Planning Board
Minutes of April 21, 2009
Approved May 19, 2009
Members Present: Tom Vannatta, Chair; Barbara Freeman, Vice-Chair; Deane Geddes; Bruce Healey; Bill Weiler; Ron Williams, Alternate; Ken McWilliams, Advisor
Mr. Vannatta called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and appointed Mr. Williams as a voting member for this evening’s meeting.
MINUTES
The Board reviewed the minutes of March 17, 2009 and made corrections.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve the minutes of March 17, 2009 as corrected. Ms. Freeman seconded the motion. All in favor.
CASE: 2008 -021: Final Site Plan Review – Cottage Industry - Joan Morena – Rollins Road – Massage Therapy Business
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an Application for a Site Plan Review from Joan Morena, for property located at 276 Rollins Road, Newbury, NH, Tax Map 029-579-008 on Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 7:15 p.m. in the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH.
The Board reviewed the application for completeness. As part of the application, Ms. Morena requested waivers from Section 13.6 Documentation, Section 13.8 Site Plan, Section 13.9 Structure Plan, Section 13.10 Permits and Approvals.
Ms. Morena explained that the reason she asked for the waivers is because she is not making any changes to the inside or outside of the existing residence. She explained that on the second floor of her home is a guest bedroom where she puts up a portable massage table for the duration of an appointment and then takes the table back down to revert the room back to a bedroom for guests. There will be no external signage, structural or environmental impacts. She presented the Board with a photograph and building plans of her home.
Mr. Weiler stated that Ms. Morena should have submitted the pictures and house plans as part of the application along with a site plan of existing conditions.
Ms. Morena stated that when she applied for the site plan hearing she asked the Land Use Coordinator what was required and was told all she had to do was request waivers for those items that don’t apply. She stated that she was not given a copy of the site plan regulations and brought the pictures and house plans on her own volition. There was little guidance through the process.
Mr. Weiler explained that there is nothing in the application to show what the Board is approving. The Board needs either a sketch drawing of the site with existing structures including the driveway and proposed parking, or a photograph of the property with proposed client parking indicated.
Ms. Freeman stated that it is up to the Planning Board to decide if there are impacts or not. e.g. traffic patterns and lighting. The Board is not concerned with the interior.
Ms. Morena commented that after talking with Mr. McWilliams, she was of the understanding that the Land Use Coordinator was her go-between in the process but was never referred to the website or the regulations for specific instruction regarding site plan review requirements.
Mr. McWilliams commented that the Board needs to decide how to move on with the application. Either the Board reviews the application with the information available and may approve the application with conditions of additional documentation; or the Board continues the hearing until the additional documentation is submitted.
Consensus of the Board was to continue with the review of the application, vote whether or not to accept the application and then consider the request for waivers.
Ms. Freeman made a motion to accept the application as complete. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. All in favor.
Ms. Freeman commented that the Board still needs a plan submitted which meets the criteria of Article 13.6, 13.7, 13.8, and 13.9 in order to have documentation of what may be approved for future reference.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to grant a waiver from Article 13.10 Permits and Approvals. Ms. Freeman seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Weiler commented that he feels as though he does not have enough information to consider the application.
Mr. Geddes commented that he sees a solution to hearing the application this evening by making a potential approval conditional upon the missing documentation.
Mr. Williams commented that he has no problem proceeding as long as there is a statement that there is no change in the lighting and the documents will be submitted.
Ms. Freeman pointed out that the request for waivers state that there would be no change in the existing residential site. She explained to Ms. Morena that if the Board approves the application without documentation for parking, access, etc. and then in the future someone says there was a previous business and they want to add parking and lighting, we have no proof that there was not any before.
Ms. Morena explained that there is a proviso in the amendment to the deed covenants that states that if the Morenas sell their home, it is no longer considered an approved business site within the subdivision. Therefore, anyone who comes in for a business in the future would have to start from scratch.
Ms. Freeman advised Ms. Morena that the Board still needs the documentation, because the approval runs with the property and all a new owner would have to do is get the approval of 2/3 of the lot owners in the subdivision and they are in business.
Mr. Vannatta opened the hearing to the public.
There being no comments or questions, Mr. Vannatta closed the hearing to the public
Ms. Freeman made a motion that the Board approve the site plan application with the condition that documentation for Articles 13.6, 13.7, 13.8, and 13.9 be submitted by May 19, 2009 and that these documents show that there are no changes being made from the residence that already exists. Mr. Geddes seconded the motion. All in favor.
Ms. Morena asked if the seven copies are still required per Article 13.6.
Ms. Freeman commented that Ms. Morena would only need to submit three copies, one for the Planning Board files, one for the property file, and one for Ms. Morena.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to revise the requirements of Article 13.6 for Ms. Morena’s site plan to be a size that is convenient and reasonable and the number of copies provided to be three. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. All in favor.
CASE: 2008-010: Annexation – Bradley LaClair – Park 10 – three lots into two lots - Lots 020-055-210; 020-069-280; 020-057-229.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application for a Final Hearing for an Annexation from Brad LaClair for property located on Park 10 Road, Newbury, NH Tax Map 020-055-210, 020-069-280, and 020-057-229 on Tuesday, March 17, 2009, at 7:45 p.m. in the town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH.
Roger Rodewald, Agent and Christopher Patten, Surveyor were present to discuss Bradley LaClair’s application for annexation at Park 10. The Board reviewed the annexation plan presented with Mr. Patten present, as requested by the Planning Board at the March 17, 2009 hearing.
Mr. Patten explained to the Board that the total acreage before the annexation is 1.349 acres and the acreage after the proposed annexation of three lots into two lots would be 1.349 acres. There are three lots of 0.216 acres, 0.956 acres and 0.177 acres which would become two lots of 0.393 acres and 0.956 acres.
Mr. Vannatta asked why the property line extends half way into the Spring Street right-of-way yet the property pins are at the edge of Spring Street.
Mr. Patten explained that according to RSA 231:51, if a right of way is not built within 20 years of being approved, then the right of way reverts to the abutters on either side. He shared with the Board a letter from the Town Administrator, David Jescavage to Anthony Negri referring to “paper streets” which was the Town Administrator’s interpretation of Town Counsel’s opinion.
Mr. Weiler commented that his interpretation of the RSA is that the governing body needs to vote in order to give up a paper street to the abutters.
Ms. Freeman commented that if the Board is allowing Hemlock Street to be counted as part of the acreage, then Spring Street should be considered in the same fashion.
Mr. Patten commented that the regulation at the time of the subdivision did not require the vote of the governing body, it only needed to be undeveloped for 20 years, and then it would become the abutters’ land.
Mr. McWilliams advised the Board that the issue needs to be clarified because if a building permit is applied for, the building inspector needs to know if the setbacks are from the pins at the edge of the right of way or the pins in the middle of the right of way.
Mr. Vannatta commented that if the property line is now in the middle of the right of way, the bounds would need to be reset.
Mr. McWilliams commented that if Spring Street is no longer a right of way, then it needs to be identified as a ‘Former Right of Way’; and, in lieu of moving the bounds, a notation could be made that the bounds are offset from the middle of Spring Street.
Mr. Vannatta commented that the Board’s decision regarding this issue will affect all of the other lots and paper roads in Park 10, and the Board should seek Town Counsel’s opinion on whether or not Spring Street is automatically discontinued due to the passage of 20 years with no development, or do the lot lines move back to the edge of the right of way.
Mr. Rodewald asked the Board if the application still falls into the parameters of making three lots into two lots regardless of Counsel’s opinion of grandfathering paper roads.
Ms. Freeman stated that yes, the application of three lots into two lots can still go through, but the Board is not going to approve and record an erroneous plan.
Mr. Vannatta opened the hearing to the public.
Patricia MacDonald stated that at this time she has no issues with the annexation being approved. She asked if the Board of Selectmen move to do away with Hemlock Street and Spring Street, would that then affect access to her lots.
Ms. Freeman commented that the Board cannot answer that at this time because the Board will be seeking the opinion of Town Counsel to see if these roads are already abandoned because of the regulations in effect at the time the subdivision was approved and recorded.
There being no further question or comments from the public Mr. Vannatta closed the hearing to the public.
Ms. Freeman made a motion to continue the hearing until May 19, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. McWilliams advised Mr. Vannatta that Town Counsel’s opinion should be communicated to Mr. Rodewald and Mr. Patten as soon as possible so that the plans can be adjusted if necessary.
CASE: 2004-006: Angel Hawk Subdivision - Jaimie Gould aka Advanced Conception Property Development, LLC – Development Agreement
Mr. Vannatta informed the Board that the date of decision of the original Angel Hawk subdivision was March 15, 2005. Therefore the time limit for a request for an extension to complete the subdivision and all of the offsite improvements has been exceeded. Therefore, the extension, if granted, would have to be retroactive to March 15, 2008 in order to maintain the required schedule, and then a second waiver would have to be considered.
John Fisher, Fisher Electric LLC, informed the Board that he had done work for Mr. Gould and did not get paid. As a result, a mechanics lien has been placed on lots 7 & 8. There are a couple of other contractors that also have debts owed to them by Mr. Gould. Mr. Fisher advised the Board that at the last minute, prior to a court hearing, Mr. Gould offered Mr. Fisher Lot 7 and Lot 8 as collateral for payment of money owed, and Mr. Fisher accepted. But now, he is reading in the minutes that the lots are unsellable at this time; so he is going back to court. Contrary to Mr. Gould’s offer to Mr. Fisher, Mr. Gould had offered to deposit the proceeds of the lot sales to an escrow account to satisfy the Board’s requirement for escrow of engineering
inspections.
Mr. Geddes pointed out that the lots are not frozen assets, because if Mr. Gould provides the funds for the escrow account, then the Board would release the restriction on lot sales.
Mr. Vannatta clarified the statement above that the Board ruled that the offsite improvements need to be finished or the money for the security to complete the offsite improvements needs to be provided as a letter of credit for lots to be sold, in addition, funds need to be put in escrow for engineering inspections.
Mr. Vannatta agreed to send Mr. Gould a letter on behalf of the Board informing him that the subdivision is technically in default of the subdivision regulations regarding the improvements being completed within three years; and Mr. Gould needs to come back to the Board at the May~5, 2009 worksession concerning a potential extension of the offsite improvement deadline date.
Mr. Weiler commented that in his opinion a one-year extension is reasonable. This extension would actually be a two-year extension, because the first year should have begun March 15, 2008 and ended March 15, 2009.
Mr. Williams agreed to set up a meeting of a committee to review the site and make recommendations to the Board for a possible revision/reduction of the length of road involved in the offsite improvements.
CASE: Adm1-044: Application Fee
The Board agreed that the application fees should be raised $5.00 to cover the cost of the regulations, and each applicant should be given a copy of the regulations when applying to the Board.
CASE: 1993-009: PSNH - Scenic Road Hearing
Mr. Vannatta advised the Board that Public Service has requested a public hearing in order to perform maintenance work along Old Province Road and Cheney Road. The Board agreed to hold the first public hearing at its May 19, 2009 regular meeting, beginning at 8:00 p.m. At 7:15, the Board will review the site plan submitted by Ms. Morena, and at 7:30 the Board will continue the LaClair annexation application.
Ms. Freeman made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Geddes seconded the motion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Plunkett
Recording Secretary
| 
