to 1,500 feet.
Mr. Geddes said that he was concerned about the width of the road and how the highway was going to maintain it. He felt that it would be in constant need of repair because of the center island.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Prussman, Highway Administrator, to address that concern.
Mr. Prussman said that a four foot median would definitely be an added maintenance. He commented that there was potential for that area to turn into wetlands which would create a problem because they would not be able to touch it. He also said that he did not understand what they felt they were going to accomplish with the median because if a tree were to fall and block the road, a large tree would still block both sides of the road. He also said that he did not feel that it would set a good precedent.
Scott Falvey said that the medians were going to have turn around points.
Mr. Prussman asked him to point them out on the plan and asked how many there would be.
Mr. Higginson pointed them out and said that there were six of them.
Mr. Prussman said that that was going to be very difficult to plow.
Mathew Falvey said that they ideally did not want a median either, but felt that it was an innovative way to handle the issue of the dead end road. He said that many Towns use this design.
Mr. Prussman said that that was true. He said that Concord used that design, but that they also had 150 trucks and he only had 6. He said that it was going to take a lot of time when someone could be maintaining a main road.
Mr. McWilliams commented that they could make the road a private road if they wanted to.
Mathew Falvey said that they would be willing to do that.
Mr. Williams was concerned that the fire equipment could not make a u turn because of the turn radius.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board would have the fire chief address that concern.
Mrs. Freeman opened the hearing to public comment.
Ken Dustin, an abutter, said that there were enough changes that the Board should have required a new application.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board had discussed this issue and was going to require preliminary applications in the future.
Mr. Dustin said that at the last hearing, the Board had requested a number of things including a traffic study, wetlands analysis, etc.
Mr. Higginson said that those had all been submitted, but that they were just addressing the issue of the dead end road at this point.
Richard Wright said that he was concerned about the boulevard and agreed with Mr. Prussman in terms of the median turning into a wetland. He said that waivers had been granted in the past, but the only extenuating circumstance here was that the developer could not make as much money. He also said that he believed that they were planning to put houses where there were deer yards. He felt that the plan needed to be re-designed with less impact on the land.
Mr. Dustin said that he did not feel that it was going to be in the best interest of the Town for them to only reconstruct half of Southgate Road. He said that he felt that 33 lots was a significant increase that should warrant reconstruction of the entire road.
Mr. Prussman said that he agreed with Mr. Dustin and had voiced that concern in his letter. He felt that it should be a requirement for them to pave the entire length of Southgate Road even if it was going to be a private road. He commented on all of the upgrades that Angel Hawk had to do to Nelson Hill road for only 14 lots.
Scott Falvey said that with the Capital Improvement Plan, it would be upgraded and the Board would be asking them to upgrade a road that would be upgraded in the future regardless.
Mr. Prussman said that that was absolutely not true and that was not the intention of the Capital Improvement Plan. He said that as a taxpayer he would not be in favor of his tax money going towards upgrading a road because a developer was going to make a substantial amount of money. He told Mr. Falvey that he was given inaccurate information.
Susan Manchester introduced herself as Briott, LLC’s attorney and said that she would like to address the issue of the waiver. She said that the Board could issue a waiver of compliance because of the unique condition of the property. She said that the property was very narrow with a lot of steep slopes and wetlands. She said that like a Variance, the rules of Boccia should also apply and therefore the Board should also consider that there is a financial hardship. She said that the fact that the developer was not going to make as much money was a factor. She said that she did not feel a precedent was going to be set because of the unique character of this property. She said that if the developer chose to fight the property owners who owned the common land, that was going to cost a lot of money
causing another financial hardship. She said that she felt that a waiver should be granted because without it, this project could not be developed. She said that she felt that the applicant had a true economic hardship.
Mr. Dustin said that he did not agree that the developer had a financial hardship. He said that he wished he could get a waiver for every poor investment that he ever made. He felt that the developer should have done his homework prior to purchasing the land.
Mr. Prussman agreed with Mr. Dustin. He said that Briott, LLC made a choice to purchase this property. He compared it to his choice to send his children to college which had been a financial burden, but was still a choice none the less.
Barry Common said that his house was directly across from this road and was concerned about what an 8% grade was going to look like on his front lawn in the Spring.
Mr. Higginson addressed the grades and said that it was not going to be a detriment to his house or Southgate Road.
Mr. Common said that he also did not agree with the financial hardship argument.
Allen Craigie asked what the definition of financial hardship was.
Ms. Manchester said that without this waiver, this project would not be able to be developed.
With no further questions from the public, Mrs. Freeman closed the hearing to public comment.
A motion was made to deny the waiver for the dead end road. It was seconded.
The Board did not feel ready to vote on the issue and therefore the motion was withdrawn.
Mr. Weiler said that there had been a lot of discussion about the cost and asked if an all out effort had been made to put in a bridge or if payments could be made to the owners of the common land.
Scott Falvey said that he was concerned that some property owners may find that degrading.
Mr. Weiler asked him to consider it.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board would speak to the fire chief and the consulting engineer.
She said that the Board would need a letter to continue.
A motion was made to continue the hearing to April 19, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. at the Town Office Building. It was seconded. All were in favor.
A motion was made to adjourn. It was seconded. All were in favor. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lacy L. Cluff
Land Use Board Coordinator
| 
