Planning Board
March 2, 2010
Approved April 6, 2010
Members Present: Tom Vannatta, Chair; Bill Weiler; Travis Dezotell; Ron Williams, Alternate; Alison Kinsman, Alternate; Russell Smith, Alternate; Ken McWilliams, Advisor.
Mr. Vannata called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Mr. Vannata appointed Mr. Williams, Ms. Kinsman and Mr. Smith as voting members for this meeting.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of February 2, 2010 and made corrections. Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Dezotell seconded the motion. All in favor.
Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission (UVLSRPC)
Mr. Vannatta reviewed the “UVLSRPC Guidelines to Determine Developments of Regional Impact” document and the Board’s letter in response, noting that the letter was sent but, as yet, no response has been received.
Steve Landrigan Discussion
Mr. Landrigan and Tom Dombroski, surveyor, were present and spoke to the Board regarding Mr. Landrigan’s property. Mr. Landrigan stated that he met with the Selectmen concerning the same and they suggested that he meet with the Planning Board. He said his property shows as a single lot on the Town map but was deeded by the Selectmen and shown on a previous survey as two lots.
Mr. Dombroski described the history of the property referring to deeds dating back to the 1930s: originally, the Town owned the property and sold it to George Coleman as two lots; Mr. Coleman sold a small portion of one of the lots; when Mr. Coleman died, his wife Helen inherited the property and created a new description of the property, listing it as one lot. Mr. Dombroski said the question is whether or not the property is two separate lots of record.
Mr. Weiler asked Mr. Landrigan to indicate which deed was the one that transferred the title to him. Mr. Landrigan said the latest deed which describes the property as one parcel.
Mr. McWilliams noted that the property also was described as one parcel in the deed prior to the one mentioned above. Mr. Landrigan said the deed dated March 1975 was the first deed that described the property as one parcel.
Mr. Vannatta asked if the deed indicated the same amount of acreage as the total amount of the two lots. Mr. Landrigan said yes.
Mr. Weiler said there are two issues to consider:
- the Board is governed by the current Land Subdivision Control Regulations, and
- when considering an annexation or a subdivision, the Board examines the deed. If there are two tracts, it is already subdivided and is considered one lot. If the property is one tract, it is not subdivided.
Mr. McWilliams added that the property has been transferred twice as one parcel and the Town has taxed it as one parcel.
Mr. Weiler said the taxation of the property is irrelevant, noting that the Board has not examined the tax map and how the tax assessor assesses property. Mr. Weiler referenced a Town revaluation by the state in 1994 when lots were sometimes combined and taxed as one. He added that relying on a tax map to define property is unreliable.
Mr. Landrigan stated that his property was voluntarily merged in 1975. Mr. Weiler said it may not have been merged legally; that it may have been done for convenience.
Mr. Weiler raised the point that if an owner with title to two adjacent lots transfers title with another person and calls it a single lot, is that a merger?
Mr. McWilliams said the deed will state, “as conveyed to”.
Mr. Weiler questioned that, historically and legally, a conveyance of any number of lots—when it is conveyed as one lot—results in a default merger.
If that is the case, Mr. Vannatta stated that Mr. Landrigan’s property has defaulted twice.
Mr. Vannatta said no one raised an issue between 1986 when the property was first conveyed as one parcel, and 2004 when Mr. Landrigan purchased the property. Mr. Weiler said the operative deed was the one in 1986. Mr. Landrigan noted that there was a deed in 1975 after the property emerged from the probate court and the Board recommended that he locate that deed to see how the property was listed—as one lot or two.
Mr. McWilliams noted that the combined acreage totaled 2.8 acres. Mr. Landrigan said there is a single house on the property.
Mr. Weiler said that if Mr. Landrigan presented to the Board a request to subdivide the property, the issue of two non-conforming lots would be raised. Mr. Weiler added that it is probable that the Zoning Board of Adjustment would have to consider such a request since the issue of non-conforming lots would be the deciding point.
There was further discussion among the Board members concerning whether Mr. Landrigan’s property was one lot or two lots. Mr. Vannatta stated that it was unlikely that the Board could take any action on the matter due to a lack of clearly defined information, specifically concerning the conveyance of two lots into one in 1975.
Mr. Dezotell asked if the Board has the authority to make the decision concerning the 1975 conveyance. Mr. Vannatta said he did not feel the Board had the authority. After some discussion, the Board agreed that they were the Town board with the authority to make this decision.
There was discussion among the Board about the best next step for Mr. Landrigan.
Mr. Weiler reminded the Board that the rule by which the Board makes decisions is to refer to the current deed, namely “the current deed rules.”
Mr. McWilliams recommended that the Board consult with Town counsel to determine if Mr. Landrigan’s property deed reflects a voluntary lot merger. Mr. Landrigan agreed and thanked the Board for their time and advice. Mr. Vannatta agreed to follow up with Town counsel on this issue.
2010 Variance Ordinance
Mr. Vannatta reviewed the January 1, 2010 variance law changes for “use” and “area” variance criteria, noting that the state legislators decided to redefine the two types of variances and combine the criteria into one [RSA 673:33 I, subparagraph (b) Powers of Zoning Board of Adjustment]. He noted that the Board had not been notified of the variance law change and that the deadline had passed for placing the same on the ballot for the March 10, 2010 Town Meeting. When asked for advice from the ZBA regarding how to notify future ZBA hearing applicants, Mr. Vannatta advised the ZBA that the state law supersedes the Town’s zoning regulations and the applicant should be directed to the RSA for guidance. Mr. Vannatta added that Town counsel agreed with that approach. Mr. Weiler suggested that a
document be drawn up alerting future ZBA applicants to the change for distribution by the Land Use Assistant. The Recording Secretary noted that the document is currently being drafted.
Mylar/Deed Submission Procedure
Mr. Weiler noted that the town subdivision regulations (parenthetically Section 6.5) indicate that the Board is not required to put the date of the hearing when signing a mylar, just the date when the signing takes place. Also, there must be a majority of Board members present to sign the mylar, and the members do not have to be the same members who were present during the hearing.
Mr. McWilliams noted that if Alternates have been appointed as voting members for the meeting in question, they may sign the mylar. Also, he referenced the Town’s Land Subdivision Control Regulations, Section VII –Annexations, Minor Lot Line Adjustments, or Boundary Agreements – Application Submittal Requirements, Section 7.1.10, which refers to a “Hearing Date” and an “Approval Date” under the Signature and Seal of Surveyor or Engineer. Mr. McWilliams suggested removing the “Hearing Date” requirement. He also noted a similar instruction under Section 9.4.13 of the subdivision regulations and recommended modifying it similarly.
New England Handicap Sports Association (NEHSA) Proposal
Mr. Vannatta reviewed the NEHSA proposal to build a facility for handicapped skiers at Mt. Sunapee. He said NEHSA appeared before the board over a year ago with a conceptual for a new building and parking lot and noted that the Board had concerns about the wetlands, steep slopes, etc., and NEHSA had applied for state permits. Since that time, the Lake Sunapee Protective Association (LSPA) has taken a strong position on the project. He said that, sooner or later, NEHSA may be appearing before the Board with a site plan. He said there are significant concerns about the height of the retaining wall and seepage, adding that the Conservation Commission (CC) has forwarded its concerns on the project to the state.
Mr. Vannatta expressed the possibility that NEHSA may attempt to avoid appearing before the Board and proceed without presenting a site plan for review. Mr. Weiler questioned the legality of such an action, stating that it falls under non-governmental use of governmental property.
Mr. Vannatta noted that when NEHSA does appear before the Board the CC and LSPA will have a significant amount of input for the Board when considering the site plan review.
Mr. Williams noted that NEHSA has made several changes to the original plan in the attempt to mitigate environmental impact.
Mr. Weiler asked if there are restrictions on testimony during a hearing, noting that LSPA and the CC are not abutters. He asked if the board accepts testimony from any interested party. Mr. McWilliams said yes, it is a public hearing.
Ms. Kinsman asked about the nature of the project. Mr. Dezotell said the proposed project is located next to the Kiddie learning area at Mt. Sunapee when facing the lift, namely the south peak side and to the right, up into the woods on the hill next to the access road.
Mr. Weiler said the proposed site has wetlands, drainage challenges, and are close to steep slope development restrictions.
Mr. Deztotell stated that NEHSA has presented to the Board the immense need for the location, the amount of impact the proposed project would have on the local handicapped community and the degree of improvement possible to the program.
Mr. Weiler noted that the Board recognizes NEHSA’s objectives and reasoning but questions whether the proposed site is the only one suitable for the project.
Mr. Williams stated that NEHSA has a strong commitment and purpose in proposing the project and the long term service it could provide to the handicapped community.
Mr. Dezotell said one of the objectives of the proposed location was to remove the learning scenario from the main portion of the mountain so the handicapped skiers would have their own learning hill area. He added that one must judge topography with a project like this, noting that if there is a down hill slope involved in the learning process, the student must be at the top of it.
There was further discussion about NEHSA’s conceptual hearing, steep slope requirements, wetlands impact, the retaining wall for the parking lot and the buffer zone.
Mr. Dezotell stated that during the past four to five years many of the Board members have attended courses on mitigating runoff impact incorporating different technologies, theories, and processes. He encouraged the Board to begin to think creatively about the technologies, theories, and processes available to help applicants mitigate runoff impacts when considering individual projects. He continued suggesting that the enforcement of the mitigation techniques as opposed to denying the applicant the ability to utilize a section of land.
Mr. Williams added that another consideration is the construction techniques used in the project, noting that some techniques may add cost to the project but it might provide appropriate mitigation.
Release Form
Mr. Vannatta reviewed a release form drafted to handle the transfer of responsibility of filing the deeds and the mylar simultaneously in Case 2009-007: Annexation-Walter and Marlene Graf. He noted that the form was signed by the Graf’s attorney and the situation was successfully handled. It was suggested at the Board’s last work session meeting that a similar release form be used as a model form for consideration for inclusion in the sub division regulations. Mr. Vannatta said he shared the release form with Mr. Weiler for consideration by the Subdivision Regulations Subcommittee.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Vannatta reviewed the following upcoming events with the Board:
- Lake Sunapee Watershed Infrastructure Project
- The first session on February 17, 2010 was attended by Deane Geddes and Bruce Healey. Mr. Vannatta said he expects Mr. Healey to attend the following two meetings and reporting to the Board.
-“Reducing Impact: Water Retention and Impervious Surfaces”, March 31, 2010
-“Local Government and Infrastructure”, April 21, 2010
- UVLSRPC Backyard Farming Program, March 31, 2010
- NH Office of Energy and Planning (OEP) 17th Annual Spring Planning & Zoning Conference, May 8, 2010. Mr. Vannatta encouraged the Board to consider attending.
Mr. Vannatta discussed receiving a notification about a meeting last Monday with the Belknap Merrimack County Community Action (CCA) organization and the Selectmen. The issue centered around the CCA’s acquisition of the old Clark-Davis property on Newbury Heights Road. Mr. Vannatta was invited to attend the meeting by the Town Administrator. The CCA canceled the meeting the day of the meeting discussion. However, the scope of the acquisition would involve multiple public meetings and discussions before the Planning Board would be involved. Mr. Vannatta noted that the CCA’s proposed acquisition appears to involve senior housing and the Board should be involved in the proposed project from the outset.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Workforce Housing
Mr. Dezotell referred to the New London regulations and noted that his report on Workforce Housing for the Town remains sound. He said attention to the bookkeeping is important and figuring out ways for the Board to continue to conduct studies two-to three years in the future is worth attention. He added that the existing subdivision regulations governing cluster housing allows the Board the latitude to do what needs to be done.
Mr. Weiler said the Board has a clear set of regulations to refer to in the future.
Mr. Dezotell said the HUD numbers used to define Newbury are inaccurate since they are based on numbers that apply to the entire Merrimack County. He said the Town is better reflected in the HUD numbers for Sullivan County.
Sign Ordinance
There was no report from the sign committee due to the sign committee’s absence.
Mr. Dezotell mentioned that John Stosle, with Fox News Business, is featured in a multi-tiered report this week on business signs and businesses First Amendment rights.
There was general discussion about various sign issues within the state and federal courts.
Subdivision Regulations
Mr. Weiler reported that a proposal and materials are close to completion on requiring developers to have sureties in place during a development project. He said his committee will review the proposal and materials and make recommendations.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Mr. Vannatta discussed the upcoming meeting on March 16, 2010. He noted that two hearings are scheduled and have been noticed. Mr. Vannatta said most of the Board will be absent that night, noting that only Mr. Weiler can attend. There was discussion regarding rescheduling the meeting.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to cancel the March 16, 2010 Planning Board meeting and hearings, to reschedule the hearings for April 6, 2010, to notify the applicants and abutters of same, and to notice the new meeting date. Mr. Dezotell seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Weiler mentioned that the OEP website contains useful in-depth updated information and recommended that the Board refer to it for ongoing informational updates.
Mr. Vannatta presented the mylar for Case 2008-010: Annexation-Brad LaClair for signing. The Board signed the mylar.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
