Planning Board
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Members Present: Barbara Freeman (Chair), William Weiler (Vice Chair), David Thayer, Travis Dezotell, Al Bachelder, Clay Rucker (Alternate Ex-Officio), Lacy Cluff (Alternate).
Mrs. Freeman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Administrative Business
Mrs. Freeman appointed Lacy Cluff as voting members.
Mrs. Freeman said that at the last meeting she had appointed Clay Rucker as a voting member, but realized that he will always be a voting member if the Ex-Officio is not present.
The Board reviewed the minutes from July 19, 2005 and made corrections. A motion was made to accept the minutes as corrected. It was seconded. All were in favor.
Case: 2005 - 016: Public Hearing – PSNH
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to RSA 231:158 the Newbury Planning Board will conduct a Public Hearing for the purpose of trimming and removal of trees by PSNH for general line maintenance on the following designated scenic roads: Cheney Road and Old Province Road on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 7:15 p.m. in the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, N.H.
Mrs. Freeman read the above public notice.
David Crane from PSNH introduced himself as the authorized agent for PSNH.
Mr. Crane said that what PSNH was doing was normal routine maintenance. He said that they had started trimming and clearing on Old Province Road and Cheney Road. They were not aware that they were now scenic roads. Once it was brought to his attention, he moved crews off those roads until tonight’s hearing.
He said that they were trimming here sooner than average. Usually they trim in a four year cycle. Newbury has a higher rate of outages because it is rural and the power is not coming out of a local substation. Customers in Newbury receive tree outages twice as much as average. Last year there were six tree related outages on Old Province and Cheney Road. Five of them were on Cheney Road. Since he submitted his letter to the Board, has found that there are 27 trees on Cheney Road that are dead or dying and need to be removed.
Mrs. Freeman asked why there were so many on Cheney Road.
Mr. Crane said that he suspects that 10 or 15 years ago, there was major road construction. The manner in which they are dying is typical of root damage. He said that he did not know for sure, only speculation. He sees this pattern a lot in new developments, so it is speculation. There are multiple tree species, so he did not think it was a disease or insect problem.
Mr. Bachelder said that it has not been 4 years since he had seen PSNH trimming.
Mr. Crane said that it had been four years since they did a complete trimming. He said that you will see PSNH yearly with dead trees or calls. This will be a complete trimming.
Mr. Rucker asked what they did with the debris.
Mr. Crane said they put the wood chips into woods if it is a wooded area unless there are ditches or would look unsightly. Otherwise, they put it in box and haul it away. Wood chips are available to anyone for free. The wood is left for landowner unless they do not want it.
With no further questions from the Board, Mrs. Freeman opened the hearing to public comment.
Cal Prussman, Highway Administrator, asked about leaving stumps.
Mr. Crane asked him to let him know the area and he would take care of it. He said that some of the clearing was done in the winter and they may have missed some stumps.
Ray Dupris from Cheney Road said that he missed the first part of the hearing and said that there were a lot of big trees that were dead or dying and they have trimmed them before. He asked if they were going to remove any of them.
Mr. Crane told him that he missed the earlier conversation and they did plan to take those down. He said that they started trimming that road, but then realized it was a scenic road and needed a public hearing. He said that there were about 27 trees that they planned to take down. Some were dead and some were dying. They typically look at the likely hood of tree dying in next four years. When this maintenance is done, it typically cuts tree related outage by about 48%. A road like Cheney Road is always going to see more outages due to trees than urban area.
With no further questions, Mrs. Freeman closed the hearing.
Case: 2003-015: Final Hearing – Scott B. Hill – Minor Subdivision – Stoney Brook Road – Map 026 Lot 205-146.
Notice is hereby given that the Newbury Planning Board will received submission of an application from Scott B. Hill for a Final Hearing for a Minor Subdivision on Stoney Brook Road, Tax Map 026 Lot # 205-146 on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 at
9:30 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 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 above public notice and explained that this hearing had been continued from June 21, 2005. She said that the application had not been accepted as complete, but the Board was still reviewing the application.
Robert Stewart from RCS Designs introduced himself as Scott Hill’s authorized agent.
Mr. Stewart said that at the last meeting, two things were discussed, a request for a waiver for topography and a reworking of the density report so that it included the entire parcel, not just the individual lots.
Mrs. Freeman commented that the request was received 8 days prior to hearing, not 10.
Mr. Stewart said that 10 days prior to the hearing was a Saturday.
Mrs. Freeman said that for the future, it should be submitted on Friday then.
Mr. Stewart said that he was requesting the waiver for the topography because the contours go up and down, not consistently up or down.
Mr. Weiler said that the Board usually got this kind of a waiver for a plan that was steep or highly variable because contour lines would be close together. This was a very flat piece of land and he wanted to see the detail.
Mr. Stewart said that he would think that to do two foot contours would be more necessary in a steeper area.
Mrs. Freeman said that she saw Mr. Stewarts point.
Mr. Weiler said that he wanted two foot contours to see the detail.
Mr. Stewart said that it was done with 5 foot contours, so there was not much of a difference. He said that it was not as though it was done with 20 foot contours.
Mr. Rucker asked Mr. Weiler what he was looking to see.
Mr. Weiler said that he did not know. There may be a feature that you would not see with a five foot contour.
Mrs. Freeman said that she was inclined to grant the waiver given the size of subdivision and that the land was basically flat and they were trying to determine if they could subdivide it into three lots. She said if it were many more lots and a specific concern, may be worried about granting a waiver.
Mr. Weiler said that he made a site visit and found it hard to visualize because it was heavily wooded and there were some swamps. It looked like there were severe drops in a couple of places. He said that he was not going to press the issue further, but felt it was an issue worth discussing.
Mr. Bachelder asked why it had not been done correctly since it was not a new requirement.
Mr. Stewart said it was because of the layout of the land.
Mrs. Freeman asked if it was a cost issue.
Mr. Stewart said that that was one part of the consideration.
A motion was made to grant the waiver. It was seconded. All were in favor.
Mrs. Freeman said that there was also the issue of calculations for density.
Mr. Stewart said that that was submitted and that the Board should have that.
Mrs. Freeman said that in the density report he goes into what was in last months minutes about the new state statute. She asked Mr. Stewart to refer the Board to that RSA.
Mr. Stewart said that it basically says that towns were getting liberal with their definitions of wetlands and state legislature wanted to make it more uniform. He was unable to refer the Board to the correct RSA, but said that he had it in his office and would get it to them.
Mr. Weiler said that the Board had a discussion with their consultant, Ken McWilliams, long before this application and he said that we did not need to amend the Zoning Regulations because we conformed to it.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Stewart if he was saying that there were wetlands on this property that the Town would consider wetlands, but the State would not.
Mr. Stewart said that the state statute said that an area needed to meet three perameters, vegetation, hydrology and soil, to be considered a wetland. He said that their were areas that have wetland vegetation that do not fall into state wetlands definition. He said that yes, there was an inconsistency between the State Statute and the Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Freeman made the suggestion, since the Board was trying to establish if the application was complete and had submitted all requirements that they move forward. She said that she believed that all the requirements had been submitted. Whether the Board agreed with the materials was another issue.
Mr. Stewart said that maybe Ken McWilliams could bring the Board up to speed.
Mrs. Freeman said that she was not sure that the Town could not have a more strict definition than State. She said that the Board may need to look into it further.
Mrs. Freeman said that the density report said that there was no density factor and there is a density factor of 1.5 because it is on a gravel road.
Mr. Stewart said that he felt that there were substandard and standard gravel roads and that they should not all be lumped together. He also did not feel that it was clear in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board used 1.5 multiple for all gravel roads because in winter time, gravel roads were difficult even if they were built to standards. She said that the Board made this decision with the Fire Chief and Highway Administrator.
The Board felt that the Zoning Ordinance was clear in stating that all gravel roads had a 1.5 multiple and that the density needs to be lower than what he was proposing.
Mr. Stewart asked if from 103A to Baker Hill Road to Stoney Brook had a cumulative effect.
Mrs. Freeman said that they did not.
Mr. Stewart said that it was his understanding the zoning was 2 acres and you would then add a multiplier of 1.5 making it 3 acres. If the road leading to the subdivision was substandard than another factor was added in.
Mrs. Freeman said that that was not correct.
Mr. Dezotell said that that was part of discussion while writing the Zoning Ordinance amendments, but not what was voted in.
Mrs. Freeman asked that given that the density requirements were not met did he want to withdraw the application and reapply?
Mr. Prussman said the he wanted to address the issue with the gravel roads. He said that he did not feel that all gravel roads should be lumped together. Stoney Brook road is flat with good visibility. The Board could not compare that road to a road like Brown Road. He said that they needed a little leeway on gravel road issue.
Mrs. Freeman said that she drove all the roads with Mr. Prussman and at time he agreed that all gravel roads should be grouped together.
Mr. Prussman said yes, but that Mrs. Freeman said that the Zoning Ordinance already lumped them all together. He said that some of the roads needed to be looked at individually.
Mrs. Freeman said that even if they did not take the gravel road into consideration, Baker Hill road was on the road classification list as having a 1.5 multiple.
Mr. Prussman said that he understood that, but wanted to give his input on the gravel road issue.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Stewart if he wanted to withdraw the application or resubmit.
Mr. Stewart said that he wanted to be clear that the two issues were wetlands and the road.
Mrs. Freeman said that that was correct.
Mr. Stewart said that he did not want to withdraw the application, he would like the Board to vote.
Mrs. Freeman said that a Board member would have to make a motion to disapprove the application because the density report was not correct; therefore the subdivision did not comply.
Mrs. Freeman opened the hearing to public comment.
With no public comment, Mrs. Freeman closed the hearing to public comment and a motion was made to disapprove the application based on the density report. It was seconded. All were in favor.
Mrs. Freeman told Mr. Stewart that for the future, the Board now required 8 copies of any plans, one large and 7 small copies.
Case: 2003-011: Continuation Preliminary Hearing – Pickman and Sons Development, LLC – Major Subdivision –Gillingham Drive – Tax Map 052 Lot 607-064.
Notice is hereby given that the Newbury Planning Board will received submission of an application from Pickman and Sons Development, LLC for a Preliminary Hearing for a Major Subdivision off Old Sutton Road, Tax Map 052 Lot # 607-064 on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 at 9:30 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 will commence on the accepted application.
Copies of the plans are available for public review at the Town Office Building during regular business hours.
Mr. Weiler recused himself because he was an abutter.
Mrs. Freeman read the above public notice and explained that this hearing was continued from May 17, 2005. She said that the application had already been accepted as complete.
David Eckman from Eckman Engineering introduced himself as the authorized agent for Pickman and Sons.
Mr. Eckman passed out a revised subdivision plan for Board to review. He said that it was a new concept. He said that he was trying to meet in the middle with what the Board and his client wanted and hopefully came up with a plan that worked.
Mrs. Freeman passed out a copy of the plans for the public to review. She asked them to be returned at the end of the hearing.
Mr. Eckman said that he wanted to give some background information first. He said that they came before board in April with loop road. After doing a site walk and got input from Board they have been working through the design process. He said that they now had a through road to Gillingham Drive. He said that they would like to move towards the final hearing by wrapping up the preliminary hearing tonight. He said that they now had 16 cluster lots and 19 traditional lots. It is a hybrid subdivision. He said that they divided out the traditional lots and gave 10% open space with those traditional lots, he then took the remaining 74 acres and made a cluster leaving 66 acres as open space. The end result was 35 lots. He said that following the regulations, they could get 35
traditional lots. He said that they have the same number of lots, but left more open space. He said that they wanted input from Board on this type of hybrid subdivision. He said that they were in the process of doing a deer yard and wild life study, but that they were not complete yet. He said that they would have those in a couple of weeks.
Mrs. Freeman said that at the last hearing, the Board was concerned about the stone wall boundaries and that they had not changed the plans to try to preserve those.
Mr. Eckman said that they went back out and located the stone walls and the trails and had a map showing both. He said that the stone wall did not follow the town line. It moved around. He said that on the map, the white lines were stone walls and the brown lines were trails (logging or ATV). He looked at perambulations for both towns and neither called for stone wall as a marker for the town line. He said that he did try to move the road, but hit another intersection of stone walls. He did move it some and would be willing to talk to the Wetlands Bureau about putting it closer to wetlands. He said they were stuck between wetlands and steep slopes. In one section he did push the road up, but unfortunately where it was on the town line it was wedged between wetlands and steep
slopes. He said they spent 3 days locating these. They could go to state to ask if for historic preservation of stone walls, they could push the road toward the wetlands. However, it would double the wetland impact if they were to move the road.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Town did not really want them to impact the wetlands more either.
Mrs. Freeman said that the other issue the Board had was the road down to Gillingham Drive. She said that they were going to pass on plans to Lou Caron, consulting engineer. She asked if they had done that.
Mr. Eckman said that they were currently working on a new traffic study. He said that he wanted to expand that first. He said that the Town had a counter that they put out and that Mr. Prussman submitted that information to him and he found it to be very useful. Another counter is still currently out there. He said that he wanted to contact Lou Caron, but wanted the information to be complete.
Mr. Prussman submitted his report to Board.
Mr. Prussman had 26 - 35 vehicles a day passing on Gillingham Drive. The 50 percentile was 24 mph and the 85 percentile was 28 to 31 mph.
Mr. Prussman showed three different criteria, vehicle speed, volume and axle count for type of vehicle. He measured both north bound and south bound.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Eckman what he wanted the Board to look at tonight.
Mr. Eckman said that he wanted the Board to look at the idea of a hybrid subdivision. He said that he realized that the Board did not want any lots in the center wetlands, but the client wanted more lots.
Mrs. Freeman asked how he came up with the numbers.
Mr. Eckman said that he took the traditional area of 81 acres and left 10% as open space. From there, he did a cluster design and left 66% of the cluster area open. That was how he interpreted the Zoning Ordinance and he was looking for the Board’s input.
Mrs. Freeman said that she would like to see this with the density requirement to see what percent of the developable land, if any, was being left open.
Mr. Eckman said that he was waiting for the final analysis of the deeryards before doing the final analysis. He said he would like comments on the concept.
Mr. Eckman said that he would like the next step to be a final application. If this plan was fairly solid, he would like to go to the Town of Sutton.
Mrs. Freeman asked for input from Board.
Mr. Bachelder said that he was uneasy about commenting on the overall concept because the Board had not had any input on the Gillingham Road access. He said that it was hard to make a decision without that.
Mr. Dezotell said that he would also like to see the wildlife biologist report.
Mr. Rucker said that he liked the balance and would like to see how the traffic studies turn out.
Mrs. Freeman thought the Board needed more information about the intersection onto Gillingham Drive. She said that although the Board liked the idea of the cluster development, they may argue for less density in the final because of the traffic and safety issues or the land could not support that density because of the wildlife biologist report.
Mrs. Freeman asked for the consensus of the Board.
The Board was okay with the idea of having both traditional and cluster lots.
Mrs. Freeman said that she would like Ken McWilliams to look at the proportion of open space to lots because it was a combination of traditional and cluster lots.
Mrs. Freeman opened the hearing to public comment. She asked that the public please raise their hand and wait to be recognized then, state their name and address. She asked that they only comment on the basic preliminary concept.
Albert Tonkin, Gillingham Drive, said that in the Summer time, most of the houses were on the opposite side of the road from the lake and children were always crossing the road.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board needed comments from the Police Chief.
Bill Weeks, Gillingham Drive, questioned the placement of the traffic counter. He felt they were missing a lot of the traffic.
Mr. Eckman said that they were looking at speed as well. He said that they will continue to look into it. He said that safety, geometry and speed all came into play for the traffic study.
Mr. Weeks said that the proposed location for the road to intersect with Gillingham Drive was just before a sharp corner and visibility was terrible.
Mr. Eckman said that he was still working on those site distances.
Carol Tonkin, Gillingham Drive, said that the problem was that most of the houses had property on both sides of the road and a lot of people walked along that road. She was concerned about safety with an increase in traffic.
David Friedline, Old Sutton Road, said that the counter did not pick up the bulk of the traffic. He said at the last meeting the Board asked the developer to address the safety concerns, but they had not addressed those yet.
Mr. Eckman said that they were still working on it and were considering possible upgrades to the road.
Mrs. Freemam said that there had been enough concern about the traffic study that the Board would like to ask Lou Caron for a recommendation of an independent consultant to review and comment on the traffic study.
Chris Fry, Old Sutton Road, said that the counters should be on both roads at the same time, not in April on Old Sutton Road and August on Gillingham Drive. He felt that if it were done at different times you would be comparing apples to oranges.
Mrs. Freeman said that she would like to see the police chief at the next meeting to see if something could be done to institute safety measures by the developer.
Margerie Weeks, Gillingham Drive, asked if the Regional Planning Commission was notified of this meeting.
Mrs. Freeman said that they had been.
Ms. Weeks asked if the developer owned the property that accessed Gillingham Drive.
Mr. Eckman said that they did.
Ms. Weeks was concerned about the 10% grade going up behind her property. She asked how the blasting was going to affect her property.
Mr. Eckman said that the people that blast are licensed by the State and that it should not affect her property if they follow the rules.
Ms. Weeks said that she was concerned about her well. She was also concerned that all 35 homes were going to have wells and asked if the aquifer could handle that. She said that she already had challenges with her well.
Mrs. Freeman asked if she had a deep well.
Ms. Weeks said that she could look into that.
Mr. Eckman said that the lots were about 4 acres on average which was adequate.
Mrs. Freeman said that Ms. Weeks’ lot was near the cluster. She said that they may want to verify that they could supply that number of houses with water.
Mr. Eckman said that he would look into it.
Ms. Weeks was concerned about them putting in a road with a 10% grade because of the existing water issues in the spring. She felt that it would be a corridor for that water to flow into Lake Todd.
Mr. Eckman said that they had ditches that discharged it and small treatment and detention areas. He said that it would get to Lake Todd, but after it was treated.
Ms. Weeks asked how it was going to be treated.
Mr. Eckman said that it was not finalized, but possible vegetative treatments.
Ms. Weeks asked if the road was going to be salted and sanded in the winter.
Mr. Eckman said that it would be sanded, but did know about salt.
Mr. Prussman said that they only mix enough salt to keep the sand from freezing.
Mrs. Freeman said that the consulting engineer would be looking at all of these issues as well.
Jerry Gold asked if it would be possible to have a map to show more of the surrounding road because there are a lot of dangerous turns on both roads.
Mrs. Freeman said that there were plans available showing an aerial, but asked if Mr. Eckman could provide that for next time, even if it was just from the town maps. She asked that they show down to Route 103.
Mrs. Freeman closed the hearing to public comment.
Mrs. Freeman asked if they were going to conclude the preliminary hearing and apply for final review.
Mr. Eckman said yes, if the Board was comfortable with the concept they would like to go to the Town of Sutton for approval.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Eckman if they had everything that they needed from the Newbury Plannng Board.
Mr. Eckman said yes.
Mrs. Freeman closed the hearing.
Case: 2005-013: Site Plan Review – Los Cuatro Amigos – Real Estate Office and Wellness Studio – Rout 103 – Map 020 Lot 059-155.
Notice is hereby given that the Newbury Planning Board will receive submission of an application for Site Plan Review from Los Cuatro Amigos for a real estate office and wellness studio on Route 103A (Tax Map 020, Lot 059-155) on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 9:00 p.m. in the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103, Newbury, N.H. If the application is accepted as complete, a public hearing will commence at the same meeting.
Copies of the application are available for public review at the Town Office Building during regular business hours.
Mrs. Freeman read the above public notice.
Karen Baker a partner of Los Cuatro Amgios introduced herself and said that they were applying for a site plan review because of a change in the use of the property. She said that she had some updates to application. She submitted the sign off sheets from the police chief, fire chief and Highway Administrator. She said that she had a drawing of the potential sign as well.
The Board reviewed application for completeness.
Mrs. Freeman asked if she hired a surveyor.
Ms. Baker said no that they used the survey done for the septic system.
The Board agreed that that was fine.
Mrs. Freeman noted that the abutters and zoning district were not on the plan.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to waive the location map because the property was in a central location. Mr. Dezotell seconded it. All were in favor.
Mrs. Freeman noted that the grade was not on the plan.
Ms. Baker said that D.O.T. recommended paving, but said that the grade was not going to change at all. She said that they also requested that they put curbing because of safety concerns.
Mrs. Freeman said that both of those needed to be shown on the plan. She said that the land needed to be graded to drain properly.
Ms. Baker asked if they could request that as a condition.
Mrs. Freeman said that she was not sure that they could because it was a major part of the review.
Ms. Baker asked if they could leave it unpaved and come back with a plan if they decided to pave it.
Mr. Rucker asked if they were still required to put the island in which would affect the drainage.
Ms. Baker said that they were.
Mrs. Freeman said that the plan only showed grading around the septic.
Mr. Weiler noted that Park 10 road was not on the plan and needed to be.
Mrs. Freeman commented that even though something has existed for many years, part of Site Plan Review was to upgrade the site to current regulations.
Mr. Weiler said that the Town currently did not have a site plan on this property. The Board needed to know what was existing and what was proposed.
Mrs. Freeman recommended that they seek a professional for help with the application.
Mrs. Freeman commented that the parking was minimal and pushed up against the building.
Ms. Baker said that the dimensions were all on the plan and were in line with what was required by the current Site Plan Review regulations.
Mr. Weiler asked if there was handicap parking.
Ms. Baker said that there was not currently. She said that the ADA did not require handicap parking for an existing structure due to a change of use, just recommended it.
Mrs. Freeman said that she would question that because they were renovating the structure.
Mrs. Freeman said that there needed to be a key on the plan stating what any abbreviations or symbols represented.
Mrs. Freeman said that there was no utility plan.
Ms. Baker said that it was all in place and not going to change.
Mrs. Freeman said that that needed to be documented.
Mr. Rucker asked if they were doing anything with septic.
Ms. Baker said no, that it was more than adequate for what they needed.
Mrs. Freeman said that she would really like to see more landscaping than what was shown. It is currently very minimal.
Ms. Baker said that a lot of the items were addressed on the summary sheet, not on the plan.
Mrs. Freeman said that the regulations call for them to be on the plan.
Mr. Weiler said that he thought that they should apply again with a professional who was familiar with site plan review.
Ms. Baker asked if since there was a business at this location before, and the proposed business was a lesser use, professional building instead of a restaurant, was it really necessary to have a site plan review.
Mr. Weiler said that it did because there was a change of use from retail trade to retail services and they were separate in the Zoning Ordinance, called out as different uses.
Ms. Baker asked if there was a way to move forward recognizing that things were addressed in two locations and that they would be put on one plan.
Mrs. Freeman said that if there were one or two items missing, they could, but there were too many missing. She said that they could not review the application and comment on it.
Ms. Baker asked if half of the building could be occupied as a retail service while finishing the process. She said that there was a Newbury resident who was anxious to open her business.
Mr. Weiler said no because it was a change in use from retail trade to retail service and needed a site plan review.
Ms. Baker said that they would re-apply.
Case: 2005-014: Site Plan Review – Robert and Julianne Morancy – Catering Business – 206 Village Road – Map 043 Lot 363-081.
Notice is hereby given that the Newbury Planning Board will receive submission of an application for Site Plan Review from Robert and Julianne Morancy for a catering business located at 206 Village Road (Tax Map 043, Lot 363-081) on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 9:30 p.m. in the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103, Newbury, N.H. If the application is accepted as complete, a public hearing will commence at the same meeting.
Copies of the application 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.
The Board determined that the application was not complete. The Morancy’s wanted to use the same plans that they had submitted when they applied for Site Plan Review for a day care because nothing except the use and play ground area was going to change.
Mr. Weiler made a comment that there needed to be two separate files and the plans needed to be updated for this use.
The Board also determined that they now only needed to apply for Cottage Industry Site Plan Review.
The Board requested that they re-apply with a new application.
Case: 2005-012: Conceptual Review – Jay Gamble – Mount Sunapee Resort – Add a 1600 sq. ft. addition to the existing 5040 sq. ft. Mount Sunapee Vehicle Maintenance Garage.
Notice is hereby given that the Newbury Planning Board will receive submission of an application for Site Plan Review from Jay Gamble as the agent for Mount Sunapee Resort located at Mount Sunapee State Park for construction of a 40x40 addition to the existing vehicle maintenance garage on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 10:00 p.m. in the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103, Newbury, N.H. If the application is accepted as complete, a public hearing will commence at the same meeting.
Copies of the application are available for public review at the Town Office Building during regular business hours.
Mrs. Freeman read the above public notice.
Mr. Gamble, General Manager of Mount Sunapee Resort, introduced himself as the authorized agent for Mount Sunapee Resort.
The Board reviewed the application for completeness
A motion was made to waive the perimeter boundary survey. It was seconded. All were in favor.
A motion was made to waive 10.7.7, names and abutters on plan. It was seconded. All were in favor.
A motion was made to waive 10.8, landscaping. It was seconded. All were in favor.
Mr. Weiler asked if any permits were required.
Mr. Gamble said only from the State and it was included in the application.
A motion was made to accept the application as complete. It was seconded. All were in favor.
Mr. Gamble said that nothing was different from the conceptual presentation last month except one additional light on the building and the drainage plan.
Mrs. Freeman commented that the drainage plan had arrows where drainage was supposed to go, but the did not show what was going to cause it to do that. She also commented that the grade went in the opposite direction of the arrows.
Mr. Gamble said that it had been re-graded over the years.
Mrs. Freeman said that she was surprised they that had not changed it on the plan.
Mr. Gamble said that it was overlooked.
Mrs. Freeman said that they could approve the drainage as shown by the arrows.
The Board agreed.
A motion was made to approve the site plan with the drainage flow as shown by the arrows not the site elevations on the plan. It was seconded. All were in favor.
The Board signed two copies of the site plan, one for the applicant and one for the file.
A motion was made to adjourn. It was seconded. All were in favor. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lacy L. Cluff
Recording Secretary
| 
