Planning Board
August 15, 2006
Members Present: Barbara Freeman (Chair), Bill Weiler (Vice-Chair), Al Bachelder, David Thayer, Ron Williams, Travis Dezotell, Deane Geddes (Alternate), Lacy Cluff (Alternate) and Ken McWilliams (Advisor).
Mrs. Freeman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
The Board reviewed the minutes from July 18, 2006 and made corrections. A motion was made to approve the minutes as corrected. It was seconded. All were in favor.
Whitman Sandpit
Mrs. Freeman said that the Whitman sandpit had an outstanding bond holding $15,000 for completion of restoration of the sandpit. Mr. Williams and Mr. Weiler did a site visit to check on the progress. She asked Mr. Weiler to speak on this.
Mr. Weiler said that when Mr. Whitman passed away, work ceased in the sandpit. Mrs. Whitman did an inquiry and the cost of reclamation was greater than the bond. Rick Messer did the reclamation and wanted the Board to look at it to make sure that it was done the way the Board wanted it done. When Mr. Williams and he looked at it, it was basically reclaimed. The Board needed to decide whether or not to release $10,000 to Mrs. Whitman so that she could pay Mr. Messer for the work he did.
Mr. Williams said that that would leave $5,000 remaining in the bond, which should cover the remaining work to be done.
Mr. Bachelder made a motion to release $10,000. It was seconded. All were in favor.
Mrs. Freeman appointed Mrs. Cluff as a voting member.
Case Admin 1-061 - Master Plan – Survey - Cross Tabulations
Mr. Bachelder said that he was asked to do the cross tabulations for the Master Plan survey. He said that he ran into several problems in doing this. The first problem was that when you cross tabulation one question with another, every sub-item is a separate item. So, what would seem like one cross tabulation turns into 18. This made it impractical to put together something that was useful. It was not set up efficiently to cross tabulate. He put all of these spreadsheets with the cross tabulations on a CD as a reference document because it was very lengthy. He passed out summary sheets and CDs to each Board member to review.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board could review and summarize items that seemed relevant.
Mrs. Freeman said that there were two lecture series coming up. She said that the information does change from year to year. She said that the Planning Board would pay any fees and that any members could sign up with Patricia MacDonald.
Case 2004 – 006: Angel Hawk – Major Subdivision
Mrs. Freeman read a letter from Lou Caron regarding the clearing limits on Angel Hawk (Please see file).
The Board decided to inform Richard Reeves, owner of Angel Hawk, of problems with the contractor not reporting work progress in time for Lou Caron to inspect to make him aware of what was going on. A copy of Mr. Caron’s letter will be sent to him.
Case 2006-013: Conceptual - Kenneth Donaghey – Lot Line Adjustment/Annexation
Mr. Donaghey said that he had signed a deed to correct a boundary line issue that had been recorded with Merrimack County Registry of Deeds. He had his property surveyed and found that part of his abutter’s porch was on his property.
Mrs. Freeman said that the problem was that the Registry recorded this deed without a lot line adjustment plan approved by the Planning Board. She said that in order to make this legal, he needed to apply to the Planning Board for a Lot Line Adjustment/Annexation. She told Mr. Donaghey that Patricia MacDonald could help him with the application.
Case 2004-023: Conceptual – David Sullivan – JWF Subdivision – To move driveway location on approved subdivision plan – Tax Map 019 Lot 790-400.
David Sullivan explained that the JWF subdivision on Old Post Road had been approved in April of 2005. The Road Agent had already approved the original driveway location, but he would now like to move it about 30 feet to where an existing logging trail was located.
Mr. Weiler asked how far the relocated driveway was going to be from the property line.
Mr. Sullivan said that it would be about 25 feet.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. McWilliams what the process to relocate the driveway would be.
Mr. McWilliams said that since this was not a cluster development the regulations only required that the applicant show a location where the driveway could be, but they had the right to change it. He said that Mr. Sullivan would just need to get approval from the Road Agent.
Mrs. Freeman was concerned because with the Angel Hawk subdivision and Field Stone Ridge subdivision, the Board required that the applicants show the actual location of the driveways on the plan.
Mr. McWilliams said that in this case, Mr. Sullivan would just need approval from the Road Agent. The minutes of this hearing and the building permit/driveway permit should be filed with the original subdivision plans.
Mr. Weiler recused himself because he was an abutter in the next hearing.
Case: 2003-011: Final Review – Pickman and Sons Development – Major Subdivision – Gillingham Drive and Old Sutton Road – 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 Final Hearing for a Major Subdivision off Gillingham Drive and Old Sutton Road, Tax Map 052
Lot # 607-064 on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 8:45 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 said that this hearing had been continued in order for the applicant to provide additional information at the Board’s request. The Board has a letter on file extending the review period.
Mrs. Freeman said that the procedure for this evening would be that the Board would review the additional information, ask questions, open the hearing to the public, close the hearing to the public and either deliberate and make a decision or give the applicant further direction.
Mr. Eckman presented the additional information that the Board had requested at the last hearing. He showed that subdivision plans B3 – B9 showed the building envelopes for each lot. In Newbury, he removed the steep slopes from the building envelopes. In Sutton, they are permitted to build in steep slopes. These changes were also done in the topography plans. They also provided roadway construction details. He said that they were willing to remove some detention ponds to reduce the disturbance to the hillside. He said that the detention ponds were still on the plan, but that he did the calculations to see what would happen if they were removed. In a 10 year storm, if they took out one detention pond on the Lake Todd side of the subdivision, there would be a 0.6 mm
increase in the level of the lake. If they were to remove one detention pond on the wetland side of the subdivision, in a 10 year storm it would increase the level by 6 mm. He noted that if the Board would like them to remove the detention ponds, they were willing to do that pending State approval. He said that the other changes he made were that they showed the bolder outcrop and amended the density report.
Mrs. Freeman asked for Lou Caron’s, consulting engineer, comments.
Mr. Caron said that he had a question on the density chart regarding the right of way.
Mr. McWilliams said that they needed to subtract the rights of way and easements.
Mr. Caron commented that the building envelopes on a couple of the lots, 29 and 30, on plan B10 were very tight when you consider the easements.
Mr. Eckman commented that a 4 k area was much larger than the septic needed to be. The State requires that you show a 4 k area. The house shown is 2,500 sq. ft. That is a good size house and a smaller one may be built.
Mr. Williams noted that lots 4 and 5 on B12 showed the houses in the sanitary fields. It appeared that the houses would fit they just needed to be adjusted.
Mr. Williams said that they needed to address the conditions that went into the covenants. They needed a little latitude to move around.
Mrs. Freeman said that they could build anywhere they wanted within the building envelope.
Mr. Caron said that Note #2 described an area setback that did not apply to cluster developments and he felt that it was confusing.
Mr. Caron said that he had just some minor comments. He said that the drainage design and roadways looked good. He said that they needed to double check that the profiles were reflected on the plan. He said that he thought that eliminating the ponds was a good idea.
Mrs. Freeman asked about the concern that Lake Todd would rise quickly.
Mr. Caron said that Mr. Eckman had calculated figures with radical situations. The peak flow will be sooner than the peak flow of the watershed. They will also be putting a larger culvert under Gillingham Drive. Eliminating the ponds would not change the volume, just the peak volume time.
Mrs. Freeman asked about the 50 and 100 year storms we had been having lately and how that was going to affect the lake.
Mr. Caron said that there was not a lot that could be done about that. With this development, you would not see any difference in how the lake was affected.
Mr. Bachelder was concerned about the dam and if it were to fail in the future. Since the Board waived 12.1, would that hold the Town of Newbury and the Pickmans liable?
Mr. Caron said that he believed that it could be argued and defended. He said that it was a legitimate concern, but that holding the water back did not make sense.
Mr. Eckman said that only 40 acres of this development contributed to that watershed.
Mrs. Freeman opened the hearing to the public to comment on the issue of the detention ponds.
Mr. Kitterage, abutter, said that he would prefer to see the trees kept as opposed to putting in detention ponds. He thought that the ponds would be breeding areas for mosquitoes. He said that the problem that the dam was having in the 50 and 100 year storms was not the dam itself, but that water was going around the dam.
Mr. Weiler, abutter, said that he did not feel that the dam was a concern because it was in good condition and in the hands of the Lake Todd Village District. However, he was concerned that the first flush picked up the pollutants. He said that at the last meeting the Board was told that infiltration could not occur, so how did they get the perk tests?
Mr. Caron said that you needed certain criteria for infiltration.
Mr. Eckman said that on the Lake Todd side, there was an extended detention pond that fully caught the first flush and treated the water. They were proposing to remove the pond that had clean water.
Jerry Gold, abutter, said that aesthetically people preferred trees. He also had a question about the requirement for state approval.
Mrs. Freeman said that the developer needed to get state approval and that any approval by the Planning Board would be contingent upon that.
Mr. Dezotell asked what the impact of a 100 year storm running through 37 new septics would be.
Mr. Eckman said that the box culverts were designed for 100 year storms and the cross culverts were designed for 50 year storms. If there was a septic failure than that would be a problem, but that was part of site specific through the state.
Mrs. Freeman took a vote to find out how many Board members were in favor of removing the detention ponds. All but one Board member were in favor of removing them.
The Board discussed if a waiver was needed since the regulations said that there was to be no increase in net runoff.
Mr. Caron referred the Board to 12.7.1 in the subdivision regulations that he felt permitted this.
Mrs. Freeman said that this was a recommendation by Mr. Caron, not something that the developer was asking for and felt that it was a special circumstance.
Mrs. Freeman commented that the changes that the Board requested to the legal documents had been done.
Mr. Caron recommended that 25% of the roof run-off be infiltrated to help balance run-off.
The Board decided that a waiver was necessary. A motion was made to waive 12.1 of the Land Subdivision Regulations in order to preserve tree areas. In addition, add roof drain infiltrators to mitigate the decrease in the number of detention ponds. Subject to State approval. Seconded. All were in favor.
Mrs. Freeman opened the hearing to the public to comment in general on the subdivision.
Mr. Kitterage asked if there was any possibility of road access through the open space to access his property.
Mr. Eckman said that they were required to have 100 ft. buffer and that the association owned the common land.
Mrs. Freeman said that he would need to approach the association and that this was something that probably should have been negotiated with the developer during the subdivision process.
Mr. Gold, abutter, commented that he did not see the land that was on the lake in the plans.
Mrs. Freeman said that there was a non-conforming lot on the lake that needed to be tied into another lot. You cannot subdivide and create a non-conforming lot.
Mr. Weiler said that they could sell it to who ever they wanted.
Mr. Gold said that it was not listed as a separate parcel with a separate map/lot number. It was all taxed as one lot.
Jim Pickman said that they wanted the option to sell it with any of the lots.
Mrs. Freeman said that legally, it had to be tied into one of the lots.
Mr. McWilliams said that they could only do that if it were a separate lot of record that was taxed separately.
Dave Pickman said that they would tie it into one of the lots; they just did not know which one yet.
Mr. Eckman said that he would research it.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board needed to have a discussion about when substantial completion would be done and a bond for that completion.
Mr. McWilliams said that the subdivision regulations said three years from the date of approval.
Mrs. Freeman asked the Pickmans if they intended to complete the subdivision in three years.
Jim Pickman said that they did.
Mrs. Freeman said that Mr. Caron would calculate a bond for the amount of the construction.
Mr. McWilliams said that the Board also needed to discuss what would be done in the first year.
Dave Pickman said that they planned on having the main road roughed in.
Mrs. Freeman said that it needed to be in writing. She asked if Mr. Caron should discuss with Mr. Eckman what is considered substantial completion.
Mr. McWilliams said yes.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Caron if there was anything substantial outstanding.
Mr. Caron said that there were just some minor things that he could work out with Mr. Eckman.
A motion was made to approve the subdivision with the following conditions:
1. All State permits must be received.
2. Lou Caron, LC Engineering will work with applicant on a written definition of substantial improvements to be accomplished within three years and active and substantial development to be completed within the first year.
3. Lou Caron will develop a bond figure and the applicant must have bond or establish a Letter of Credit for that amount.
4. House locations in lots 4 and 5 must be relocated so that they are not on the septic fields.
5. Plans must be developed for infiltration systems to deal with the roof run-off and must be in deeds.
6. Change building parameter to building envelope in sample deed.
7. Remove note #2 and substitute cluster development.
8. Off site improvements are to be completed within the three year substantial improvement period.
9. Density report must be corrected and redrafted.
10. All Changes required by Lou Caron’s final review of the plans must be made.
11. A consulting engineer will be hired by the Planning Board and paid for by the applicant to monitor the project.
12. Sutton Planning Board must sign the subdivision mylar.
13. Either prove that the shore lot is a separate lot of record or add it to or combine it with one of the new lots.
The motion was seconded. All were in favor.
Case 2004 – 009: Final Hearing – Eric and Debra Fuchs – Annexation Lot Line Adjustment – 193 Route 103 – Map 050 Lot 625-308 & 649-290.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application for a Final Hearing for a Lot Line Annexation from Eric and Debra Fuchs for lots located at 193 Route 103, Tax Map 050-625-308 and Tax Map 050-649-290, on Tuesday, August 15, 2006, at 9 p.m. in the Town Office Building at 937 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 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.
David Eckman, Eckman Engineering, introduced himself as the applicant’s authorized agent. He said that his client wanted to do a lot line adjustment/annexation in order to decrease make a non-conforming lot more conforming and give it lake frontage. They gave the non-conforming lot 215 feet of lake frontage, still keeping the other lot conforming.
Mrs. Freeman read a letter from an abutter saying that there was a boundary line discrepancy and a boundary marker was missing (please see file).
Mr. Eckman said that when the lot was surveyed the boundary marker was there. When they went back, it was gone. So, they put a stake in the ground. He said that the person who surveyed their lot was not a licensed surveyor, he was a septic designer. He said that he had documentation that the original marker was there.
Mrs. Freeman said that if the abutter wanted to contest this, they would have to take the applicant to court.
Mr. Weiler said that if there was a discrepancy between two licensed surveyors, that would be a different situation.
A motion was made to approve the application with the conditions of state approval and the setting of the bounds. It was seconded. All were in favor.
A motion was made to adjourn at 10:20 p.m. It was seconded. All were in favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lacy L. Cluff
| 
