Planning Board
May 18, 2010
Approved July 20, 2010
Members Present: Tom Vannatta, Chair; Barbara Freeman, Vice-Chair; Bill Weiler, Bruce Healey, Travis Dezotell, Elizabeth Ashworth, Members; Deane Geddes, Russell Smith, Alternates; Ken McWilliams, Advisor.
Mr. Vannatta called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
Mr. Vannatta requested that the Board review the minutes of April 20, 2010 at the end of the meeting. The Board agreed.
Mr. Vannatta informed the Board that, at his request, Mr. McWilliams met with the applicant prior to this meeting to review the list of waivers/variances submitted by the applicant.
CASE: Case 2010-003: Clark M. & Evelyn C. Davis/Newbury Elderly Housing Project/ Conceptual Hearing
Gary Spaulding, manager, G.R. Spaulding Design Consultants, LLC, presented to the Board. Mr. Spaulding thanked the Board for meeting with him on the site walk on May 11, 2010. He stated that he would itemize the list of requested waivers/variances and discuss any issues the Board had with them. Each Board member was presented with a list of the requested waivers/variances.
The following list of potential variances from the Newbury Zoning Ordinance were presented and discussed:
Article V (Residential District) 5.8 Frontage Requirement of 200’ of contiguous frontage. Mr. Spaulding said cluster zoning is being considered for this project because it allows an increase in density and avoids the necessity of a variance for frontage requirements. He said the disadvantage to using the cluster zoning is complying with the 100’ buffer and grading requirements surrounding the buildings.
Article V (Residential District) 5.12 Minimum Lot Size/Density Requirement.
Mr. McWilliams said Article V, 5.12 would require a variance from the Zoning board of Adjustment.
Article VII (Shore Land Overlay District).
Mr. Spaulding said that discussion regarding the 75’ setback requirement from wetlands occurred during the site visit on May 11, 2010.
Mr. Spaulding said the location of the brook has been “digitized” into plans based on the USGS maps, not on an actual survey.
Mr. Weiler said he researched the site on Google Earth Maps and noted that the digitized photo referred to above was taken at a time of low flow and it outlines the stream adequately.
There was general discussion about Newbury Harbor Brook, its path and eventual entrance into a wetland, its impact on the proposed development, and the permanent wetland.
Ms. Freeman said the plans should show the exact location and path of Newbury Harbor Brook and the 250’ setback off of it.
Article VIII (Wetlands Conservation Overlay District) 8.3 Wetland Buffer.
Rotating some of the proposed building locations was suggested as a way to avoid encroachment on the wetland. Mr. Spaulding said that suggestion was considered but would present problems regarding the 5% grade requirement for handicap accessibility.
There was general discussion about whether or not a variance was required or a conditional use permit.
Mr. McWilliams noted that a variance is appropriate and referred to Article VIII 8.4 Uses Permitted in a Wetland for more information.
Article IX (Steep Slopes Overlay District) 9.3 Development on Steep Slopes and 9.5 Clear-cutting.
Mr. Spaulding noted that the proposed plans would have minimal impact on the steep slopes for the road access. He said there are potentially four areas that would be affected.
Mr. Weiler asked about the rules governing clear cutting. Mr. McWilliams said the rules apply to timber harvesting. Mr. Weiler said the applicability as stated in the zoning ordinance is the 30 square feet basal area per acre and any area under two acres is not considered clear cutting.
Article XII (Cluster Development).
Mr. Spaulding asked for guidance from the Board regarding application as a cluster development or make application as a sub division.
Ms. Freeman stated that a cluster development application may carry fewer variance requests. Mr. McWilliams agreed.
Mr. Spaulding asked the board for their opinion regarding the 100’ buffer. Ms. Freeman said that consideration would be part of the Board’s discussion regarding the proposed project.
Article XIV (Signs).
Mr. Spaulding noted that HUD has sign size requirements that are in conflict with the Town’s sign requirements. The Board noted that a variance is required from the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) to allow for the size of the sign.
Article XIX (Impact Fees).
Mr. McWilliams discussed the background and legislative history of impact fees, noting that the Town does not have an impact fee ordinance stating fee schedules for various capital projects. However, the issue remains active under the sub division/site plan review procedures and pertains to the off site improvements to Newbury Heights Road.
Article XXI (Stormwater Management).
Mr. Spaulding noted that the project would request relief from Sections 21.6.3 and 21.7.4.
Mr. Vannatta asked if rotating the building locations would alleviate the need for a variance from Article XXI, Section 21.7.4. Mr. Spaulding said no, rotating would increase the impact.
Mr. Spaulding said a meeting with Lake Sunapee Protective Association (LSPA) is scheduled for May 20, 2010 to discuss the project and any concerns regarding the watershed. He said the focus of the project’s stormwater management plan is on water quality as it feeds into Lake Sunapee, not on water retention.
Mr. Healey asked Mr. Spaulding if the proposed stormwater management plan is one of water diversion. Mr. Spaulding said off site there would be some diverting of water.
Mr. Geddes asked if there are any remaining culverts under the existing defunct railroad tracks. Mr. Spaulding indicated that there are two that currently drain into the wetlands.
Mr. Spaulding reviewed the general plans for roofline gutters, extended drip lines and rain gardens.
Mr. Weiler referred to Section 21.7.4 and asked Mr. McWilliams for his input on same.
Mr. McWilliams said if the proposed project exceeds the 10’cut and fill requirement a variance is needed.
Mr. Weiler referred to Section 21.7 Implementation Guidelines for Permanent Control noting that throughout the section the phrase “should be” is used instead of “shall be”. He said the section was written to provide guidance rather than absolute requirements, adding that a variance may not be needed. However, Mr. Weiler added that the applicant should provide the Board with a clear argument on the necessity of exceeding the 10’ limit without creating an environmental hazard.
Mr. McWilliams said instead of a variance, the applicant would work with the Planning Board and the issues would be addressed through the sub division and site plan review process.
A list of waivers from the Newbury Land Subdivision Control Regulations was presented and discussed by Mr. Spaulding. Included in the list was the 1500’ maximum length of road with only one exit, Storm Frequency Design requirements, designating Newbury Heights Road as a collector road, changing the cul-de-sac vegetated center to a paved one (as requested by the Town Road Agent), and waiving the requirement for external review of plans and inspection services.
Ms. Freeman said the above issues and stormwater management plans are critical concerns on the proposed site because of the runoff flooding that affects low-lying areas. She suggested that the applicant devise a stormwater management system that keeps the water runoff on site.
Mr. McWilliams commented on the width of the access road, noting that a number of the property owners on Newbury Heights Road are seasonal residents, the road’s usage will be lower because of the project residents’ demographics, the road’s 20’ travel way is wide enough for two cars to pass comfortably, and a narrower road will encourage drivers to proceed more slowly.
Ms. Ashworth questioned the ability of two cars to comfortably pass on that road in the winter snow. Mr. Spaulding said it will be 20’ but he will check with the Town Road Agent.
Mr. Healey noted that Newbury Heights Road is a Town-owned road and asked if the project’s access road would be a Town road or owned and maintained by the project owners. Mr. Spaulding said the access road will be owned by the project owners and most likely will not be a continuation of the name, Newbury Heights Road.
Mr. Healey asked if the applicant would be responsible for the upgrading and stormwater management issues connected with Newbury Heights Road. Mr. Vannatta said yes, the applicant would be responsible for addressing the issues raised by the Board and the cost of the off site improvements would be paid for by the applicant’s block grant.
Mr. Weiler noted that the project’s access road name will be important because 911 requires an address number and road name. He questioned the start and end location of the 1800’ road indicated on the plans. Mr. Spaulding said the road started at Bell Cove in Newbury Heights at the Stop sign and runs to the existing gravel cul-de-sac, adding that the project’s driveway is another 900’ which totals 2700’ or just over a half mile.
Mr. McWilliams noted that the road could be a significant issue for the project and suggested that it is considered early in the project review process.
Mr. Dezotell suggested a secondary access for all-terrain vehicles from behind the fire department and continuing around the railroad bed.
There was general discussion about the suggestion.
Mr. Vannatta said that the Town’s safety services personnel would have to examine and approve of any secondary access area.
The Board reviewed with the applicant the requirements for filing an application.
Regarding the requirement for external review of plans and inspections services, Mr. Weiler noted that it is in place to ensure the interests of the Town, not the applicant. Mr. Spaulding said he understood the distinction.
A list of waivers from the Town of Newbury Regulations for Site Plan Review was presented and discussed by Mr. Spaulding. Included in the list were Article VI fees for consultants; Article X application fees, site plan scale 1”=20’, location of large trees, existing grades 200’ beyond boundary, existing streams, wetlands, marshes…within 200’of boundary; Article XII outdoor amenities, recreational areas, access points to driveways 125’ apart, and parking requirements (51 parking spaces); and Article XV Security for Construction on Improvements.
Mr. Spaulding noted that the project would require fewer parking spaces (40 spaces) resulting in less paved area and more space to install rain gardens, etc.
Mr. Spaulding said the project is already bonded through HUD and the waiver request is to avoid paying for two bonds for the same project.
Mr. Geddes asked if the bond covered Newbury Heights Road improvements. Mr. Spaulding said yes.
Ms. Ashworth asked if the Town would be co-named on the bond. Mr. Spaulding said he was not sure. Mr. Weiler said the Town counsel should look into the issue.
There was general discussion regarding the applicant’s upcoming meeting with LSPA and the informational role LSPA plays concerning stormwater management.
Mr. McWilliams discussed several additional items including whether the proposed project is one of regional impact. Of possible applicability is RSA 36:55 V. Proximity to aquifers or surface waters which transcend municipal boundaries. He said the project’s proximity to Lake Sunapee could affect New London and Sunapee. He suggested that the applicant submit formal notice of the project to the Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission and to LSPA (although it is not required).
Additionally, Mr. McWilliams reviewed the proposed schedule of the application process with the Board.
There was discussion concerning the proposed schedule. Ms. Freeman suggested that the applicant address the road issue first and determine if there are any other items on the waiver list that would stop the project if denied and have those items examined by the Board first. The Board agreed.
Mr. Spaulding said that even though the project falls under cluster development, site plan and subdivision, could all the issues be discussed under one application instead of separate ones. Mr. McWilliams said he could fill out the applications for site plan and sub division and suggested that Mr. Spaulding decide which of the issues are “deal breakers” and place those issues first for the Board’s consideration.
Ms. Freeman said the issue of the road is one of safety and suggested that the applicant needs to present to the Board his solution(s) regarding that issue.
Ms. Ashworth asked about the advantages to this site.
Ralph Littlefield, executive director, Community Action Program Belknap-Merrimack Counties, Inc. reviewed the history of searching for an appropriate site within Newbury, noting that the first site was on South Road but it had to be abandoned because of unsolvable wetland impact issues. He said subsequent research led them to another site near the cemetery on South Road. He said the Town “fathers” suggested the Davis property. He said the location met all the requirements regarding proximity to the downtown services.
Ms. Ashworth said the chosen site is closer to the downtown area but noted that it isn’t really accessible to the downtown due to the steepness of Newbury Heights Road.
Mr. Littlefield said the road meets the HUD criteria. He added that all the off site improvements are not covered by the HUD grant. He reviewed the process of block grant applications.
Ms. Ashworth asked if the HUD oversight applied to the block grant. Mr. Spaulding said there were oversight regulations in the block grant governing the off site improvements. He said the oversight requirements apply to the same contractor whether the work is on the HUD portion of the project or the off site improvement portion of the project.
Mr. Littlefield described the structure of the various granting agencies and respective oversight procedures.
Ken Neilsen, project attorney, asked the Board to waive the application fees. Mr. Weiler said the application fees are calculated to reflect the direct costs to the Town of abutter notification, secretarial support, noticing, etc. Mr. Weiler suggested that if the applicant files a subdivision application and a site plan review application at the same time, only one set of fees be charged. The Board agreed.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Wild Goose Boat Ramp
Mr. Vannatta informed the Board that a hearing before an appeal board is scheduled in October 2010 regarding the Wild Goose Boat Ramp Project. He said the legal firm of Upton Hatfield requested using the Board’s letter of concern that was sent in June 2009 to U.S. Fish and Game. Mr. Vannatta said he checked with Town counsel regarding releasing the information and added that he or other members of the Board may be called upon to testify concerning the letter.
Site Plan Issues
Mr. Weiler raised concerns about site plan changes at Rainbow Garage noting that substantial bulldozing and tree removal is evident and suggested that a site plan amendment is called for under the Town regulations.
The second site plan change is located at Stone Face Excavating which used to be a welding shop and now appears to be a contractors’ yard, which may constitute a change of use.
Mr. Vannatta said he will talk with the Code Enforcement Officer on May 19, 2010 regarding the above.
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of April 20, 2010 and made corrections.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Freeman seconded the motion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 8:44 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
