Planning Board
January 19, 2010
Approved April 20, 2010
Members Present: Tom Vannatta, Chair; Barbara Freeman, Vice-Chair; Deane Geddes; Bruce Healey; Bill Weiler; Ron Williams, Alternate; Alison Kinsman, Alternate; Ken McWilliams, Advisor.
Mr. Vannata called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Ken McWilliam’s Contract
Mr. Vannatta informed the board Mr. McWilliam’s contract will be reviewed at the Planning Board’s meeting on February 2, 2010, per Mr. McWilliam’s request.
Baker Hill Golf Club conceptual
Mr. Vannatta told the Board that the Baker Hill Golf Club conceptual that was included on the meeting agenda has been removed because Baker Hill has been issued a building permit and the project has been signed off by the town Building Inspector and the Selectmen.
There was discussion regarding whether Baker Hill was required to submit an amended site plan to the board. It was agreed that the building permit should be examined by the Land Use Administrator with a follow up report to the Board.
Mylars
Mr. Vannatta told the Board that there was a problem with the mylar for the Rheta Heller Minor Subdivision, Case 2009-005. He said he was told by the Land Use Coordinator that the mylar was not recorded because there was something on it that was unreadable. A new mylar was presented to the Board for signing and the Board signed it.
Mr. Vannatta presented the mylar for the Walter & Marlene Graf Annexation, Case 2009-007 and explained the situation. Typically, the Board requires submission of both the mylar and the deeds for recording. The Graf’s attorney objected to submitting the deeds to the Land Use Coordinator for recording. After conferring with the town attorney, Mr. Vannatta said he spoke to the Graf’s attorney and suggested that latter take responsibility for recording the deeds and the mylar within 60 days of picking up the mylar from the Land Use Coordinator. Mr. Vannatta said the Graf’s attorney will submit a written statement indicating the latter’s responsibility for the proper recording of the Graf’s mylar and deeds.
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of December 15, 2009 and made corrections. Ms. Freeman made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
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.
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, January 19, 2010, at 7:15 p.m. in the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH. This will be a continued hearing as per the Board’s actions at its meeting on December 15, 2009.
Mr. Vannatta said the applicant met the required deadline for submitting the documents requested by the Board at its December 15, 2009 meeting. Mr. Rodewald and Mr. LaClair were in attendance. Mr. Rodewald presented to the Board.
Mr. Rodewald reviewed the new site plan which showed the following: the three lots reduced to two lots; two dwellings on the lots; the private road; the turnarounds and parking areas; the drainage; and the septic systems. He said the utilities will be carried underground.
He reviewed the annexation survey plan which showed a 24 foot wide private road (ditch-to-ditch) with access to lot 020-069-280. He presented the engineering specifications which showed typical road cross-sections including grades, curvatures, point of curve, actual angles, and wall slope. Additionally, the plan included details of planned culverts and cross sections of walls, and an erosion control plan (silt fence, hay bales, seeding).
Mr. Rodewald described the implementation of the erosion control plan as starting with the construction phase of the project and continuing through completion of the building phase. He said following the completion of construction, the area would be seeded and stabilized.
Mr. Vannatta said there were two additional issues to be considered - the covenant releasing the town from responsibility for the private road, and the waiver letter regarding the right-of-way requirements.
Mr. Rodewald said he asked for a waiver of the 45 foot easement.
Mr. McWilliams said it is a 40 foot right of way requirement.
Mr. Rodewald agreed, adding that the private road would only be used by the two proposed dwellings and the road will not be expanded. Therefore, he said, the 40 foot requirement would not “come into play”. He added that the ditch line to ditch line measurements on the road would vary in width from 24 feet to 30 feet. Also, he said, the plan indicates that at no point will the road become less than 24 feet ditch line to ditch line.
Mr. Healey asked if the private road was being constructed according to the specifications of a town service road.
Mr. McWilliams said the waiver is to reduce the 40 foot right-of-way (ROW) standard and the 26 foot ditchline-to-ditchline standard in places..
Mr. Healey asked if the waiver was just for the 40 foot requirement.
Mr. McWilliams said that is correct.
Mr. Healey questioned the use of service road specifications for what is clearly a private road use.
Mr. Rodewald said that his understanding was that the service road/private road specifications “all comes under the same thing”.
Mr. McWilliams agreed, and said the specifications could apply to a public service road but in this case, this is a private road. He added that there are two items under consideration for a waiver: (1) the minimum right of way of 40 feet, which the applicant is asking to reduce; and, (2) the ditch line to ditch line standard of 26 feet, which the applicant is asking to reduce to 24 feet in places, noting that there are other places where it widens out to 30 feet.
Ms. Freeman suggested that the applicant rewrite the waiver request to contain the correct dimensions and wording. She said submission of a correctly rewritten waiver request could be a condition of approval by the board.
Mr. Vannatta and Mr. McWilliams agreed.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve the request for a waiver with the condition that it is rewritten and resubmitted to include: (1) reduction of the required 40 foot ROW; and, (2) modification of the 26 foot ditch line to ditch line requirement to range from 24 feet to 30 feet. Mr. Geddes seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Vannatta asked the Board for discussion on the proposed plan.
Mr. McWilliams asked Mr. Rodewald if an easement is planned for the proposed leach field on Lot 20. Mr. Rodewald said yes. Mr. McWilliams asked if the leach field will be shown as part of the plan to be recorded.
Mr. Rodewald said he didn’t think that was necessary since the leach field falls under state approval for the septic plan and a specific area will be designated at that time.
Ms. Freeman said the culverts appear to run off on to the abutters’ land.
Mr. Rodewald said that’s the current route of the runoff.
Ms. Freeman said the plan shows the construction of a pool located partly on both the LaClair property and Newbury’s land. She asked if the applicant has permission to build the proposed pool since it will have an impact on another property owner’s land.
Mr. Rodewald said the water is currently dumping onto the abutter’s land. Ms. Freeman replied that the runoff is currently a natural occurrence but that the construction of culverts would create a man-made deposit of runoff on to the abutter’s property. Furthermore, she questioned the legality of constructing the culvert on an abutter’s property.
Ms. Freeman said that the stone wall runs along the property boundary line and pointed out that the proposed culverts that are placed along the stone wall actually exit on to the abutter’s land.
Mr. Weiler asked Ms. Freeman if she was mentioning the above as a requirement or was she giving the applicant advice? Ms. Freeman said she was questioning whether or not the applicant is allowed to build a culvert that will exit on to an abutter’s property.
There was discussion about the legality of building something on someone else’s land.
Mr. Weiler said he didn’t think the board could deny the application based on the above issue but he said the board should advise the applicant to obtain an easement.
Mr. McWilliams referred to Article 12.1 Off Site Drainage Considerations of the Newbury Land Subdivision Control Regulations, and read the following:
“In the course of designing the on-site drainage systems, the subdivider shall ensure that there is no net increase in runoff to off-site areas. If increased runoff is not preventable, the subdivider shall obtain an easement in the impacted areas, and make drainage improvements there to contain the increased runoff. The easement document shall contain a section holding the Town of Newbury harmless for any claims for damage in the easement area and in any down-slope areas potentially impacted.”
Mr. Rodewald said that when the proposed culvert system is installed, the proper equipment and needs will be met. He said there are other ways of approaching the issue besides constructing a drainage pool and mentioned the installation of a dry well on Mr. LaClair’s land.
Mr. LaClair said the water is going to go where it has always gone.
Mr. Rodewald referred the board to the engineer’s drainage report noting that a “minimal amount of drainage is taking place” on the property because the soil types on the property are “excessively drained soils”. He made the argument that the proposed drainage plan would not increase the amount of drainage coming off of the property. He said the proposed road might actually give the water more time to be absorbed before running off.
Ms. Freeman disagreed saying hard surfaces, such as roads, do not absorb water.
Mr. Rodewald said the lip of the road is porous and will hold the water in place for several seconds, thus increasing the absorption rate.
Ms. Freeman suggested two choices for the applicant: (1) to resolve the water issues on Mr. LaClair’s land; or, (2) obtain an easement from the town, who owns the lots where the drainage will be discharged.
Mr. Rodewald said those are two options for consideration, saying Mr. LaClair will obviously talk with his abutter [the town of Newbury] and if that does not resolve the issue, then the issue will be solved on his own property.
Ms. Freeman said that could be made a condition of board approval.
Mr. Vannatta reviewed Ms. Freeman’s suggestion saying the condition of approval would be the acquisition of an easement and/or reconstruction of all the locations of the proposed drainage plan that exits on to the abutter’s property.
Mr. Healey said the property has two distinct runoffs. Mr. LaClair agreed. Mr. Healey said the town’s new playground is located in a direct line of the current runoff path. Mr. LaClair said the future path of the runoff would be exactly as it is currently.
Mr. Vannatta said the concern is that the proposed drainage plan would increase the amount of runoff directed to the playground below. Mr. LaClair denied that that there would be an increase, saying the runoff would be divided up among the several proposed culverts.
Ms. Freeman said the runoff would be channeled into specific exits instead of being spread across the land naturally.
Mr. Weiler said there is a natural channel that exists on the property that the board stepped over while on its site visit on November 21, 2009. Mr. LaClair said there were two channels on the property.
Mr. Weiler asked if the issue concerning drainage was going to be a condition that is precedent or subsequent to Board approval? Ms. Freeman said it would be a condition precedent to Board approval.
Mr. Vannatta reviewed the engineer’s report regarding drainage and the methods used to calculate runoff. He read the following excerpt from the report:
“...the method is not designed to deal with such small areas with low runoff potential with such well-drained soil types. The result of this is that except for contributions from the small drainage areas of the driveway no appreciable change is expected in the amount of runoff between the present and proposed conditions.”
Ms. Freeman said the report says except for “the small drainage areas of the driveway”, which she said will increase the amount of runoff. She said the proposed drainage areas need to be addressed because the runoff will be discharged on to an abutter’s land.
Mr. Vannatta appointed Mr. Williams as a voting member for the remaining portion of the hearing.
Mr. Vannatta reviewed the case noting the Board’s concern over the issue of drainage and its suggestion that a condition of approval would require the applicant to obtain an easement from the town, or reconstruct the proposed drainage system to remain completely on the applicant’s property.
Mr. Vannatta asked the Board to take a few minutes to further review the applicant’s materials, noting that the Board has a covenant releasing the town from any responsibility regarding the private road, and that the waiver letter was approved with the condition that the letter be rewritten with the correct dimensions and wording, and resubmitted.
Mr. Vannatta opened the hearing to the public for comment. There being none, Mr. Vannatta closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and returned to session.
Mr. Vannatta asked if there was any other information that the Board required prior to making a decision?
Ms. Freeman asked if the case is an annexation and a subdivision?
Mr. Vannatta said it has been called a subdivision for discussion purposes only.
Ms. Freeman asked if the Board was going to vote on the application as an annexation first and then a subdivision?
Mr. McWilliams said the Board agreed that it was going to be an annexation application, accompanied by the road plans, drainage, and a set of erosion control plans. He said the Board agreed at the December 15, 2009 meeting to avoid labeling it as a full subdivision application which would require a separate application.
Mr. Vannatta agreed.
Mr. Williams made a motion to approve the annexation with the road plans as presented and with the condition that the drainage pool and all of the culverts be relocated to Mr. LaClair’s property, or an easement obtained from the town. Mr. Geddes seconded the motion.
Mr. Vannatta called for discussion.
Ms. Freeman said she felt the project should be one lot and one house.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a vote.
Vote In Favor: Mr. Williams, Mr. Healey, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Vannatta and Mr. Geddes.
Vote Opposed: Ms. Freeman.
Mr. Vannatta acknowledged a split in the vote but declared that majority rules and the motion passed.
Mr. Vannatta advised Mr. Rodewald and Mr. LaClair that they, or any party directly affected by this decision may appeal to the proper Board within thirty days of the decision.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Mr. Vannatta thanked the Board for its diligence and thoroughness in handling the aforementioned case, adding he anticipates similar cases in the future. He suggested researching methods of approach for future cases involving properties without road access.
Mr. Weiler said each case will be different and that a general solution to the issue of access is not possible. He added that the aforementioned case has proven that the Board has at its disposal, state laws and town regulations that will determine the outcome of each future case.
Mr. Vannatta suggested that the issue be included for discussion at the Board’s meeting on February 2, 2010.
Additionally, Mr. Vannatta mentioned that there are two openings on the Board for the upcoming election in March. Mr. Vannatta said he is running for re-election. Mr. Geddes position is also open for re-election.
Mr. Vannatta said Russell Smith is interested in becoming an Alternate and invited the Board to interview Mr. Smith at the February 2, 2010 meeting.
Ms. Freeman made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
