Planning Board
December 15, 2009
Approved January 19, 2009
Members Present: Tom Vannatta, Chair; Barbara Freeman, Vice-Chair; Bruce Healey; Bill Weiler; Ken McWilliams, Advisor; Jim Powell, ex-officio member.
Mr. Vannata called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of November 17, 2009 and made corrections. Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Ms. Freeman seconded the motion. All in favor.
The Board reviewed the minutes of November 21, 2009. Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mylar Replacement
Mr. Vannatta advised the board that the mylar for Case 2009-005 Rheta Heller minor subdivision that was signed by the Board and submitted for recording was returned because the surveyor’s mark was unclear and certain numbers were unclear. The mylar has been reprocessed for the Board’s signature before being resubmitted for recording. The Board signed the new mylar.
CASE: Continuation – Case 2008-010: Annexation-Brad LaClair/agent: Roger Rodewald. 927-6030. Park 10 properties. Map/Lots 020-055-210, 020-069-280, and 020-057-229.
Mr. LaClair and Mr. Rodewald were present. Mr. Rodewald presented to the Board. Mr. Vannatta reviewed the Case to date, saying that at the last Board meeting with Mr. Rodewald and Mr. LaClair there was discussion concerning how to gain access to the back lot via a private road. Mr. Weiler researched how that could be accomplished and the Board presented his suggestion to Mr. Rodewald for consideration [See “Attachment”, Planning Board Final Minutes, November 17, 2009]. Mr. Vannatta said the Board made a site visit on November 21, 2009 and examined the slope of the land, the flagged locations of potential homes, potential wetland problems, etc. Mr. Rodewald was asked for his opinion on the aforementioned proposal.
Mr. Rodewald said building a private road that is up to Town standards is doable. He distributed an engineer’s report to the Board concerning the lay of the land, the road, the wall, etc. and said the engineer deems the road to be feasible. Mr. Rodewald said there are two items for discussion: the 40 foot right-of-way (ROW), which he said was not workable; and, the 26 foot ditch-to-ditch line, which was more than what was needed for only two homes. He cited a Town road recently created that measures only 18 feet and said it is asking too much for Mr. LaClair to create a road that measures 26 feet ditch-to-ditch. He said the standard for a pre-fab home is 20 feet. He added that he believed any emergency service vehicles – fire, ambulance, and police – could operate within a narrower road. He said he would
not build a road and an engineer would not stamp off on a road unless it is done correctly as far as turnarounds.
Mr. Rodewald asked for a waiver for the width of the road and for the ROW.
Ms. Freeman suggested instead that just one house be placed on the property and merge all the lots to make one lot. She said then Mr. LaClair would only have to put in a driveway. Mr. Rodewald asked why not have two houses. Ms. Freeman said, after having walked the site, she felt the proposed building plans for the site would encounter difficulties because of the steep slope, and the multiple springs running through the property would require installation of culverts to divert the water. She added that the spring water currently there is pure but does not believe it will remain so throughout this development. She said the parcel is a very small piece of land and it is a difficult site.
Mr. LaClair disagreed. Mr. Rodewald said an engineer walked the site and Mr. LaClair has been in the excavation business for over 30 years and said he knows Newbury has equally challenging sites throughout the town, citing the houses on Chalk Pond.
Ms. Freeman said Chalk Pond is one of the reasons the Board is re-examining how to proceed in this case. Chalk Pond has considerable problems with runoff. She added that Mr. Rodewald’s engineer’s report addresses only the driveway, not the appropriateness of the site for two houses.
Mr. Rodewald agreed but added the engineer would not be building a road to a site that would not sustain a house. Ms. Freeman said the report does not say that. Mr. Rodewald said in his experience, he has seen much smaller lots in areas that are fragile.
Mr. Healey asked for the length of the driveway/access road. Mr. Rodewald said 380 feet. Mr. Rodewald said he understood the concern regarding runoff but said the impact would not change anything that dramatically when the project is finished.
Mr. LaClair said after the project is completed, the runoff will go where it has always gone and there won’t be an increase in the runoff. Ms. Freeman said now the runoff goes down into the wetlands by the town library, adding that building tends to increase runoff because development introduces hard surfaces.
Mr. LaClair said the wetlands by the library will remain the same.
Mr. Healey said one of the runoffs empties by the Town garage and the new playground. He said that particular runoff was adjacent to the proposed septic system for Mr. LaClair’s project and described the area as sensitive. He said the children’s playground is very close to the runoff in question and that the origination of that runoff is adjacent to the proposed septic system.
Mr. Rodewald said there are concerns about the proximity of the septic system and the runoff leading to the playground. He said full details are included in the plans when they are submitted to the state. He said it’s not the Town’s call, it’s not his (the agent’s) call, it’s the state’s call on the septic system location.
Ms. Freeman said the Board’s purview includes the location of the septic system but that the state also oversees approvals. She said her concern that the plans do not include the location of the springs.
Mr. Powell called for a point of order. He asked for clarification on what was under discussion. He said his understanding was that this case was about merging three lots into two lots. He said it sounds like the Board is discussing whether or not a building permit can be issued. He said it is not the Planning Board’s responsibility to issue building permits or approve septic designs.
Mr. Vannatta said the original intent of the Board was to examine the feasibility of merging three lots into two lots. He said the Board made a site visit to not only examine the site but also to determine what the road would look like and how it would contour through the properties.
Mr. Powell said the Board should define “road”. He said the applicant is asking to put access from a town road to a piece of property that doesn’t abut a town road. He said that sounds like a ROW instead of a “street” or “thoroughfare”. He said that shouldn’t be a big issue to the Board. He said if a property owner wants to put a ROW across someone else’s property to access the former’s property it is a straightforward transaction.
Mr. McWilliams said that the suggestion of building a private road is to gain the required access to the back lot. He said under the subdivision regulations, Mr. LaClair could design a service road, which is the smallest road in the regulations, which serves one to five homes. The questions were how does that fit in with the proposed plans, and what is the impact on the properties.
Mr. Powell asked if the service road could be called a ROW. Ms. Freeman said no.
Mr. Weiler said a ROW is only the designation of a piece of land that is used for traveling, not necessarily motorized traveling. However, he said, the law that is governing this issue is about roads and streets, which encompasses vehicular traffic, RSA 674:41. Mr. Weiler said the back lot of Mr. LaClair’s property does not have road frontage and can not have just a “driveway”.
Mr. Powell said he doesn’t believe the Board’s proposed private road is necessary since the only requirement of that road is to allow someone to drive their car in and out of the property.
Mr. Weiler said the results of his research on the matter clearly states that a driveway may be built on a lot that has frontage on a town-maintained road. He said accessing a back-woods lot requires a legal way of access.
Ms. Freeman asked if that means there can’t be any shared driveways. Mr. Weiler said the issue isn’t about a shared access; the issue is Mr. LaClair’s back lot does not have frontage on a town maintained road. He said a platted street accessing the back lot fulfills the frontage requirement under RSA 674.41.
Mr. McWilliams said if the back lot had frontage on a town road and the property owner wanted to create a common driveway to serve those two lots that would be fine. He said this back lot has no frontage and must have a public or private road up to the lot line to create the proper access under the RSA 674:41.
Mr. Powell asked the question, “Because a piece of property does not abut a town road can the Planning Board deny the property owner the right to do something on that piece of property?”
Mr. McWilliams said that under RSA 674:41 the town cannot issue a building permit on that back lot or any similarly land-locked lots.
Mr. Powell said building permits are issued by the Board of Selectmen, not the Planning Board.
Mr. Weiler said what the Planning Board is doing is actually creating a situation so the Board of Selectmen can issue a building permit.
There was discussion concerning RSA 674:41 and land-locked lots.
Mr. Weiler reviewed the original request by the applicant under Section XIII, 13.11 Classification of Streets, Newbury Land Subdivision Control Regulations: (1) The applicant requested a waiver of the ROW of 40 feet. Mr. Weiler said the Board discussed that and concluded that was an item that could be waived to a smaller number. (2) The applicant requested a waiver of the 26 foot ditch-to-ditch requirement, asking for a travel surface width of 20 feet. Mr. Weiler noted that the regulations call for a 14-foot minimum traveled surface width and a six foot measurement on either side of the travel surface to allow for a shoulder and the ditch.
Mr. McWilliams added that under Section XIII, 13.11.1 Item (4), the regulation assumes a certain grade on the side slope, noting that Mr. LaClair’s side slope could be different than what’s described in the regulation, which would result in putting the ditch line at a different point. He said that measurement needs to be adjusted based on the topography and where the ditches are actually placed.
Mr. Rodewald said after the engineer designs the travel surface of the road, the ditches will have to be designed based on the topography. He said he, the road engineer, and Mr. LaClair agree that this is a feasible situation. Mr. LaClair said he has staked off 25 feet ROW but would like to keep the actual measurement to 18 feet wide with a 14 foot travel surface.
Mr. Weiler suggested that Mr. Rodewald and Mr. LaClair have their road engineer design the road for a 26 foot ditch-to-ditch measurement and if he is off by a foot or two, submit a request for a waiver. Mr. Weiler said if this is feasible, Mr. LaClair should submit a proposal to the Planning Board for consideration.
Mr. Rodewald said that was reasonable.
Mr. Vannatta said the intent of this discussion is to try to find a way to help Mr. LaClair develop the lots. He added that the Board is trying to find a way to work within the parameters of the town regulations and the state laws and still help the applicant achieve his goal. He added that the Board must feel that the project is doable within the limits of the town regulations and the state laws. He added that the subdivision application will not happen until the issue of access is settled.
Mr. Rodewald asked the Board what was required to make two lots out of the current three lots.
Mr. Vannatta said there must be acceptable access to the back lot which meets the standards outlined by Mr. Weiler. Mr. Rodewald said the road engineer’s report covers the information requested.
Ms. Freeman and Mr. Vannatta said the engineer’s conclusions are not shown on the plan.
There was additional discussion about the items contained in a subdivision plan.
Mr. McWilliams said the proposed road must be part of the plan that is reviewed by the Planning Board instead of registered. The design plans are submitted to the Board for review. Ms. Freeman said the Board needs the plan for review and to record the plat.
Mr. Rodewald said the first item for consideration is taking three lots and making them into two lots. He said that hinges on the feasibility of access. He said fifty percent of Park 10 lots are identical situations to Mr. LaClair’s. He said the Board has been given hard proof of feasibility of access.
Ms. Freeman asked Mr. Rodewald about his expectations from the Board at this meeting. Mr. Rodewald said he expected the Board to approve his application for making two lots out of the current three lots.
Mr. Vannatta asked Mr. Rodewald what conditions he included in that anticipated approval. Mr. Rodewald said the condition would be the construction of a road based on the aforementioned specifications. He added that he would request a waiver of the 40 foot ROW and the 26 foot ditch-to-ditch requirement. He said he had expected the Board to ask him for a site plan.
Mr. Weiler said the Board is asking for a site plan and wants all of the information Mr. Rodewald just mentioned, but the Board needs it in a different order.
Ms. Freeman said the Board typically receives all of the information from an applicant before considering the application complete and taking action on it.
Mr. Weiler said the proposal is being considered under the town subdivision regulations. Mr. McWilliams added that the applicant is not only proposing a subdivision but also introducing a road design and utilities, and that moves the application into the major subdivision category. He said it is not the number of lots that are involved; it is the fact that there is a road design involved. He said additional issues must be addressed such as soil and erosion control. Additionally, DES must submit approval of the proposed septic system along with giving subdivision approval for the lots, given the reconfiguration of the soil.
Mr. Powell said the simple solution would be to merge two lots on one end and to make a lot line adjustment between the new lot and the existing one.
Mr. Weiler said that the Planning Board could do what Mr. Powell is suggesting but if someone applies for a building permit there could be repercussions concerning state law violations.
Mr. Powell expressed concern that the approval process for this project is lengthening instead of coming to a close. He said he believed the site visit on November 21, 2009 was the final step towards approval of the project by the Planning Board.
Mr. Vannatta said that was not the case. He said even if the Board followed Mr. Powell’s suggestion and granted the merging of two lots and the lot line adjustment, the problem remains the same – there’s no access to the back lot.
There was discussion about the land-locked lots located in Park 10. Mr. Rodewald suggested that the town needs to create overlay zoning to address the unique situations in Park 10. He added that the lots under discussion are build-able lots of record and that Mr. LaClair has a right to build on his lots as long as he does not endanger his neighbor or the town.
Mr. Weiler said that Mr. LaClair has one lot that is totally land-locked and under today’s Newbury’s zoning regulations there is no right to build on that lot. There was further discussion about the zoning regulations and the applicability to Mr. LaClair’s situation. Mr. Weiler reviewed Mr. LaClair’s situation again with Mr. Rodewald.
Mr. Rodewald expressed concern that if Mr. LaClair invests in obtaining an engineering plan for the proposed road, there is no guarantee that the Planning Board will then approve the application. Mr. Weiler asked the Board if there was a way the Board could express to the applicant a “reasonable expectation of approval” if the requirements are completed. Ms. Freeman said Mr. Weiler could ask for a sense of a vote from the Board.
Mr. Vannatta said that is possible but extremely careful phrasing would be required and such a vote would not have any legal standing.
Mr. Weiler told Mr. Rodewald that the Board cannot vote and approve the application at this meeting.
Mr. Rodewald said this is not a subdivision. Mr. Weiler said yes, it is and it falls under the subdivision regulations and because the project requires a private road and the additional requirements [13.11 and 13.11.1] apply.
Mr. LaClair asked if the street couldn’t be a shared driveway.
Mr. Weiler said it has to be a platted street in order to meet state law requirements. He said it doesn’t mean the town takes care of the street, it means it is just a private street.
Mr. Healey said the Board should clearly state what it is looking for from the applicant. He said the Board is looking for the following: a plan that shows the road and the road specifications; a request for a waiver of the 40 foot ROW requirement; and a request for a waiver of the 26 foot ditch line to ditch line requirement.
There was discussion about additional requests for information from the applicant. Ms. Freeman asked for clarification on the specific request for more information from the applicant.
Mr. Weiler said the Board requests a subdivision plan completed according to Section IX – Major Subdivisions – Application Submittal Requirements, 9.4 Subdivision Plan of the Newbury Land Subdivision Control Regulations.
Mr. McWilliams said the applicant’s plan should also include 9.8 Road Profiles, Cross Sections and Details.
Mr. Rodewald said he will present a plan to the Board that shows the lot, the road, how the utilities will be dealt with, the turnarounds, the house location, the location of the septic system (a 4-K area), the drainage, and the cross-sections.
Mr. Weiler asked if the plat will be done according to 9.4. Mr. Rodewald said that has already been done.
Mr. McWilliams said the plan that will be recorded must be clean, and not show the houses, the contours, the septic systems, etc. and meets the subdivision regulations.
Mr. Rodewald said the name of the plan is Annexation Plans of Lands. Mr. Weiler said the only addition is a platted street. Mr. Healey said the written waiver requests must be included. Mr. Weiler cited Section IV – Information for Developers, 4.10 Waiver of Requirements, for directions. He told Mr. Rodewald each waiver must be clearly explained and justified.
Mr. McWilliams said the two waiver requests may be contained in one letter but each waiver must be fully explained and justified separately, according to the directives in 4.10.
Additionally, Mr. Weiler said a covenant to release the town from responsibility for the proposed road was also needed and referred Mr. Rodewald to Section XIII – Standards for Street Design, 13.6 Covenant to Release Town, etc. from Furnishing Public Streets.
Mr. Vannatta said the hearing will be rescheduled when Mr. Rodewald knows his 2010 schedule, adding the hearing and abutters will be re-noticed. Mr. Weiler said Mr. Rodewald’s materials need to be submitted 21 days before the scheduled hearing. There was discussion concerning who would pay for the re-noticing. It was noted that the Board has requested additional information from Mr. Rodewald and it was decided that the Planning Board would absorb the cost of the re-noticing.
Mr. Vannatta called for a break at 8:15 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 8:26 p.m.
CASE: Case 2009-007: Annexation-Walter & Marlene Graf/agent: Arthur F. Siciliano. 529-2857. Map/Lot 40-458-050 and 40-387-088.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application for a Final Hearing for an Annexation from Walter & Marlene Graf for property located on Baher & Cheney Roads, Newbury, NH, Tax Map 040-458-050 and 040-357-088 on Tuesday, December 15, 2009, at 7:30 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.
Mr. Vannatta and Mr. McWilliams reviewed the application for completeness. It was noted that a copy of fees paid was not in the application. Mr. Vannatta said he would verify payment with the Land Use Coordinator the following morning. Aside from the question regarding fees, the application was complete.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to accept the application as complete with the condition of fee payment verification with the Land Use Coordinator. Ms. Freeman seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Siciliano represented Walter and Marlene Graf and Robert and Carol Vonette and presented to the Board. Mr. Siciliano said the application is for a lot line adjustment between the parcel of land owned by the Grafs and the Vonettes. He stated that before the annexation, the Vonettes owned 15.15 acres on Cheney Road and the Grafs owned 90.94 acres. The Grafs are going to annex 13.69 acres to the Vonettes. Mr. Siciliano said the resulting total acreage is 28.84 after the annexation (referred to as Parcel “A”).
Mr. Vannatta said that at the Board’s November meeting, Mr. Siciliano requested that the plan be at 200 scale instead of the required 100 scale. Mr. Vannatta said Mr. Siciliano has submitted a written request for a waiver of the 100 scale requirement.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to grant a waiver to change the scale from 100 to 200. Ms. Freeman seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Siciliano said that he is also working on the lot line adjustment for the neighboring Epstein property and has discovered that there is a ROW on Baher Road. He said the plan must be corrected to show that ROW is 25 feet off Baher Road. He said the dimensions will change as a result but that Parcel “A” shall remain the same.
Ms. Freeman raised the point that if dimensions are changed, the acreage will change as well. Mr. Siciliano said one of the property lines will change and one of the acres will change as a result. He said the change is 1/10th of an acre.
Mr. McWilliams said Mr. Siciliano must submit the deeds for the two lots.
Mr. Vannatta asked the Board for further discussion. There being none, he opened the public session. There being none, he closed the public session and reopened the hearing.
Ms. Freeman made a motion to accept the annexation as presented with the conditions that a revised plan be submitted showing the right-of-way (ROW),~adjusted lot lines, and receipt of the~deeds to each lot. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion. All in favor.
~
Mr. Vannatta informed Mr. Siciliano that there is a 30-day appeal period from the date of the decision during which any party directly affected by the decision may appeal to the proper Board.
CASE: Case 2009-006: Conceptual Site Plan Review- Richard H. Wright. 603-938-2947. 535 Route 103. Map/Lot 043-538-529. Wrightway Landscaping for a greenhouse.
Mr. Richard J. “Dick” Wright and his son, Mr. Richard H. “Rick” Wright presented to the Board. Mr. Rick Wright said his plans include building a greenhouse and selling vegetables, plants, mulch, loam, peat moss, along with a small retail store selling pots and gardening items. Mr. Dick Wright presented a map of the property showing the location on Highway Route 103.
Ms. Freeman, an abutter, recused herself and sat in the audience
Mr. Dick Wright said the frontage on highway 103 was 1,071.9 feet. He said there will be a well dug for watering plants.
Mr. Vannatta asked about the proximity of the proposed greenhouse to Rainbow’s property line. Mr. Dick Wright indicated on the map that the property line is the stone wall.
Mr. Vannatta said currently, Mr. Wright has a sawmill on the property and asked if there is a site plan for the existing mill. Mr. Dick Wright replied that one isn’t needed since it is for personal use only.
Mr. Vannatta said the next step is to follow the site plan review regulations.
Mr. Dick Wright said he wanted clarification on several items in the regulations. He said they were not subdividing and not changing anything currently on the property. He said the greenhouse and retail store were going to be temporary structures. Therefore, he said he didn’t see the need for most of the site plan requirements. He said the intent is to attempt an agricultural use of the land and pointed out that the Board has not historically required site plan regulations from similar agricultural users.
Mr. Dick Wright said the proposed business will be seasonal, starting in the spring and running through the summer. He said the back part of the property would continue as a sawmill and there is no intent for subdivision of the land.
Mr. Weiler said subdivision is not an issue. A site plan is under consideration because a business is being proposed.
Mr. Dick Wright said a lot of Article X, Application Requirements, in the Newbury Regulations for Site Plan Review, does not apply to this proposal and asked for guidance regarding what portions of Article X apply and what portions don’t apply.
Mr. Weiler said identifying the use will determine what regulations govern the project per the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Dick Wright said the use will be agricultural. Mr. Weiler questioned the retail shop portion of the proposal and said it falls under the category of cottage industry.
Mr. McWilliams said the Newbury Zoning Ordinance does not define agriculture but the state RSA 21:34-a offers a two-page definition which includes in Section III. “A farm roadside stand shall remain an agricultural operation and not be considered commercial, provided that at least 35 percent of the product sales in dollar volume is attributable to products produced on the farm or farms of the stand owner.”
Mr. Dick Wright said that definition may not apply to the proposed retail shop but it could apply to the sales from the greenhouse. The retail shop will be an open-air gazebo-like structure, he said, and many of the greenhouse plants will be displayed outside in the open air.
Mr. Weiler referred Mr. Dick Wright to the Newbury Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Section 4.2 Uses Permitted that lists the uses subject to site plan review.
Ms. Freeman asked if the plants will be home grown or imported from another location. Mr. Dick Wright said the plant inventory will come from both sources but cannot guarantee that the home grown plants will be 35 percent of the sales.
Mr. Dick Wright described the proposed site as being roughly 65 feet wide and flaring out in a pie-slice shape towards the back of the property. Mr. Weiler asked if there was any slope to the land. Mr. Rick Wright replied no.
Mr. Weiler suggested that the Board consider not requiring a contour map and clarified Section 10.7.5 under Article X Applications Requirements for a site plan saying the surveying requirement was for the area that the applicant intended to develop.
There was further discussion about the specific items required in Section 10.7, location of wetlands, and proposed plans for handling runoff.
Mr. McWilliams asked the Board if the existing old perimeter boundary survey was acceptable if the area for the new site plan was shown on the survey. He said it is acceptable to propose a site plan on a portion of a larger site.
Mr. Dick Wright suggested doing a 20 foot to a 1-inch scale map of the site instead of spending money for a licensed surveyor to resurvey the entire piece of property.
It was decided that copies of the existing old survey would be accepted with the proposed site indicated on the survey. Additionally, a detailed plan drawn to scale showing the proposed site would be needed.
Mr. Dick Wright questioned the applicability of Section 10.7.10. The Board suggested requesting a waiver for that requirement. He questioned the applicability of Section 10.7.8.
Mr. McWilliams suggested addressing that requirement in a written note stating, “all of the proposed site is located in the business district.” Mr. Weiler suggested showing the utility plan on the site plan. Mr. Dick Wright said there would be no sewage disposal system, no exterior lighting, there may be some sign illumination for evening. He said he was unsure if there would be phone cable. Fuel storage, air conditioning, and cooling towers will not be part of the proposed project and he said they do not apply. He said Section 10.8, Landscaping Plan does not apply either. He said there is a drainage swale in place to handle water runoff and will indicate on the plan where the proposed dug well will go.
Mr. Weiler asked about the landscaping plans. Mr. Dick Wright said there will probably be some low growth shrubbery placed in the front and added that the greenhouse structure will be decided on after February 2010. Mr. Weiler said a sketch of the greenhouse should be included in the plan.
Mr. Dick Wright said the proposed hours of operation may be Wednesday through Saturday or Sunday; number of employees will be one or two family members; trucks will make deliveries weekly. Mr. Weiler said parking must be considered and included in the plan. Mr. Rick Wright said he anticipates spaces for six to eight cars. Mr. Weiler said the gross floor space of the shop and the greenhouse must be on the plan.
Mr. Vannatta said Mr. Rick Wright can make application for a final site plan review when he has finished his research and is ready to appear before the Board.
Mr. Vannatta called for a break at 9:15 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 9:20 p.m.
CASE: Case 2009-008: Conceptual for Major Subdivision-Peter Moore/agent: Clayton Platt. 603-863-0981. Map/Lot 034-092-064.
Mr. Healey recused himself from the table and sat in the audience. Mr. Platt presented to the Board. He said the parcel of land is 555 acres. He said he is proposing to create three lots on the land on South Road, with the lot sizes varying from three-to-13 acres.
Ms. Freeman asked for the amount of frontage for each lot. Mr. Platt said the scale on the Preliminary Subdivision Overview is 1” = 800’ which gives each lot over the minimum required frontage. He said there are no further plans for subdivision on the remaining parcel of land.
Mr. Platt said he would like to waive some of the requirements for the big lot such as topo and wetlands. He said there is a 1972 boundary survey done on the 555 acres but he wants to concentrate on the three lots on South Road.
Mr. McWilliams asked if there was a boundary survey of the three lots. Mr. Platt referred to the 1972 boundary survey mentioned above.
Mr. Moore discussed the property’s history, saying the remaining 528 acres will continue to be used as a tree farm. He said he believes it is a wise thing to subdivide the three lots at this time and noted that the total frontage of the tree farm will be reduced.
Mr. Weiler said if Mr. Moore subdivides the three lots, the only access to the tree farm will be through Morse Lane.
Mr. McWilliams said if the Moores want to keep the 528 acres as a build-able lot, will the Planning Board require them to show that they have a build-able lot. He cited Section 5.13 of the Zoning Ordinance, Non-Development Subdivision.
Mr. Moore said he is committed to the preservation of the 528 acres. Mr. Platt said they would provide calculations concerning development area, building sites, etc.
Mr. Weiler said those calculations have to be based on the entire initial lot.
Ms. Freeman said the applicant could request a waiver from doing all the topographical calculations. Mr. Weiler said he was referring to the density calculations which appear in the zoning ordinance, adding that items in the zoning ordinance cannot be waived.
Mr. Platt suggested a minor subdivision of 30 acres from the 555 acres, and asked if that would affect the requirement for a density calculation. Mr. Weiler said no, density requirements apply to minor subdivisions too.
Mr. McWilliams reviewed Section 5.12.3 Maximum Density, Newbury Zoning Ordinance which states, “ The maximum density shall range from one (1) dwelling unit for every two (2) acres to one (1) dwelling unit for every six (6) acres……” He ran the math and concluded that the Moore proposed subdivision was well under the maximum required density.
Ms. Freeman suggested extrapolating the Section 5.12.3 and make assumptions, stating that in the worst scenario the number of proposed lots would be well under the maximum density.
Mr. Platt asked if driveway permits are needed in the plan. Mr. Weiler said the Board of Selectmen handle that but the driveway locations should be shown on the plan.
There was further discussion on the history of the land
Mr. Healey returned to the table.
CASE: Case 2009-009: Conceptual for Site Plan Review-Soaring Goose/The Rolling Pin. 603-502-2107. 104 Route 103. Map/Lot 050-531-080.
Doug Webb, Jr. and Pamela Webb Gentile own the Sweet Patch building at 104 Route 103. Mr. Webb presented to the Board. He said there will be two tenants in the building and felt the Planning Board should be informed.
Ms. Freeman asked if any changes to the building are planned. Mr. Webb said there will be three doors: one for an entrance; one door to separate the two stores; and one door in the rear of the building so goods can be delivered separately. He said The Rolling Pin store, an upscale kitchen/cooking retail store, is open and running. Mr. Webb said the site was a retail store in the past and its use has not changed.
Mr. Weiler said an amendment to the site plan should be required that shows all four sides of the building. Mr. Webb said he will take digital photos and submit them to the Board.
Ms. Freeman asked if the new door to the exterior affect the circulation pattern of the building, namely changing the parking spaces or walkways. Mr. Webb said the entrance to the new store comes off of the existing handicap ramp and the back delivery area remains the same.
Ms. Freeman asked if a renoticing was required for making an amendment to an existing site plan.
Mr. McWilliams said that under the town regulations this situation does not require a site plan review. He said the Board is only asking Mr. Webb to update the file with current pictures of the exterior of the building.
Mr. Weiler asked about the number of employees on site and the new hours of operation since there are now two businesses on the location instead of one.
Mr. McWilliams said Mr. Webb should update Section 10.11 Written Summary under Article X Application Requirements in the Regulations for Site Plan Review and submit that for inclusion in his existing file.
Mr. McWilliams asked Mr. Webb about the Soaring Goose. Mr. Webb said it is a real estate holding company owned by him and his brother and sister. Within the holding company is The Sweet Patch, several real estate properties, etc…and estate planning. He said this is a way to keep some options open.
Mr. Vannatta instructed Mr. Webb to submit his updated information to the Land Use Coordinator for inclusion in his existing file.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
CASE: Case 2003-025: Final Hearing – Michael Gobes – Minor Subdivision – Malia Terrace
Mr. Vannatta reported to the Board that on December 16, 2003, the above minor subdivision was approved by the Planning Board with the condition that it receives State approval. On December 14, 2009 Mr. Vannatta he received a note from Eckman Engineering stating that they [Eckman Engineering] were informed although the project had been approved, it had never been recorded. Updated and new mylars were produced and sent in for recoding. The Land Use Coordinator and Mr. Vannatta researched the Town’s property file and discovered a recorded mylar containing a recording date of January 2004. Mr. Vannatta said the new mylars that were sent do not match the recorded mylar.
Ms. Freeman said the new mylars are for a lot line adjustment. The dates on the new mylar indicate July 25, 2005, revised October 1, 2005 per the Planning Board comments.
Ms. Freeman retrieved the Planning Board minutes from September 2005. She read from the minutes, “A motion was made to approve the lot line adjustment annexation subject to the correction of the approval block, the addition of the driveway to serve lot two (2), notation relative to no further subdivision, and removing note # 3. It was seconded. All were in favor.”
Mr. McWilliams read from Note # 3: “The intent of this plan is to subdivide the subject parcel into two (2) lots.”
Mr. Weiler checked the case numbers and found they were different, indicating the existence of a separate file for the lot line adjustment. He said the file would contain the plat indicating the driveway.
There was further discussion and examination of the two mylars. Ms. Freeman concluded that the only question was whether or not the driveway on the mylar was what the Planning Board had requested from the applicant. Mr. Weiler said if it is the requested driveway, why does the mylar carry the statement, “temporary easement”. Under “See Detail”, the statement appears “for use until the proposed driveway is completed”. Mr. McWilliams pointed out the proposed driveway on the plan.
The Board signed the new mylar and dated it December 15, 2009.
Ms. Freeman made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Powell seconded the motion. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
