Planning Board
April 20, 2010
Approved May 18, 2010
Members Present: Tom Vannatta, Chair; Bruce Healey; Ron Williams, Alternate; Alison Kinsman, Alternate; Russell Smith, Alternate; Deane Geddes, Alternate; Ken McWilliams, Advisor; Jim Powell, ex-officio member.
Mr. Vannatta called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Alternate Appointment
Mr. Vannatta informed the Board that Mr. Geddes expressed an interest in serving as an Alternate member of the board and recommended that, in consideration for his years as a full member of the Board, the interview required for Alternate appointments be omitted.
Mr. Powell made a motion to appoint Mr. Geddes as an Alternate to the Planning Board for a three-year term. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mylar & Release Form
The Board signed the mylar for the Graf/Eppler-Epstein annexation (Case 2010-002). Mr. Vannatta noted that a release form for the mylar has been created as standard operating procedure to ensure that the mylar and deeds are both filed in a timely manner by the applicant’s agent.
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of January 19, 2010 and made corrections. Mr. Powell made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
Official Form
Mr. Vannatta reminded Mr. Williams, Ms. Kinsman, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Geddes that they are required to fill out an administrative form regarding their terms, etc. and return it to the town clerk. He said each Alternate must take the Oath of Office which Mr. Powell is authorized to administer. Mr. Vannatta added that Board members who were elected or re-elected also must take the Oath of Office, according to the RSA.
CASE: Case 2010-003: Clark M. & Evelyn C. Davis/Newbury Elderly Housing Project
Ken Nielsen presented to the Board. Ms. Kinsman recused herself to the audience for the conceptual presentation. Mr. Nielsen introduced the team representing the proposed Newbury Elderly Housing Project: Ralph Littlefield, executive director of the Community Action Program (CAP) Belknap-Merrimack Counties, Inc.; Dick Curtis, architect; Gary Spaulding, surveyor; Webb Stout, surveyor, and Mike Coleman, CAP.
Mr. Nielsen said the project is aimed at providing housing for Newbury elderly residents and will be developed by the CAP agency initially and, when completed, will be turned over to a community-based, non-profit corporation for management and ownership. He explained that the corporation will be a single-purpose, single-asset corporation called Newbury Elderly Housing Inc. and will be composed of Newbury residents. Mr. Nielsen said CAP has developed six elderly housing projects throughout the Belknap-Merrimack County area.
Mr. Nielsen said the group spent 1 ½ years locating an appropriate site and settled on the property off Rte. 103 behind the safety services building and accessed from Newbury Heights Road. The property is currently owned by the Davis family. The proposed project is funded by HUD Section 202 and carries restrictions for the location of the project, specifically that it offers easy access to town services for the elderly. He said the site is 27-28 acres and the proposed project calls for 34 housing units on the site.
Mr. Nielsen said the access road for the proposed project is Newbury Heights Road, noting the road will require significant off-site improvements. He added that the proposed project will require variances for the following: the number of units, steep slopes, setback encroachment on Newbury Harbor Brook, and encroachment on the 75’ buffer zone.
Per HUD requirements, Mr. Nielsen described the units as follows: each unit will have a maximum of 640 square feet of living space; each unit will be one-level; all units will be handicap accessible; and, there will be three handicap units. He noted that the back area of the proposed site was not surveyed in as much detail as the rest of the property for two reasons: it was an area that was not going to be developed as thoroughly as the rest of the property; and, it represented a cost-savings.
Mr. Vannatta said that area would be common land, not to be developed. Mr. Nielsen agreed.
Gary Spaulding, Spaulding Design Consultants, presented detailed survey boards and discussed the survey on the proposed site. He said any wetland area that would be disturbed by the development was surveyed. The area that would not be disturbed by the development was taken off the Wetlands Inventory Map. He added that the location of the Newbury Harbor Brook was digitized into the survey based on USGA maps and not on actual field location. Mr. Spaulding said the 75’ primary building setback places the project “almost up to the railroad track”.
Mr. Spaulding said a request will be made to the Board to allow the project to use the digitized location of Newbury Harbor Brook instead of creating a physical survey out in the field. He added that a topo was not created for the area that will not be disturbed by the development but the wetlands were located in that area. He said a request will be made to the Board for relief from the regulations requiring a topo for the entire parcel.
Mr. Spaulding said that the survey does not locate everything within 200’ of the boundary line, as required by the regulations. He said a request will be made to the Board for relief from that regulation.
He pointed out the steep slopes, the 75’ setback from the wetlands, the property boundary line, and the current site conditions. He said on April 19, 2010 he met with the Town Fire Chief, Road Agent, Code Enforcement Officer, and Town Administrator and walked Newbury Heights Road.
He asked the Board if the proposed conceptual plan as presented is acceptable.
Mr. Vannatta suggested that Mr. Spaulding consider a preliminary site plan review before presenting a final site plan review for the Board’s consideration.
Mr. Spaulding asked if the board could give a non-binding opinion on the conceptual plan as presented.
Mr. Vannatta noted that Mr. Spaulding had researched the Towns regulations and added that the conceptual plan may encroach on the Town subdivision regulations.
Mr. Powell said the Board of Selectmen (BOS) is “very supportive of the project” and that it is a “very positive thing for the town”. He added that the BOS feels the project should be looked at with an attitude of what can be done to make the project happen as opposed to looking at all the roadblocks that might prevent it from moving forward.
Mr. Vannatta said the Planning Board has a history of working with applicants in a positive proactive manner. He said the Board upholds the Town regulations and ordinances and exhibits a strong sense of responsibility when reviewing each application. He suggested that a site visit at this point would be helpful.
Mr. McWilliams asked for clarification regarding the setback from the Newbury Harbor Brook, noting there is a 50’waterfront buffer requirement.
Mr. Spaulding said the proposed project is not within the 50’ waterfront buffer of the shore land protection, adding that Newbury’s shore land protection requirement is different from that of the state’s requirement. Mr. McWilliams agreed. Mr. Spaulding said the proposed development would not be within 50’ of the surface water of Newbury Harbor Brook.
Mr. McWilliams asked if the buildings would be 75’ back from the brook. Mr. Spaulding said the buildings would be over 75’ back from the brook. Mr. McWilliams said that even though the survey indicates that the overall boundary of the shore land district is 250’, there are different sub-areas within that area.
Mr. Spaulding agreed, saying the New Hampshire shoreline is a 50’ primary setback and Newbury has a 75’ primary setback. He said within the 75’ primary setback area there would be no impact from this proposed project.
Mr. McWilliams asked if there would be an impact within the 150’ setback area. Mr. Spaulding said yes, there would be buildings in certain sections within that 150’ setback area.
There was further discussion about the location and how to access a site walk.
Mr. Geddes asked about access from the proposed project location to the library as well as any proposals concerning including a footpath to the library.
Mr. Spaulding said the topic of a footpath was discussed at the BOS meeting. He said the HUD funds are dedicated funds for the project and anything extra, like a footpath, would have to find separate funding.
Ralph Littlefield, executive director of CAP, said the HUD money only pays for the on-site construction. He said off-site improvements to Newbury Heights Road, extending the road by approximately 60 feet, and installing a footpath will have to be funded by other sources. He said they are approaching Merrimack County for Community Development block Grant funds, and considering the Federal Home Loan Bank for additional funding.
Mr. Healey asked who owns the railroad bed noting it would make a good footpath. Mr. Spaulding said the project owns to the center of the railroad right-of-way for a “section of it”.
There was general discussion concerning the railroad bed when the railroad abandoned it and how the property was allocated at that time. Mr. Powell said portions of the railroad bed were owned to the center line and other portions were owned all the way across.
Webb Stout, surveyor, addressed the issue. He said certain sections of the railroad line, as shown on the plan, are owned to the other side of the track line. However, he said common law dictates that abutters on either side of an abandoned road own up to the center line of that road.
Mr. Powell asked if the old railroad line runs through the property or if it is a boundary of the property. Mr. Webb said it is a boundary of the property on the eastern side.
Mr. Powell asked about the potential future use of the railroad line boundary as a walkway or footpath. Mr. Spaulding said the railroad line could be used for that but only for the section owned by the project.
Mr. Powell asked if a public footpath would be allowed on HUD-financed property. Mr. Littlefield said that walkways have been installed in other HUD developments but the funding was not HUD monies.
Mr. Geddes asked Mr. Nielsen how the land was acquired and what happens to the day-to-day management of the development after it is completed. Mr. Nielsen said the land is currently owned by the Davis family and there is a purchase and sale agreement with the CAP agency for its non-profit assign. He said the project has to go through a final site plan review with the Planning Board and a variance hearing with the Zoning Board before receiving the OK from HUD. At that point the sale goes into an initial closing and the property is transferred to Newbury Elderly Housing, Inc., a non-profit. Mr. Nielsen said the non-profit would take over the development at that point. He said the signed paperwork makes a 40 year commitment to HUD that the development would be used for Newbury elderly citizens who meet HUD
criteria.
Mr. Geddes asked who oversees the actual construction – getting the bids, hiring the contractors, doing the work, etc.
Mr. Littlefield said if it appears that the project is going to move forward, CAP implements the following: act as the developer for the project; establish a voluntary board of directors for Newbury Elderly Housing Inc.; and, establish the financial viability of the development for the next 40 years through a management agreement with the property owners. He said CAP works with the community to help its elderly citizens age in place instead of having to enter nursing homes. Residents will pay one-third of their adjusted gross income as rent.
Mr. Littlefield said the selection of contractors will come from a group of New Hampshire general developers who have experience working with HUD projects and produce consistently excellent work. He added that local vendors will be given preference if they meet the necessary criteria. He added that the project will result in local employment.
Mr. Vannatta asked if the bids go out for GC (general contractor). Mr. Littlefield said GC because HUD requires that the developer carry the bond for the whole development.
Mr. Geddes asked about the basis for determining the size of the development – 34 units.
Mr. Littlefield said each elderly housing unit must be at least 30 units to make the project financially viable to each town. He said a concern of the town is that the development not present a financial burden to the town. He said the county demographics are used when determining the final number of units as well as the activity level of CAP within the town. He said each of the established elderly housing developments have a two- to three-year waiting list. He said HUD establishes standard eligibility requirements of age and income levels and each town makes additional customized requirements.
There was a general review of the HUD 202 Program.
Mr. Littlefield reviewed CAP’s standard procedure when presenting proposed elderly housing projects as follows: meet with the BOS; presentation to the Planning Board; hearing before the Zoning Board is needed; hold a public meeting; and, meetings with the community throughout the development for further public input. He said that because the project is owned by a non-profit, it makes payments in lieu of taxes.
There was discussion about how the payments-in-lieu-of-taxes amount was determined.
There was further discussion about the site location and access road.
Mr. Littlefield said the HUD funding will pay for 600 feet of the access road off Newbury Heights Road and the remaining 300 feet of access road plus additional off-site improvements must be funded elsewhere. Mr. Powell said it involves a substantial amount of work.
Mr. Spaulding reviewed what is involved in upgrading the existing access road and extending it into the development. He detailed the necessary off-site improvements: three well-heads; relocating nine power line poles; two septic systems, etc. and estimated it carries a $300,000 price tag, which would have to come from a Block Grant.
Mr. Vannatta asked Mr. Littlefield if HUD pays for the project only when the project is completed. Mr. Littlefield said that is correct. Mr. Vannatta asked Mr. Littlefield if a requirement of application for a Block Grant is that the HUD funding is guaranteed. Mr. Littlefield said that is correct.
Mr. Littlefield said CAP is currently working on finding the additional funds to complete the off-site improvements and access road.
Mr. McWilliams asked about the timing of the project, namely would the off-site work be delayed until the additional funding was in place. Mr. Littlefield said HUD requires that all additional funding be in place before going to closing.
Mr. Spaulding reviewed the proposed six sites for the development’s septic system. He discussed the site’s drainage and the possibility of installing pervious pavement and walkways to help reduce the runoff, adding that all work must be done within the HUD budget.
There was further general discussion about the location of the proposed project and its proximity to downtown services. Mr. Littlefield said CAP tries to find sites that are within a mile of downtown services.
Dick Curtis, architect, reviewed the building layout and design. He said there are six buildings containing the individual units as well as a community center. He said there are two kinds of units – handicap units and handicap adaptable units. He reviewed the layouts of each kind of unit. He said geothermal is planned using a closed loop system and radiant floor heat is planned.
Mr. Vannatta proposed that the conceptual be continued to May 18, 2010 and the Board make a site visit on May 8, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. Mr. McWilliams said the requested waivers should be in writing and received by May 8, 2010, in time for the site visit.
The Board recommended that Mr. Littlefield return with his team for a second conceptual presentation on May 18, 2010 at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Spaulding asked if abutters need to be noticed in preparation for the conceptual continuance on May 18, 2010. Mr. Vannatta said no because the proposal is still in the conceptual stage. Mr. McWilliams added that the board will be able to give the project team non-binding feedback on the project on May 18, 2010.
There was further discussion about the location of the proposed site and the proposed water system.
Mr. Geddes suggested inviting the Conservation Commission on the site visit. Mr. Vannatta said he would contact Katheryn Holmes regarding same.
Mr. Powell made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 8:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
