Planning Board
May 4, 2010
Approved June 1, 2010
Members Present: Tom Vannatta, Chair; Barbara Freeman, Vice-Chair; Bill Weiler, Bruce Healey, Travis Dezotell, Elizabeth Ashworth, Members; Ron Williams, Russell Smith, Alternates; Ken McWilliams, Advisor.
Mr. Vannata called the meeting to order at 7: 00 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of April 6, 2010 and made corrections. Ms. Freeman made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Ms. Ashworth seconded the motion. All in favor.
Newbury Elderly Housing Project Site Visit
Mr. Vannatta noted that the Board’s original decision to meet for a site visit on May 8, 2010 has presented a scheduling conflict for him and Ms. Freeman. He said the site visit has been noticed for May 8, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. and suggested that Mr. Weiler conduct the site visit as planned. In addition to Mr. Weiler, those able to attend include Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Healey, Ms. Ashworth, Mr. Smith, and Mr. McWilliams. Mr. Weiler asked if the Conservation Commission has been notified. Mr. Vannatta said yes.
Mr. Vannatta suggested that a second site visit be scheduled for May 15, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. so he and Ms. Freeman can inspect the site. The Board agreed. Mr. Vannatta said the second site visit will be properly noticed.
Mr. Vannatta reminded the Board that the Community Action Program Belknap-Merrimack Counties, Inc. (applicant) agreed on April 20, 2010 to submit a written list of requested waivers for the proposed project by May 8, 2010. He added that the list of waivers should be available for the site visit on that day.
Mr. Vannatta noted that, because of the complexity of the proposed project, a set of informational goals should be developed in preparation for the site visit(s). Mr. Healey agreed.
Ms. Ashworth asked if there are drawings of the proposed project available. Mr. Vannatta said yes and each Board member should have been given a copy.
Mr. Williams recounted the proposed waivers cited by the applicant at the conceptual hearing on April 20, 2010 regarding the proposed project. The requested waivers include: steep slopes; wetlands; necessary streams crossings; the well system and storage/pumping facility of same; type and location of sanitary facilities; and release from the required 200 foot topo over the entire tract of land.
There was general discussion about creating a walking path along the old railroad line and the problems connected with that possibility.
Mr. Weiler asked if the proposed project is similar to a workforce housing project regarding the granting of waivers. Mr. Vannatta said no. Mr. McWilliams agreed, adding that the applicant was well grounded in the Town’s regulations and zoning ordinance and came to the conceptual hearing knowing which regulations and ordinances will require waivers and variances.
There was general discussion about the proposed project as presented at the April 20, 2010 Board meeting, including the staked locations for the septic systems and the proposed road into the project location.
Mr. Vannatta cautioned the Board to approach the site visit with not only the proposed waivers in mind but also with an attitude of open observation to other possible issues concerning the proposed project.
Mr. Williams raised a question about the length of the proposed access road – the road into the proposed project and the road to the furthest unit of the proposed project – and noted that it might not meet the 1500 foot requirement needed by the Fire Department.
Mr. McWilliams cautioned the Board about further detailed discussion about the proposed project noting such discussion requires a properly noticed public hearing with the applicant in attendance.
Mr. Vannatta summarized by saying that the site visit will remain scheduled for May 8, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. as advertised in The Intertown Record and a second site visit will be posted for May 15, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. He added that the applicant will be asked to attend both site visits.
Dam Owner Notification (RSA 676:4)
The Board reviewed RSA 676:4, New Requirements Regarding Notification of Upstream Dam Owners and NHDES Dam Bureau for Development Proposals at Mr. Weiler’s request from the April 20, 2010 Board meeting.
The RSA describes the new requirement as follows:
RSA 676:4 I(b): “Since construction of any structure near streams or rivers downstream of a dam can increase the hazard classification of the dam established by the department of environmental services, the application shall identify the nearest dam upstream and include the name and address of the dam owners.”
RSA 676:4 I(d): “For proposals near rivers and streams and downstream of a dam, the planning board shall also notify the owners of the upstream dam and the department of environmental services dam bureau by certified mail. Notice shall be mailed at least 10 days prior to submission.”
There was general discussion about the known dams located in Newbury including Loch Lynden Dam and Chalk Pond.
Mr. Weiler said that the dams in question are registered with the DES Dam Bureau.
Mr. McWilliams noted that: “This notification requirement applies to all upstream dams regardless of the size and classification.” He added that the Land Use Secretary should be made aware of this new requirement and make the necessary DES and the upstream dam owner contacts if an application is presented that has potential impact from an upstream dam.
Mr. Vannatta asked if the new requirement should be in the Town’s regulations. Mr. McWilliams said it probably should be included in the regulations.
Mr. Weiler said the possibility of the RSA affecting any potential development in the Town is small. Mr. McWilliams agreed.
The Board agreed that to remain aware of the RSA when reviewing all future applications and conceptuals.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Sign Ordinance
Mr. Healey reported that the committee held an impromptu meeting in the Town Office parking lot. Committee chair Jim Powell asked Deane Geddes if the latter remained interested in being on the committee and he said yes. Mr. Powell said he will call a meeting of the committee in the upcoming weeks.
Workforce Housing
Mr. Dezotell said the committee is comprised of Gail Bostic and Will Hurley but no one from the Planning Board. He said he would welcome additional committee members. He reported that the next step the Board needs to decide is whether to run a “mock development” to test the Town’s existing regulations. He said the Board should develop a process to test the town’s regulations and to do so every two or three years.
Ms. Freeman asked if running a “mock development” is a stated requirement or just a recommendation. Mr. Dezotell said it was just a recommendation to ensure that the Town remains within its HUD guidelines. He said the suggestion was to identify an actual piece of land in town and run it through the entire development cost analysis process per the NH Housing Authority program. He said the recommendation was to use the NH Housing Authority Program along with actual cost analysis figures gathered from developers in the area.
Mr. Vannatta asked if running a “mock development” would help the Board develop its own ordinance. Mr. Dezotell said yes, if changes to the existing regulations are needed. He said his recommendations for developing ordinances for the future is that the Board set up all ordinances to safety specific science standards. He said if the Board relies on “common sense” safety specific standards and there is hard scientific data available that developers use, the Board may end up making the development cost prohibitive, thus creating hardship on the developer. He said testing the Town’s existing regulations by running a “mock development” would surface whether or not changes would have to be made. He added that the changes to the ordinances during the past five years were designed to
deal with the issue of affordable housing. He said the Board just needs to be sure that future decisions are made based on provable, scientific data.
Mr. Dezotell said, at this point, the committee should develop a recommendation to the Board stating that the “mock development” is the recommended process that should be used as a test to make sure the development falls within the HUD numbers and how often the test will be implemented.
Subdivision Regulations
Mr. Weiler reported that the committee met and discussed suggested subdivision regulation changes. He said he is in the process of writing up the suggested changes and the committee will meet again to review the changes. Mr. Vannatta asked if Mr. Weiler needed additional committee members. Mr. Weiler said no.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
In-House Seminars
Mr. Vannatta presented to the Board a new program designed to offer informational in-house seminars on a range of topics affecting the Board’s decision-making process. Following discussion among Mr. Vannatta, Ms. Freeman and Mr. McWilliams, the latter suggested an initial list of seminar topics including: the role of the Planning Board in the subdivision and site plan review process; a review of the criteria and standards regarding the aforementioned; waivers; and enforcement. Mr. Vannatta said Board members are encouraged to suggest topics. The first seminar is scheduled for the Board’s meeting on June 1, 2010.
Ms. Freeman said the reason behind the in-house seminars is that the Board now has a number of new members who may not be able to attend outside seminars and could benefit from an in-house informational review of the Board’s responsibilities and the Town regulations.
Mr. Dezotell suggested including a seminar on creative technologies for water management that would encourage applicants to explore low impact technologies for water management when developing site plans. He said the University of New Hampshire has a center devoted to developing and testing new technologies and suggested that the Board learn about these innovations and be able to offer them as suggestions to applicants. Technologies include porous concrete, bio-filters, silt containment, storm water runoff, bio-retention areas, etc. Mr. McWilliams says the UNH center offers a range of innovative techniques designed to handle storm water runoff in a way that allows the water to infiltrate back into the groundwater instead of capturing it and transporting it to a series of ponds, etc.
Ms. Ashworth noted that this kind of information falls under the auspices of an engineer and is not necessarily a function of the Planning Board.
Mr. McWilliams said that learning about new water management technologies is important because it gives the Board the opportunity to guide the development community towards better strategies when addressing storm water runoff management.
There was further general discussion about the suggested seminar topics and requested reading materials in preparation for the first seminar.
Lake Sunapee Watershed Meeting
Mr. Vannatta informed the Board of the upcoming meeting on May 12, 2010 at 6:15 p.m. of the Lake Sunapee Watershed Coalition Project. He said Mr. Healey and Mr. Geddes attended the previous two meetings held during the winter.
Mr. Healey reported on the Project, saying it is focused on storm water runoff. He said the grant-funded Project partnered with Antioch College and has accomplished the following research: an inventory of all storm water drainage systems (including the culverts, sizes, and materials) in the three towns; a list of issues affecting the towns in terms of dealing with and/or correcting storm water runoff; provide a forum for brainstorming among the three towns; the development of a grid for each identified issue along with consensus-based solutions; and an effort to generate an awareness of the issues among the governing bodies within each town.
Ms. Freeman noted that following a conversation with the Lake Sunapee Protective Association (LSPA) she learned that the grant funding the above study did not include a specific “next step” but noted that the Project has collected important and useful information. She added that she has just become chair of the LSPA subcommittee on land preservation and the committee will look at the regulations governing the lake and which regulations should extend into all three of the towns regarding how water runoff is handled.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Freeman seconded the motion. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
