PLANNING BOARD
January 17, 2006
Members Present: Barbara Freeman (Chair), William Weiler (Vice Chair), Ron Williams, David Thayer, Travis Dezotell, Deane Geddes (Alternate), Ken McWilliams (Advisor), Lou Caron (Consulting Engineer).
Meeting was called to order by Mrs. Freeman at 7:10 p.m.
Administrative Business
Meeting minutes from December 20, 2005 were reviewed, discussed and corrected.
MOTION: By Mr. Dezotell “to accept the minutes with corrections as discussed.”
SECOND: by Mr. Thayer
VOTE: all in favor
Mrs. Freeman announced to the public that Mr. Geddes would be taking the meeting minutes for this evening.
Mrs. Freeman appointed Alternate, Deane Geddes, as a voting member for this evening.
Mrs. Freeman said she would forward the corrected copy to Mrs. Cluff.
Mr. Weiler inquired as to whether the November work session minutes had been reviewed. Mr. Williams said they had.
Mr. McWilliams reviewed modifications to ballot items, one regarding the building permits and three for zoning. He requested feedback as he needs to submit them by February 7, 2006 to the Town Clerk.
Mrs. Freeman reviewed the state of event for this evening.
Mrs. Freeman passed around a site plan for Fishersfield. There was a question as to whether Fishersfield would be coming to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. Selectman Wright said he would know better after the town meeting.
Mrs. Freeman suggested that the Planning Board review the Engineering aspects of the Site plan.
Mrs. Freeman announced an upcoming seminar entitled “LAND DEVELPOMENT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE” on March 30, 2006. (See Attachment #1)
7:30 pm Mrs. Freemen announced we would continue with the scheduled hearings and read the public meeting notice regarding Pickman LLC development.
Case: 2003-011: Final Review – Pickman and Sons Development – Major Subdivision – Gillingham Drive and Old Sutton Road – 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, December 20, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, N.H. If the application is accepted as complete, a public hearing 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 as he is an abutter.
Mrs. Freeman said that the application was complete and reviewed with the public attendee’s the process and procedure for this public hearing, then invited Mr. David Eckman of Eckman Engineering to the floor.
Attending for Pickman Development LLC were:
Mr. Jim Pickman, President, Pickman Development LLC
Mr. David Pickman
Mr. David Eckman, Eckman Engineering LLC
Dr. Kim Eric Hazarvartian, P.E., Principle TEPP Engineering LL
Ms. Susan Hankin-Birke, Attorney for Pickman Development.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Eckman if he had any additional information he wished to provide to the board.
Mr. Eckman said he had none and that he was waiting for an Engineering report from the towns’ consulting Engineer.
The Attorney for Pickman & Sons LLC, Ms Susan Hankin-Birke, Esq., Supplied three documents on behalf of the applicant:
Agreement Required Pursuant to Subdivision Regulations for the Town of Newbury “Field Stone Ridge Subdivision (2)
Declaration of Protective Covenants for Field Stone Ridge Subdivision (3)
Field Stone Ridge Owner’s Association Bylaws (4)
She indicated that the agreements were required pursuant to the subdivision regulations from the Town of Newbury.
Mr. Lou Caron provided his report, Dated 17 Jan 06, to Mrs. Freeman regarding the Pickman project.
Mr. Jim Pickman introduced himself to the board as the President of Pickman Development, LLC and indicated that he had been working with the Board for two and a half years on this project and that this evening he would like to obtain the three waivers he was looking for.
Mrs. Freeman asked if any of the waivers had been submitted in writing.
Mr. Eckman replied that he wanted to discuss the waivers with the Board. They included:
Close Radius
Steep slopes
Sight View (line of sight)
Mrs. Freeman clarified that the Board preferred to have the entrances far away from each other.
Mr. Jim Pickman stated that he had asked at the Preliminary Review which the Board preferred and understood that the least impact to wetlands was the most desirable. That is why they changed the road entrance & exit design.
Mr. Eckman submitted a waiver to use “Local Road” standards, dated January 12, 2006.
Mr. Caron agreed that this would be more of a local road since 2/3 of the road’s traffic would exit onto Old Sutton Road and 1/3rd onto Gillingham drive. He said it “behaves more like a local road”.
Mr. Caron suggested that the Planning Board classify the road as “local” vs. creating a waiver, therefore the letter was not required.
The Board had no question or comment.
Mrs. Freeman opened the discussion regarding the local road to the public and explained that the road would be 4 feet narrower.
Cal Prussman, Road Agent for the Town of Newbury stated he “had no problem with it being a local road”.
Mr. John Brooks of Gillingham Drive asked if this local road would be maintained by the town.
Mrs. Freeman said no.
Mrs. Freeman closed the hearing to public comment
Mr. Williams said that bitumous material should be used on the road.
MOTION
Mrs. Freeman asked if someone would make a motion that “the roads in this development will be classified as local with the exception that bitumous material to be used.”
Mr. Williams made the motion. Mr. Dezotell seconded. All voting members approved.
Mr. Eckman wanted to discuss sight distances and explained the waiver request for both entrances. Newbury’s sight distance requirements are more severe than the states and the “Greenbook” standards.
Dr. Kim Eric Hazarvartian, P.E., Principle TEPP Engineering LLC took the floor and further explained the situation regarding sight distances. Said he used the “Green Book” for reference and calculation. He said the intersection at Old Sutton Road had a sight distance of 600 ft to the right and 290 ft to the left as measured by himself and Newbury’s Road Agent. He said the intersection of Gillingham Drive has a sight distance of 285 feet to the North and 280 feet to the South. The Green Book requirement is 250 feet at a speed of 35 mph, claims this has the required sight distance for safety.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Caron if he knew why the Newbury standard was more severe. He said he did not know why. He agreed with Dr. Hazarvatian that his analysis is correct and that there was adequate time for a driver to recognize a situation and stop. He indicated that these numbers were conservative and had no objection to the waiver.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Caron if we should change Newbury’s regulation. Mr. Caron said our regulations were not wrong, only different.
Mr. Williams asked Mr. Prussman if the safety board had ever considered lowering the speed limit on Gillingham Drive. He said he did not know.
Mr. Jim Pickman said they were removing some rocks on the roadside to increase the line of sight.
Mrs. Freeman opened the session for public comment.
Mr. John Brooks of Gillingham Drive said that RSA 236-13 applied to driveways.
Mr. Prussman said he performed the sight distances at a height of three and a half feet, driver’s eye level.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Caron if the way Mr. Prussman performed this was adequate. He said yes.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Eckman if they were going to supply a written request to the board for a waiver on sight distance. He replied yes.
Mrs. Freeman requested that all waivers be submitted two weeks before the next meeting.
Mr. Eckman asked if both the 150 ft. radius and the 10% grade required a waiver request.
Mr. Caron asked Mr. Eckman if he were going to request 3 waivers.
Mr. Eckman said yes, he was requesting waivers for the 10% grade, the curve radius and the 200 feet flat stopping area requirement.
Mr. McWilliams asked if the site distance requirement for a flat area was 100 feet or 50 feet.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Caron to comment.
Mr. Caron said that his comments on the waivers were in his letter, but continued to make the following comments:
He considerers the intersection at Gillingham Drive to be unsafe due to the steep grade (10%), the close radius and the short run out to the stop sign. He suggested to Mr. Eckman that it be re-designed. Mr. Eckman presented a new design suggesting a different routing with a larger radius.
Mrs. Freeman said the ledge hill has an 8% grade.
Mr. Caron said it would be dangerous to combine grade and curvature.
Mr. Eckman said he was trying to avoid the wetland areas.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Eckman if he considered the amount of fill and how the wetlands would be affected.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Caron his opinion if these changes were made. He replied it would be no problem if the slope were 4%, the radius would be OK if the speeds were 25 to 30 mph. If they were based on speed if 50 mph it would be risky, 30 mph would be fine.
Mr. Prussman said it would be difficult on an icy night.
Mr. Eckman said he would redesign the radius.
Mr. Caron said he should evaluate a variety of options.
Mr. Eckman said he may need to go steeper, 12 %, for a short section.
Mrs. Freeman said the Board could not answer this question and that he should work with Mr. Caron and Mr. Prussman.
Mrs. Freeman asked for public comment.
Mr. Gerry Gold of Gillingham Drive pointed out the complication with the deeded right of way for the lot adjacent to the intersection.
Mr. David Pickman said all they needed to do was provide a driveway for the abutter and they would do that as soon as the intersection was finalized.
Mr. Gold pointed out the driveway goes behind the home.
Mr. Gold said the Pickman’s deed indicates a small piece of littoral frontage on Lake Todd and that the drawings should reflect that.
Mrs. Freeman said she agreed.
Mr. James Pickman said he had spoken with the three fire chiefs regarding the hydrants and cistern.
Mrs. Freeman wanted Chief Thomas’s opinion of driving a fire truck on these roads.
Mr. Pickman said Chief Thomas had no problem when he spoke with him.
Mrs. Freeman opened the hearing for public discussion.
Mr. Joe Emerson of Sutton had a question about the intersection at Old Sutton Rd. Mrs. Freeman asked him to hold that question until that topic was brought up.
Mr. Pickman wanted to know if 250 ft radius at 10% grade was ok for the road entering Gillingham Drive.
Mrs. Freeman replied that this alignment was better, but there would be no answer until the Board voted.
Mr. Eckman turned everyone’s attention to drawing C-5 and said the Cul de Sacs conform to most of the requirements, but did not have a 200 ft run out at the intersection. The road goes about 100 ft then turns up to an 8% grade.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Caron to address this issue.
Mr. Caron replied “if there is less traffic there is less risk”.
Mrs. Freeman said that clusters did not have to have 200 ft of frontage so driveways would be more frequent.
Mr. Caron said that it was a safety issue.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Caron if a 100 ft would be adequate. He replied “your suggestion to make it better is good advice.” He said Mr. Eckman could re-design it to make it safer.
Mr. Prussman said he would like to see 200 feet if they could obtain it to give that extra cushion.
Mrs. Freeman asked for public input. There was none.
Mr. Eckman brought up the issue of tangents of approximately 50’ between curves on Page C-4, station 39 & 40.
Mr. Caron asked to see the super elevations, drawing and calculations for review.
Mrs. Freeman asked what the next issue was.
Mr. Eckman said the intersection with Old Sutton Road.
Mr. Joe Emerson of Old Sutton Road said that the development’s road came out at the base of a curve and wanted to know if they would be widening the intersection to be safer. He said it would be a safety factor and that if someone rolled through the intersection there would be no place to go if someone were to make a mistake. He also wanted to know what the grade of the single driveway on Old Sutton Road would be.
Mr. Pickman said that the former proposed road was to be 10%, therefore the driveway would be 10%.
Mr. Emerson wanted to know about school busses and whether there would be a demand for a bus stop at this intersection.
Mr. Pickman said some of the area was junk land at this intersection and he may make it available for people to park while waiting for the school bus.
Mrs. Freemen asked for additional public comment. There was none.
Mr. Eckman handed out some drawings showing the buildable areas and proposed driveways.
Mrs. Freeman made a general announcement to the public that all these plans were available for public review in this office.
Mr. Caron said that the plans made no statement about the proposed cluster development and the drawings should reflect this. Also, the plans should indicate that these were PRIVATE roads in this development that this would reinforce the concept that the road were private and would never become public.
The attorney for Pickman & sons, Ms. Susan Hankin-Birke said that broad language was used in the homeowner’s documents.
Mr. Caron said that the homeowners own the common land and that the drawings should show drainage & slopes. He also commented that there were no road names or numbers.
Selectman Dick Wright said that the fire department assign’s the house numbers and that they must be issued before one can get a building permit.
Mr. Caron brought up the issue of SAG, a low spot where ones headlights do not illuminate the road for some distance in front of them because the road rises and the head lights did not. If a driver cannot see the object he/she does not know they need to stop.
He also suggested that the plans show each house lot indicating the developable area with driveways and setbacks.
Mr. Prussman said that each driveway should have a 2% grade sloping away from the road.
Mr. Caron said he would like to see the calculation on each lot for steep slopes. He said lot 32 had a major slope off the main road. Lot’s 2, 11 & 33 were also steep.
Mrs. Freeman said that if the lot did not work, cut back on the density.
Mr. Caron would like to see a statement that all intersections meet the requirements for sight distance. He also wanted to see the retaining wall design around the retention ponds. He advised that at wetland crossings some amphibians would not go thru a long pipe and the Wetlands Bureau liked elliptical culverts with a natural bottom.
He also said the driveway on lot 14 was too close to the driveway on lot 15 and was not sure if they could build there without a waiver. He commented that part of the project was in Sutton and one road ended in a Hammer head design.
Mr. Pickman said that the Sutton Fire Chief did not like hammerheads.
Mr. Caron said the drawing should show a landscape design. They should also verify that there were no deer wintering areas.
Mr. Caron would like to see a table for each catch basin with all calculations for storm events. He said that section 5.1A calculation for flows were impossible. He asked why a 48 inch culvert was uphill from a 15 inch culvert. The pre and post flow calculations did not reflect reality.
Mr. Prussman said that the calculations were based on 10 and 25 year storm events, but that we were getting 100 year events frequently.
Mrs. Freeman asked if the culvert under Gillingham Drive flooded.
Mr. Prussman said that it was flooded now.
Mr. Caron said that a letter dated August 28, 2005 from Mr. Peter Spere was included in his submission. He said that Mr. Eckman needed to pay closer attention to erosion control and pond design.
Mrs. Freeman said that the hearing needed to be continued due to lateness.
Mr. Jim Pickman asked if there were any other comments as he was coming up to the 60 day mark.
Mrs. Freeman said they may need to ask for an extension.
Mr. Prussman asked whether there was a letter outlining the offsite road improvements as he saw nothing on the plans.
Mrs. Freeman told Mr. Eckman that she wanted a letter from his client regarding the road improvements with design plans.
Motion was made to continue to February 21, 2006 at 8:00 p.m. by Mr. Williams. It was second by Mr. Dezotell. All were in favor.
Case: 2006-003: Conceptual – Frank MacConnell-Site Plan review-expansion of Bob Skinners retail space-1411 Route 103
Mr. Frank MacConnell presented a drawing which he had marked up showing the changes he wanted to make. The origin of the drawing was the site plan drawn by Stevens Engineering several years ago for a previous building addition. The scale was 1 inch equals 20 feet.
Mr. MacConnell said that the left side of the shop was in need of repair. That part of the building traces it’s origin from 1952, a former chicken coup. He stated that there was no change to the footprint of the building, but wanted to make a loft in the interior. He explained briefly that he wanted to:
Connect the decks
Extend the roof over the decks
Move the Main Entrance slightly
Shorten the handicap ramp
The 38 parking spaces would remain.
Mrs. Freeman asked how many handicap parking spots were there.
Mr. MacConnell said 2.
Mrs. Freeman asked if the parking lot was arrow marked to show vehicular direction.
Mr. MacConnell said no, this current layout was from the 1993 design.
Mr. Weiler said that the expansion of the roof changed the footprint as Newbury’s regulations use the roof perimeter as the footprint not the foundation. This needed to be submitted to the Planning Board.
Mrs. Freeman agreed and suggested he go through the Site Plan Regulations and provide easement information. She also said she would like to see lot arrows one way in and one way out.
Mr. Williams asked what the relationship to the road across Route 103 at the restaurant and hotel.
Mr. MacConnell said none; he was the sole owner on a stand alone property.
Case: 2006-001 Conceptual- Bill Moult-Annexation-to relocate Edgemont Rd.-8 Edgemont Rd.-Map 007 Lot 126-114
The conceptual review for Mr. William Moult’s annexation was represented by Mr. Clayton Platt.
Mr. Platt said Mr. Moult wanted to trade some land with a neighbor and change 3 non-conforming lots to 2 non-conforming lots.
Mr. Weiler said the Planning Board had an interest in Edgemont Road because the road passed through this lot.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board would be happier with a clause in the deed indicating it was a non-residential lot.
Case: 2006-002: Conceptual- Ed Rehor-Minor subdivision-Cheney Rd- Map 041 Lot 404-293
Mr. Ed Rehor said he had 747 feet of frontage on the corner of Old Province Road and Cheney Road and wanted to know if he could divide it into two lots.
Mrs. Freeman said she was not sure if the lot could be divided because of the steep slopes and wetlands on the lot. She said that since it must be surveyed to register a deed that he contact someone who was familiar with Newbury’s regulations and give an opinion before he proceeded with the expense of a survey.
Mr. McWilliams asked how large the lot was.
Mr. Rehor replied 8.4 Acres.
Mrs. Freeman said he should review chapter 5 of the Zoning Regulations to determine the calculation for developable area.
The meeting moved to other business.
Mr. Weiler said the Mr. Caron did a great job in his preparation for this evenings meeting.
Mr. Thayer made a motion to adjourn at 11:10 PM. Mr. Dezotell seconded it. All were in favor. Meeting adjouned.
Respectfully Submitted,
Deane Geddes
ATTACHMENTS:
#1 Seminar LAND USE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
#2 Agreement Required Pursuant to Subdivision Regulations for the Town of Newbury “Field Stone Ridge Subdivision
#3 Declaration of Protective Covenants for Field Stone Ridge Subdivision
#4 Field Stone Ridge Owner’s Association Bylaws
#5 Drawing from Mr. MacConnel, proposed modifications.
| 
