Planning Board
November 15, 2005
Members Present: Barbara Freeman (Chair), William Weiler (Vice Chair), David Thayer, Travis Dezotell, Al Bachelder, Ron Williams, Clay Rucker (Alternate Ex-Officio), Deane Geddes (Alternate), Lacy Cluff (Alternate).
Mrs. Freeman opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Administrative Business
Case: Adm1-058: Capital Improvements Program (C.I.P.)
Ivor Freeman said that he made changes to the C.I.P. to address the Board’s questions and comments from the last meeting.
Mrs. Freeman asked the Board if they had any questions.
With no questions, Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve the C.I.P. for 2006. Mr. Dezotell Seconded it. All were in favor.
Mrs. Freeman said that there was going to be a joint board meeting on November 30, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. She said that she hopes everyone can make it.
Case: 1991-008: Murphy’s Grill
Mr. Weiler said that he wanted to bring to the Boards attention an item in selectmen’s minutes of September 6, 2005. Tom Behrens was talking to the selectmen regarding Murphy’s Grill. He said that he wanted to enclose the deck and put on an addition in 2006. He mentioned an annual allotment of space expansion unless it was in excess of 500 square feet. This was inaccurate. Mr. Weiler said that he was going to make an amendment in the criteria for Site Plan Review that would require him to come before the Board for Site Plan Review.
Mr. McWilliams said that he should also ask him to come before the Board.
Case: 2005-013: Site Plan Review – Los Cuatro Amigos – Real Estate Office and Wellness Studio – Rout 103 – Map 020 Lot 059-155.
Mrs. Freeman said that she tried to call Karen Baker of Los Cuatro Amigos, but had not heard back from her. She said that there were, again, about 20 cars in the parking lot for a class that was taking place in that building. The building is under construction and does not have an occupancy permit yet.
Case: Adm1-061 - Master Plan – Community Attitude Survey
Mr. McWilliams passed out copies of the revised survey for the Board to take home. He said that he added a cover page. He asked the Board to take a close look at it. At end, he included 2 options for a map. He would like to finalize the survey on December 6th and get responses before the holidays.
Mr. Rucker said that at the last meeting there was a lot of discussion about putting the survey on the website. He asked if it was going to be on the website.
Mr. McWilliams said that he was not sure where it was left.
The Board decided that they would like to give residents the option of filling the form out on the internet.
Mrs. Cluff said that she would talk to Patricia MacDonald, Land Use Board Coordinator, about putting the survey on the website.
Case: 2005-023: Conceptual - Bill Caruth – Site Plan Review for a book store – 1424 Route 103 – Map 007 Lot 447-061.
Mr. Caruth passed out plans to the Board.
Mr. Geddes asked where the property was located.
Mr. Caruth said that it was the 1806 house at the traffic circle, the Bellman’s residence.
Mr. Caruth said the he understands that the property is located in the commercial district. It was a Bed and Breakfast about 14 years ago. The only thing new that they would like to add is a book store. He said that they currently own a book store in Epsom. He said that they would like to continue with the book business in Newbury. It would be a smaller store than they currently have and they would also like to include local crafts people.
Mrs. Freeman asked if he knew what the septic was currently designed for.
Mr. Caruth said that is was designed to accommodate 10-15 people according to the Bellman’s.
Mrs. Caruth said that there would be no water in the book store and that they would not provide a public rest room in book store.
Mr. Caruth said that there could be a traffic concern, but felt that that could be addressed with appropriate direction signs, indicating that customers should enter off the traffic circle and exit on West Province road.
Mrs. Caruth said that it would be a one way drive, the way it is set up now.
Mr. Caruth said that they do not anticipate a lot of traffic. He said that people were not going to park all day.
Mr. Rucker asked if they were going to expand the driveway into parking.
Mrs. Caruth said yes.
Mrs. Freeman asked if the regulations permitted them to have two businesses on one lot.
Mr. McWilliams said that they did.
Mrs. Freeman asked if any of the Board members saw any problems.
Mr. Bachelder said just parking, but some could be added.
Mrs. Caruth said that there are gardens that they would remove to add parking.
Mrs. Freeman asked if they would only be serving breakfast at the Bed and Breakfast.
Mrs. Caruth said yes.
Mr. Weiler recommended that they get a copy of the Site Plan Review Regulations from the Town Office.
Mrs. Freeman said that if there were any items that the applicant did not feel were applicable; just submit a written waiver.
Mr. Caruth asked the Board if he should apply for preliminary review or just final review.
Mrs. Freeman said that preliminary review would allow him to get input from the abutters, so if there was a problem, it could be addressed before the final review.
Mrs. Freeman asked if the Board had answered all their questions. Since all their questions were answered, Mrs. Freeman told them that they could get the application from Patricia MacDonald, Land Use Board Coordinator.
Case: 2005-022: Final Review-Sarah Bullis – Minor Subdivision – 159 Cheney Road – Map 042 Lot 287-426.
Mrs. Freeman Read the above public notice.
David Eckman from Eckman Engineering introduced himself as the authorized representative. Sarah Bullis was also present.
The Board reviewed the application for completeness.
Mr. McWilliams asked if there were any State permits needed.
Mr. Eckman said that there were not because of the size of the lots (over 5 acres).
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board needed to determine if the review by Clayton Platt was adequate for the deer analysis requirement.
Mr. Geddes commented that the letter said that the property sits on the north side of Cheney Road, but he would say it was the south Side of Cheney Road.
Mr. Eckman said that it was an error, probably at typo, and that he would have Mr. Platt correct it.
The Board agreed that they were happy with Mr. Platt’s analysis for the deer yard on this size lot.
The following items were missing:
1. Driveway access needs to be on plan.
2. Label contours.
3. Location of test pits on soils map.
4. Steep slope demarcation is not clear.
5. Soils report is missing. A motion was made to waive soils report 9.6. It was seconded. All were in favor. The applicant was asked to provide a written request for a waiver.
A motion was made to accept the application as complete with the condition that the above items be submitted. It was seconded. All were in favor.
Mr. Eckman said that it was a two lot subdivision. There is an existing house on lot one. There are some steep slopes in back, but they have been accounted for. One lot is 5.61 and other is 6.06.
Mrs. Freeman said that she was confused about how he did the density report.
Mr. Eckman said that the buildable area is smaller on the existing house. It is not on one buildable acre.
Mrs. Freeman said that they would need to go to the Zoning Board if they wanted to build on less than one contiguous acre. Current zoning would also not allow two lots on this site. They can only have one lot with the density calculation because of the gravel road.
Mr. Bachelder suggested Mr. Eckman could look at steep slopes again because it does not look like all the steep slopes indicated were actually steep slopes. If they re-do the calculations they may be able to get two lots.
Mr. McWilliams said that the second issue was the buildable area on lot one.
Mr. Williams said that some of the meets and bounds and culverts were not shown, so that is also incomplete.
A motion was made to disapprove the application because the density was not calculated in accordance with paragraph 5.12.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance and the buildable area of lot number one was not one contiguous acre as required by paragraph 5.10 in the Newbury Zoning Ordinance. It was seconded. All were in favor.
Case: 2005-010: Final Review – Pickman and Sons Development – Major Subdivision – Gillingham Drive and Old Sutton Road – Map 052 Lot 607-064.
Mr. Weiler recused himself because he is an abutter.
Mrs. Freeman Read the above public notice.
Mrs. Freeman explained that the applicant had been before the Board for preliminary hearings on this project and this is the first submission for final. The Board has to first determine if the application is complete. If it is complete, the applicant will give a presentation. The Board will ask the applicant questions and then the chair will open the hearing to public comment. The chair will then close to public comment and may continue or deliberate and make decision.
David Eckman, Eckman Engineering, introduced himself as the authorized agent for Pickman and Sons Development.
The Board reviewed the application for completeness and found the following items to be missing:
1. Sign-off from Fire Chief and Conservation Commission.
2. Soils report.
3. Fire protection plan .
4. 9.12 infrastructure impact report.
5. Site specific.
6. Subdivision approval.
7. Special Exception for wetlands.
8. 9.16, legal documents. Need covenants, if having an association,. 9.16.7 Indemnification, 9.16.9, 9.1,7 Homeowners association documents.
In regard to the homeowner’s association documents, Mr. Eckman said that they planned to have two associations, one for the cluster development and one for the traditional development.
Mr. McWilliams said that they would need to first divide the entire parcel into two lots, one for cluster and one for traditional. As presented, it is all one.
Mr. Eckman said that they would do the subdivision however the Board would like. He said that they were not trying to complicate things, just let them know.
Mr. Dezotell said that if they subdivide it in two, it may not work at all because the road goes through both parcels.
Mr. McWilliams said that they can have it all as one association.
Mr. Eckman said that someone had suggested that it should be two separate associations.
Mrs. Freeman said that she thinks it should be treated all as one.
Mr. Weiler said that cluster development is treated as a separate entity in the Newbury Zoning Regulations with separate requirements.
Mrs. Freeman said that they could consider the whole project a cluster development; just some lots are a lot larger.
Mr. McWilliams said that that would make it cleaner.
Mr. Eckman said that it would depend on how you looked at the open space. They currently have 36% overall open space.
Mrs. Freeman said that they would not comply with the 40% required for a cluster development.
Mr. Williams said that when looking at the open space, one requires x amount and the other requires y.
Mrs. Freeman said that it would require looking at two different requirements in the zoning ordinance.
Mr. McWilliams asked if there was a way to cut down the size of some of the larger lots to get the open space up to 40%.
Mr. Eckman said that the buildable area in most of the larger lots was near the back, so it may not be possible.
Mrs. Freeman said that they were very close to having 40% open space and the Board would feel more comfortable looking at the whole development as a cluster.
Mr. Bachelder asked why they could not waive that.
Mr. McWilliams said that it would require a variance.
Mr. Eckman asked if they could use part of lots as open space per paragraph 10.6.2.1.
Mrs. Freeman said that they would have to have a deed restriction and that it seemed like a strange way to do it.
Mr. Eckman said that he would do his best to do it the other way, but does not want to lose any lots.
Mrs. Freeman suggested that he look at the uplands of lots 15 -19. She said that they were not buildable.
Mr. Eckman said that they may be able to do that.
Mrs. Freeman said that they had a choice. They could find the extra acreage and review whole thing as a cluster or reapply with two applications.
Mr. Eckman said that he would try to find that acreage.
Mrs. Freeman said that they have heard a lot of concern from the public about the density. They could lessen it and increase the open space and alleviate some of those concerns.
Mrs. Freeman said in light of what has been discussed, she does not feel the Board can accept the application as complete. They need to apply as a cluster development.
Mr. Bachelder said that they need a special exception for crossing wetlands with roads, also, before they can really do anything.
A motion was made to not accept the application as complete at this time. It was seconded. All were in favor.
Cal Prussman, Highway Administrator, asked about off site improvements.
Mrs. Freeman said that that would be part of the infrastructure.
Mr. Eckman asked if they could get Lou Caron’s comments before next meeting.
Mrs. Freeman said yes, the applicant can do that and asked if they would you like him to be at next meeting.
Mr. Eckman said yes because that would help move things along.
Mr. McWilliams said that they may want to meet with Mr. Prussman before next meeting as well.
A motion was made to adjourn. It was seconded. All were in favor. Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lacy L. Cluff
Recording Secretary
| 
