Planning Board
April 6, 2010
Approved May 4, 2010
Members Present: Tom Vannatta, Chair; Barbara Freeman, Vice-Chair; Bill Weiler, Bruce Healey, Travis Dezotell, Elizabeth Ashworth, Members; Alison Kinsman, Russell Smith, Alternates; Ken McWilliams, Advisor; Jim Powell, ex-officio member.
Mr. Vannatta called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Mr. Vannatta welcomed Elizabeth Ashworth as a new member of the Planning Board. He then turned the meeting over to the Recording Secretary to call for nominations for the Board chair. The Recording Secretary called for nominations for the Board chair.
Ms. Freeman made a motion to appoint Mr. Vannatta as Board chair. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Vannatta called for nominations for the Board vice-chair.
Ms. Freeman made a motion to nominate Mr. Dezotell as Board vice-chair. The motion died for lack of a second because Mr. Dezotell was absent.
Mr. Vannatta made a motion to nominate Ms. Freeman as Board vice-chair. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Vannatta informed the Board that he has invited Deanne Geddes, former Board member, to participate as an Alternate. Mr. Vannatta indicated that additional Alternates include Ron Williams (2012), Russell Smith (2013), and Alison Kinsman (2012).
Mr. Vannatta requested that the Board postpone reviewing the March 2, 2010 draft meeting minutes until the end of the meeting. The Board agreed.
Steve Landrigan Discussion
Mr. Landrigan presented the Board with the history surrounding his property. He said that two lots were deeded in 1938 and over 40 years later a recorded plat shows the property as two lots. However, the current Town map shows the property as being one lot.
Mr. Vannatta stated that Mr. Landrigan presented his situation thoroughly at the Planning Board’s meeting on March 2, 2010. At that time, the Board recommended that the matter be discussed with Town counsel for guidance. Mr. Vannatta said Town counsel reviewed Mr. Landrigan’s situation and concluded that Mr. Landrigan’s property is one lot based on the following: (1) the sequence of deeds that have taken place calling it one lot since 1986; (2) by virtue of history, the property has been twice transferred as one lot; and, (3) the owners have enjoyed the benefits of being taxed as one lot.
Mr. Landrigan said the Town deeded the land as two parcels, signed by the Selectmen, and in 1972 a plat was signed showing it as two lots. He added that in 1938 a tax lien was created against the two lots which was an indication that the Town considered the property two lots, not one. He said, as far as he is aware, there has never been an official merging of the lots into one. He added that through a series of errors the two lots ended up being described as one lot and the error has been compounded over the years.
Mr. Vannatta referred to a survey done by Tom Dombroski, surveyor, in 2006 which shows the property as 2.8 acres and as two lots separated with a broken line, called an “old line”. According to Town counsel, “old line” means the lot is no longer separated.
Mr. Landrigan replied that Mr. Dombroski stated that the property was two lots at the Planning board meeting on March 2, 2010. Mr. Landrigan added that the property is recorded on the survey plat as being two lots.
Ms. Freeman referred to the Planning Board (PB) meeting minutes of March 2, 2010, stating, “Mr. Landrigan stated that his property was voluntarily merged in 1975.” She asked him what he meant by that.
Mr. Landrigan said he didn’t think he used the words “merged” or “voluntarily”.
Mr. Weiler said one of the questions that Town counsel was to answer is whether the sequence of deeds – voluntary or involuntary – resulted in a legal merger.
Mr. Vannatta said Town counsel indicated that the description of the parcel and both tracts of land on the survey were the same. Mr. Vannatta added that it has been deeded as one parcel at least two times. He added that the property owners accepted the property as one lot, not two separate tax entities.
Mr. McWilliams said that in his experience, lots of deeds show two tracts of land that are contiguous – owned by the same property owner – in the same deed and described separately.
Mr. Landrigan referenced the 1938 deed which shows the property as two lots. He said the Town deeded the two lots to George and Helen Coleman at that time. He said Mr. Coleman died and Mrs. Coleman deeded it in 1986 and described it according to the perimeter plan that was done in 1972. He said the 1972 perimeter plan shows the Coleman property as two lots along with a third lot which was owned by another person. He added that it was signed by the Planning Board in 1972.
Ms. Freeman, referring to the PB meeting minutes of March 2, 2010, noted that there was a reference to a deed that was made in 1975 and that the Board recommended that Mr. Landrigan locate that deed.
Mr. Landrigan said he did not recall a deed dated 1975 but did recall an affidavit that was dated 1974.
Mr. Vannatta asked Mr. Powell for the Selectmen’s opinion on Mr. Landrigan’s issue, since the latter had initially met with the Selectmen. Mr. Powell said the Selectmen recommended that Mr. Landrigan meet with the Planning Board.
Mr. Landrigan said that his situation is unique because during a span of 40 years, the Town has been involved in the deeding of the property, the settlement of a boundary line dispute and a plan carrying the sign-off of the Planning Board. He said it is his belief that there is no case for the property to be considered one lot. He said there was an error made in the description of the property when Mrs. Coleman deeded the land away and an attorney drew up the property description using the available plat plan. He said the property description is consistent with the deed but it is not consistent in terms of the lots.
Ms. Freeman said this is a legal issue and something that the Planning Board can not decide. She said the Town counsel considers the property a single lot and if Mr. Landrigan does not agree with that opinion he needs to present another legal opinion on the issue.
Mr. Landrigan said he has another legal opinion on the issue.
Mr. Vannatta said that if the tax assessor considers the property one parcel, it is an administrative decision that can be appealed by Mr. Landrigan.
Mr. Weiler interjected that the Board does not operate under the rules used by the tax assessor; the Board operates under what is in the property deed.
Mr. Vannatta said the deed specifies that it is a single lot.
Mr. Landrigan said the deed specified a single lot by mistake.
Ms. Freeman said the Board does not know that.
Mr. Landrigan said “the Planning Board has a recorded plan saying it’s two lots and it was deeded originally as two lots 40 years earlier so there is very little question I think that it’s two lots.”
Mr. McWilliams asked if the above Planning Board action and signed plat occurred before or after the property was deeded as a single parcel.
Mr. Landrigan said it was before.
Mr. McWilliams further noted that the property has been transferred twice as a single parcel since the above Planning Board action.
Mr. Landrigan agreed but said it is “a compounded error”.
Mr. Weiler asked Mr. Landrigan if, when he bought the property, he considered it one lot or two lots.
Mr. Landrigan said he thought it was one lot but after having it surveyed discovered that it was two lots.
Mr. Weiler said he believed the Board has the authority to render an opinion concerning whether the property is one lot or two.
Ms. Freeman said her opinion is that it would be a legal decision upon the reading of the available information on the property. Mr. Weiler said Town counsel has done that.
Ms. Ashworth said it is an attorney’s responsibility to research the property deed and then present a concise assessment of the situation.
Mr. Weiler said Town counsel has presented a legal opinion based on the fact that the property is most recently deeded as a single parcel. He said the Board does not need to know the history of the property – beyond the most recent deed – in order to determine if the property is one or two lots.
Mr. Vannatta said the Board must make its decision based on the most recent deed.
Mr. McWilliams said that if the Board decides that the property is one parcel – based on the way the deeds have been done and the opinion of Town counsel – that decision is an interpretation of the town zoning ordinance. He said that is an administrative interpretation of the zoning ordinance.
Ms. Freeman asked why it is an interpretation of the zoning ordinance adding the decision is based on what’s in the deed.
Mr. McWilliams said the Board is making a decision about whether the property is a single piece of land or two pieces of land as defined under the town’s zoning ordinance and the ordinance’s requirement concerning minimum lot size.
Mr. Weiler says the property (as a single lot) does meet the minimum lot size requirement.
Mr. McWilliams added that if the Board decides this is a single piece of land and Mr. Landrigan wants to subdivide it, he can’t do that because each lot would not meet the zoning ordinance’s minimum lot size requirements. Mr. McWilliams said that under RSA 676.5, III, the Planning Board can make an administrative interpretation of the zoning ordinance that may be appealed to the zoning board.
Mr. Weiler said that the history of the property 40 years ago indicating that the property is two lots does not establish precedence since there have been two deeds since then establishing the property as one lot.
Mr. Landrigan said that he applied for a tax abatement during his first year of ownership and was told that the only way the land could be valued at the level it was valued was if it was considered two parcels.
Mr. Weiler asked if the abatement was granted. Mr. Landrigan said no.
Mr. Vannatta summarized the information before the Board concerning Mr. Landrigan’s property, adding that the Board historically refers to the most recent property deed as the one that supersedes all previous deeds. He added that a deed is a legal document for the transference of property.
Ms. Freeman said that, given the legal opinion of Town counsel and the evidence provided by Mr. Landrigan, it is her opinion that the property is one single lot.
Mr. Powell said he believed the contention is that the original deeding of two lots into one was done in error. He recommended more research be conducted before rendering a decision.
Ms. Freeman said that even though the Board does not have a complete historical picture of the property it is not the Board’s responsibility to conduct research on the issue. She said the evidence in front of the board indicates that it is one lot. She added that if Mr. Landrigan wants to prove that it is two lots it is his responsibility to do so through documentation.
Mr. Weiler said the complete story and history of the property is documented in the PB meeting minutes of March 2, 2010.
There was general discussion about when the town adopted an official merger process. Mr. McWilliams said the Town adopted a merger process four or five years ago, “well after 1986 when this [property] was deeded as one piece,” he said. Therefore, there was no merger provision within the Town in 1986.
Therefore, Ms. Freeman said, there wouldn’t be any record of a merger in 1986 because there was no official merger process in place at that time.
Mr. Dezotell asked where a deed is typically challenged. Mr. Weiler said a deed is challenged in court. Mr. Dezotell said that the Board’s opinion must be based on the facts set before them and those facts indicate that this property is one piece of land, not two. He said Mr. Landrigan’s issue is not with the Board but rather with the legal interpretation of the progression of deeds.
Mr. Landrigan said the distinction is that the deed description was changed in 1986; it is not the same deed description that was used prior to 1986.
Mr. Dezotell said all the Board could legally consider is the current deed, not multiple deeds that were drawn up before the current deed.
Mr. Vannatta said it is difficult for the Board to know the intent of the writer when the 1986 property deed was created.
Mr. Landrigan said the property description was changed at that time and was based on the plat plan not a survey. Mr. Vannatta said that may be possible but all parties accepted the 1986 deed and property description.
Mr. Vannatta said the Board has the following information concerning Mr. Landrigan’s property: the opinion of Town counsel; the history of the deeds being transferred; the acceptance of the tax benefits; and the latest survey showing an “old line” separating the properties, which, according to Town counsel, means the property is no longer separated.
Ms. Ashworth said the Board does not have the authority to decide if the property is one lot or two lots. Ms. Freeman agreed but said the Board can render an opinion that the property is one lot.
Ms. Freeman made a motion that, in the Board’s opinion, this lot is one legal lot. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a vote. Ms. Freeman, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Healey, Mr. Dezotell, and Ms. Ashworth voted in favor. Mr. Powell opposed. The motion carried.
Mr. Landrigan thanked the Board for its time. He said his understanding of the Board’s action is that the Board is not exercising the merger rights that the Town has under the RSAs, but just rendering an opinion.
Mr. Vannatta said the Board is rendering an opinion based on the information presented to them.
Mr. Landrigan asked about the appeal process available to him.
Mr. Vannatta said Mr. Landrigan may file an administrative appeal to the Planning Board’s decision within 30 days. Mr. Vannatta directed Mr. Landrigan to the Land Use Secretary for the needed forms.
Mr. Weiler added that if the property was accepted as two lots, it would mean creating two non- conforming lots which would be in opposition to the Town’s regulations governing the creation of non-conforming lots.
CASE: Case 2010-001: Site Plan Review- Richard H. Wright. 603-938-2947. 535 Route 103. Map/Lot 043-583-529. Wrightway Landscaping for a greenhouse.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning board will receive submission of an Application for a Site Plan Review from Richard H. Wright, for property located at 405 Old Post Road and off Route 103, Newbury, NH, Tax Map 043-583-529 on Tuesday, April 6, 2010, at 7:15 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 plan are available for public review at the Town Office Building during regular business hours. Business hours are as follows: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday from 8 a.m. to noon.
Ms. Freeman and Mr. Smith, both being abutters of the above property, recused themselves.
Mr. Vannatta noted that the hearing was taking place three weeks later than expected.
Mr. Richard J. “Dick” Wright and his son, Mr. Richard H. “Rick” Wright presented to the Board.
The Board reviewed the application for completeness.
Mr. Dick Wright said he “took the liberty of changing the scale” when drawing the plan because if he adhered to the town regulations in that area, the plan would have been the size of a “postcard size map”. He said his drawing is 1”=10’ and it is “almost exact to scale except the line delineating the right-of-way is not to scale”.
Mr. Dick Wright added that it was his understanding that he was not required to include the original plat in his application but rather a drawing of the section of the property that will be used for the proposed business, Wrightway landscaping.
Mr. Weiler asked if the original plat was recorded. Mr. Dick Wright said yes. Mr. Weiler asked for the record number. Mr. Dick Wright read the plat record number as follows: Deed 591366, Plan Number 3889 Merrimack County Registry (MCR) recorded January 24, 1975 at 4:30 p.m.
Mr. Vannatta noted that the proposed business was part of one parcel of land and that there is an existing house on the parcel.
Mr. Dick Wright said he and his son were not subdividing anything and that there is a house and a barn [on the property].
Mr. Vannatta said the location of the new buildings should be sited and shown on the plan.
Mr. Dick Wright said that would require producing a large plan, which the Board advised him would not be needed.
Mr. Weiler agreed and Mr. Vannatta suggested that Mr. Dick Wright request a waiver on that point. Mr. Wright said he would do that.
Mr. Dick Wright referred the Board to photograph depicting the utility plan which includes a free standing panel, approximately 4’x 4’, that has been installed per the requirements of Public Service [of New Hampshire]. Mr. Vannatta notes that the plan references a “power pole”.
Mr. McWilliams asked if the plan shows the water supply or sewage disposal. Mr. Dick Wright said no, but there is a well.
Discussion followed concerning the application’s required Landscaping Plan. Mr. Dick Wright said that since the business would be selling landscaping products, the Landscaping Plan will be aesthetically pleasing arrangements of inventory and will be “constantly changing”.
Mr. Vannatta said the Board was interested in permanent installations of shrubbery, trees, etc.
Regarding drainage, Mr. Dick Wright said there is a drainage swale that runs around the property and is shown on the map.
Requests for waivers from the Regulations for Site Plan Review, Article X, Application Requirements were presented.
Mr. Dick Wright presented the following request for waiver:
10.7.10 Existing and proposed grades with topographic contours at intervals not exceeding two (2) feet and extending two hundred (200) feet beyond the site plan boundary.
Existing site is flat land with sloping land on both the north and east slope with no area for further development.
Mr. Vannatta asked the Board if there were any concerns with the above waiver. Ms. Ashworth said her concern was that this was not a complete site plan, that the presentation reflects a small piece of the parcel. Mr. Vannatta referred to the plan, noting that the 140’ x 100’ area in question is marked off as such on the larger plan. Mr. Dick Wright displayed the map of the entire piece of property and indicated the location of the 140’ x 100’ piece.
Ms. Ashworth stated that it would have been helpful to have the entire property map including the topo. Mr. Dick Wright said he was told at the conceptual hearing that the entire property map was not required. Ms. Ashworth said she was not at that meeting and maintained her previously stated opinion.
Mr. Dezotell said it was cost prohibitive for a very small business to produce a full plat plan and topo.
Ms. Ashworth questioned how the existing property will be stabilized, indicating its current condition is highly muddy. She added that there is no indication of where the driveways and the parking areas will be placed on the property and said a topo map would have been helpful in getting closer to those requirements.
Mr. Dick Wright said the development site is flat with less than a two foot change [in elevation] and a drawing would basically show no contours. Ms. Ashworth said that she understood that he was refusing to do it.
Mr. Vannatta called for a motion to accept the waiver of Section 10.7.10.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to accept the waiver of Section 10.7.10. Mr. Powell seconded the motion. Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Healey, Mr. Vannatta and Mr. Powell voted in favor. Ms. Ashworth opposed. The motion carried.
Mr. Rick Wright presented the following request for waiver:
10.7.11 Any existing streams, wetlands, marshes, lakes or ponds whether natural or manmade within two hundred (200) feet beyond the site plan boundary.
There are no streams or wetlands within 200 feet of the site.
Mr. Weiler said that over the past few months the Board has routinely granted waivers on this item because the next revision of the Regulations for Site Plan Review will not contain this requirement.
Mr. Vannatta called for a motion to accept the waiver of Section 10.7.11.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to accept the waiver of Section 10.7.11. Mr. Dezotell seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Rick Wright presented the following request for waiver:
10.7.12 A utility plan (underground utilities are encouraged whenever possible) showing location of and provisions for either private or municipal:
10.7.12.2 sewage disposal system.
The site will have seasonal use and a portable toilet will be on site in lieu of a sewage disposal system.
Mr. Vannatta asked if the use of a portable toilet requires a health department permit because it is in use on a commercial property. Mr. Weiler asked if businesses are required to provide toilets for public use. Ms. Ashworth said she thinks port-a-lets may be placed almost anywhere. Mr. Dezotell said the companies providing the port-a-lets are licensed.
10.7.12.4 exterior lighting and sign illumination showing type of lamp, beam direction and candle power or wattage.
No exterior lighting plan, daytime use only.
Mr. Vannatta asked if emergency, security and/or nighttime lighting would be provided on the property. Mr. Dick Wright said there are no plans for such lighting since the business isn’t open in the evening.
10.7.12.6 fuel storage, distribution lines and equipment.
No fuel storage planned at this site.
10.7.12.7 air conditioning including cooling towers.
No air conditioning planned.
Mr. Vannatta called for a motion to accept the waiver of Section 10.7.12.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to accept the waiver of Section 10.7.12. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Rick Wright presented the following request for a waiver:
10.8 Landscaping Plan: A plan of landscaped open space (see definition in 5.3) which, in addition to showing the layout of buildings and paved areas, indicates a planting plan and species to be planted. The plan shall also show landscaped features such as stone walls, bollards, seating, etc. The plan shall meet the standards set forth in paragraph 12.4.
The plants for sale constitute the landscape plan and will be suitably displayed to enhance retail sales.
Ms. Ashworth stated that the purpose of a Landscaping Plan was to also show the location of the drives and the parking areas. Mr. Vannatta said yes and the Plan also indicates the composition of both the driveway areas and parking spots. Ms. Ashworth said an additional part of the plan should show the management of water drainage on the property. She noted that even though the site is flat the surrounding land is not, which means water will likely collect on the flat surface.
Mr. Dick Wright referred to the drawing, pointing out the existing drainage swale around the perimeter of the property and said it takes care of the water runoff from Rainbow Garage.
Ms. Ashworth said she remains unconvinced regarding the drainage provisions and added that the existing plan does not include the layout of the driveways or parking areas.
Mr. Dick Wright said the driveway and parking area are located in the driest part of the parcel.
Ms. Ashworth questioned how the area will be stabilized to permit a driveway and parking lot. She added that information should be included on the Landscaping Plan.
Mr. Dick Wright said the surface will be hard pack and crushed gravel.
Mr. Vannatta reviewed Section 12.4 Landscaped Open Space in the Regulations for Site Plan Review, specifically Section 12.4.2:
Perimeter Landscaping: A landscaped buffer shall provide privacy and noise protection, but in no case shall the width of the buffer be less than the setbacks otherwise required in that zoning district. For commercial development the landscaped buffer between the street right-of-way and the edge of the on-site parking lot shall be no less than ten (10) feet wide.
Mr. Vannatta stated that the drawing does not show any measurements regarding where the parking area is located.
Mr. Dick Wright referred to the “big map” which, he said, shows parking for six to eight vehicles. He said the area will be hard packed gravel which means lines cannot be drawn on the surface marking off the parking spaces. He said the parking area will be like the parking area at the playground – a graveled area where cars can pull in. He said there will not be an asphalt surface.
Mr. Vannatta said the drawing does not show the actual size of the parking area.
Mr. Rick Wright said the area is the length of three dump trucks. Mr. Dick Wright said the greenhouse is 36 feet long and the retail space is 12 feet and 30 feet more which means there’s room for 78 feet of parking. Mr. Rick Wright said that he didn’t think that parking was an issue because the Board told him he was “within the parameters” at the conceptual hearing.
There was general discussion about Section 12.4.3 Minimum Landscaped Open Space. Mr. Vannatta referred to Section 12.4.3.1:
Commercial or Industrial: The minimum landscaped open space for site plans for the development of commercial or industrial type uses shall be 25% of the total area exclusive of public or private rights-of-way.
Mr. Dick Wright said that amount of area will be undeveloped because the space will contain potted plants for sale.
Mr. Vannatta asked if that counts as being undeveloped. There was general discussion about the term “landscaped”.
Mr. Powell asked for clarification on Section 12.4.3.1, stating that the applicant’s total acreage is 44 acres which means the proposed development would have more than 25% open space. He added the proposed development is on a portion of the 44 acres and should be evaluated on that basis.
Mr. Dick Wright said the proposed business is selling landscaping products and a quarter of the area will be landscaped products neatly arranged product for sale. He added that it would not make sense to install permanent landscape shrubs and trees on this size lot that could not be sold at retail.
Mr. McWilliams said that argument could be made about any commercial site development.
Mr. Dick Wright disagreed saying the regulations would require that the installation of the products that are for sale.
Ms. Ashworth pointed out that the 25% minimum landscaped open space requirement is in place to ensure that the site does not contain only buildings and hard pack and gravel. Mr. Dick Wright said that isn’t what they are going to do. Ms. Ashworth said the issue is that the plan does not show what the landscaping plans are.
Mr. Dick Wright said the plan shows a display area which represents 25% to 35% of the area dedicated for the display of landscaped plants. Ms. Ashworth asked if the landscaped plants will be set on gravel and hard pack. Mr. Dick Wright said no, the displayed plants will be set on soil because otherwise the plants will dry out too quickly.
Mr. Dezotell suggested that the Wrights add an overlay drawing showing the driveway and parking area, adding that if they wanted to increase either or both, they would have to reappear before the Board for another site plan review. Mr. Dick Wright said his current plan shows that already.
Mr. Vannatta again referred to the definition of landscaping contained in the Section 12.4 Landscaped Open Space, noting that it includes not only the inclusion of a variety of suggested plants but also permanent structures and non-living durable material (rocks, boulders, etc.). He said his concern is that the plan is unclear and that there are no clearly defined dimensions on the plan. Mr. Dick Wright disagreed.
Ms. Ashworth said a typical Landscaping Plan for this proposal would contain the width of the graveled area, the width of the parking area, the dimensions of the landscaped areas, the planting beds, and the content of the driveway composition.
Mr. Weiler referred to Section 12.4.1:
General: The site shall be landscaped to provide a neat and tidy appearance. Landscaping shall be provided which is in keeping with the character of the area where the site is located, the purpose of the development, and the location of buildings and improvements.
He said that this lot is small and the impact in the immediate area will be small.
Mr. Healey suggested that the Wrights superimpose another drawing over the existing plan to show the landscaping concept, the location of the buildings, the parking area, etc.
Mr. Dick Wright said the current plan shows that.
Mr. Vannatta said the current plan does not show the amount of detail that the Board requires.
Mr. Dick Wright asked why the Board needs to know whether “there are parking spaces for six cars or eight cars or ten cars.” He said he and his son were told they only needed four spaces at the conceptual hearing. He added that because the lot is so small, to require that 25% of the space be devoted to plants that can’t be sold may not make the project feasible.
Mr. Healey said that the issue on the table is the waiver request, adding that the Board has not been given enough detail in that area to warrant granting the request. He said that producing an overlay drawing as requested would provide the necessary detail.
Mr. Rick Wright said this would put him back another month. Mr. Dick Wright said the problem is that the Board “doesn’t know what I have done” and he “doesn’t know what you [the Board] wants”. He added that he and his son could return to the Board “six times” without meeting the Board’s approval. He added that whether “the driveway is 10 feet beyond where it is, or what I’ve proposed here, or 10 feet less on the greenhouse we’re still only required to do four parking spaces” by the Board’s regulations. He said the plan is for six to eight parking spaces. He questioned why the location of the parking spaces has to be “cast in stone.”
Mr. Vannatta said that typical site plans that come before the Board for final review are very detailed; adding that the Wright’s site plan is not detailed.
Ms. Ashworth said it is a question of fairness. She said there is a standard that is applied to each site plan review and questioned why the Board should be expected to overlook that standard for this site plan.
Mr. Powell said the Board should vote on the request for the waiver.
Mr. Weiler said he does not recall seeing permanent landscaping at any of the area greenhouse businesses. All the shrubs and plants are for sale, which is what the Wrights are asking to do.
Mr. Vannatta called for a motion to accept the waiver of Section 10.8.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to accept the waiver of Section 10.8. Mr. Dezotell seconded the motion. Mr. Weiler, Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Healey, and Mr. Powell voted in favor. Mr. Vannatta and Ms. Ashworth opposed. The motion carried.
Mr. Rick Wright presented the following request for a waiver:
10.9 Drainage Plan: A drainage plan showing:
10.9.1 the existing and proposed method of handling water runoff.
10.9.2 the direction of flow of the runoff through the use of arrows.
10.9.3 the location, elevation, and size of all catch basins, dry wells, drainage ditches, swales, retention basins, storm sewers, culverts and manholes.
10.9.4 engineering calculations used to determine drainage requirements including alteration of existing drainage patterns due to such factors as the amount of new impervious surfaces (such as paving and building area) being proposed based on a fifty (50) year storm frequency for box culverts and bridges and a twenty-five (25) year storm frequency for all other drainage improvements.
The land is flat and many of the requirements in this article do not apply.
Mr. Vannatta called for a motion to accept the waiver of Section 10.9.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to accept the waiver of Section 10.9. Mr. Dezotell seconded the motion. Mr. Weiler, Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Healey, Mr. Vannatta, and Mr. Powell voted in favor. Ms. Ashworth opposed. The motion carried.
Mr. Vannatta noted that all the requested waivers have been accepted.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to accept the application as complete. Mr. Dezotell seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Dick Wright discussed the plan. He said the plan shows a 26’ x 36’ greenhouse but that he and his son have located a 26’ x 48’ greenhouse that they would like to place on the site instead of the smaller greenhouse. He said if the larger dimensions are not acceptable, then three hoops can be removed to shorten the dimensions to 36’.
Mr. Vannatta said that if the site plan is approved, a new drawing will be needed that includes the larger greenhouse.
Mr. Vannatta asked if there was any further discussion or questions from the Board. There being none, he opened the session to the public.
Barbara Freeman, Old Post Road, said she is an abutter and, as such, has no concerns about the business. However, she said she had concerns about the site plan as presented. She stated that the purpose of a site plan is to determine more than just a visual image of the site. It also determines whether the access to the site is adequate, whether there is a safe circulation pattern established, and whether the parking spaces provide safe access for the public. She said the site plan is designed to protect the safety of the public. She added that she agreed with Ms. Ashworth’s point that everyone appearing before the Board for a site plan review should be held to the same criteria. She said the Board can’t ask one business to submit a certain level of detail and not require another business to do the same, noting
the unfairness of that approach. She said the neighboring business, Richie’s Car Repair was asked for detailed parking information and added that it is a gross unfairness not to require that those things be described and delineated on this site plan. She said it has more to do with the spirit of the regulations and what the Board is trying to control on a site plan review. She questioned the purpose of a site plan review if it allows just a generalized description of building locations, size, shape, parking, traffic patterns, etc.
There being no further comments from the public, Mr. Vannatta closed the public portion of the meeting.
Ms. Ashworth said she still had concerns about the site plan. Additionally, she raised the concern of a potential subdivision of the property. Mr. Weiler said that would not be possible because the lot is less than two acres. Mr. Dick Wright said the lot does not allow for any expansion.
Ms. Ashworth said that what is delineated in the site plan as presented does not meet any of the rules governing a subdivision now or in the future. Mr. Dick Wright said that he and his son understand that.
Mr. Dick Wright asked the Board what is needed should he decide to use the larger greenhouse. Mr. Dezotell said the Board could approve with condition that a new drawing be submitted showing the larger greenhouse.
Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Ms. Ashworth said that if the Board approves the plan, the Board is approving whatever the applicant chooses to do with the site because the site plan and landscape plan as submitted are not clear and concise. She said that if “it turns out to be a mud hole, then that’s what we approved.”
Mr. Vannatta clarified Ms. Ashworth’s comment by adding that if the Board does approve, it is “basically approving basically a blank slate.” Ms. Ashworth agreed. She added there would be no opportunity for enforcement of the site plan because she said she doesn’t know what could be enforced.
Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to approve the site plan as submitted, including the waivers, and with the condition that a new plan be submitted showing the specific size of the building. Mr. Powell seconded the motion.
Discussion followed.
Mr. Weiler asked the board to consider a condition that the site plan is for the use of retail trade that is limited to forestry and agriculture. He pointed out that the lot is small and the site plan is “very loose”. He noted that approving the plan as simply retail trade would allow any other retail business to locate on that site in the future without constituting a change of use.
Mr. Powell pointed out that any change of use would have to have Board approval.
Ms. Ashworth reviewed the plan’s Summary Statement, noting that it states the retail trade is confined to trees, shrubs, perennials, annuals, etc. and said it defines what the Board is approving or disapproving.
Mr. Weiler disagreed saying the application includes the term “retail trade” only.
There was general discussion regarding what products fall under the definition of agriculture or forestry.
Mr. Vannatta said Mr. Weiler’s point is more site-specific. Mr. Dezotell said the issue can be determined by the parking space concerns, noting that if a future change in use occurs, more parking spaces will be required and the owner(s) will have to appear before the Board for approval.
Ms. Ashworth agreed with Mr. Weiler, noting that the term “retail trade” is wide open for interpretation.
Ms. Ashworth made a motion to withdraw the motion made by Mr. Dezotell to approve the site plan as submitted, including the waivers, and with the condition that a new plan be submitted showing the specific size of the building.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. McWilliams said the definition of farming/agriculture in the RSAs is pretty inclusive, noting that the roadside stand is not considered commercial if there is 35% of the products sold produced on the farm. He added that there was not a definition in the RSAs that directly deals with the topic at hand.
Mr. Vannatta said he remains uncomfortable with the presentation and the detail of the site plan as submitted. There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a vote on the original motion which is as follows:
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to approve the site plan as submitted, including the waivers, and with the condition that a new plan be submitted showing the specific size of the building. Mr. Powell seconded the motion.
Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Healey, and Mr. Powell voted in favor. Mr. Vannatta and Ms. Ashworth opposed. The motion carried.
Mr. Vannatta reminded Mr. Dick Wright and Mr. Rick Wright that any party directly affected by this decision may appeal to the proper Board within 30 days of the decision.
Mr. Vannatta called for a break at 8:51 p.m.
The Board returned to session at 9:00 p.m.
CASE: Case 2010-002: Annexation- Walter & Marlene Graf/agent: Arthur F. Siciliano. 529-2857. Map/Lot 40-458-050 & 40-518-242.
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 & Chalk Pond Roads, Newbury, NH, Tax Map 040-458-050 and 040-518-242 on Tuesday, April 6, 2010, at 7:45 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.
The Board reviewed the application for completeness.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to accept the application as complete. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Siciliano, agent, presented to the Board. He noted that he requested a waiver for the scale of the annexation plan from the required scale of 1”= 100’ to a scale of 1”=200’ because of the large size of the parcels involved.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to accept the waiver. Ms. Freeman seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Siciliano said this is a lot line adjustment between Walter and Marlene Graf and Steven Eppler-Epstein. He described the annexation as follows: The Grafs owned 77.04 acres and they deeded 34 acres to Mr. Eppler-Epstein resulting in the Grafs now owning 43.04 acres and Mr. Eppler-Epstein owning 130.59 acres. He added that both properties have houses with wells and septic systems.
Mr. Vannatta asked the Board for questions for the applicant and/or further discussion. Ms. Freeman said the application looked good. There being no further discussion from the Board, Mr. Vannatta opened the meeting to the public. There being no questions or comments from the public, Mr. Vannatta closed the public session portion of the hearing.
There being no further questions or discussion from the Board, Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Ms. Freeman made a motion to approve the annexation as presented with the condition that the deeds be recorded with the plat simultaneously. Mr. Dezotell seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Vannatta reminded Mr. Siciliano that any party directly affected by this decision may appeal to the proper Board within 30 days of the decision.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of March 2, 2010 and made corrections. Mr. Dezotell made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Powell seconded the motion. All in favor.
Next Meeting
Mr. Vannatta informed the Board that the April 20, 2010 Planning Board meeting will be a work session and include the review of two conceptuals and the new 2010 Variance criteria. Mr. Weiler suggested including discussion on the Board’s requirements concerning legal notification by upstream dam operators to home owners whose property is located downstream from the dams.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
