Planning Board
July 20, 2010
Approved August 17, 2010
Members Present: Tom Vannatta, Chair; Barbara Freeman, Vice-Chair; Bill Weiler, Bruce Healey, Travis Dezotell, Elizabeth Ashworth, Members; Ron Williams, Deane Geddes, Alison Kinsman, Russell Smith, Alternates; Ken McWilliams, Advisor.
Mr. Vannatta called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of May 18, 2010 and made corrections. Ms. Freeman made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion. All in favor.
CASE: Case 2010-003: Conceptual-Ken Nielsen (Attorney for Newbury Elderly Housing Project) 591-0740. Newbury Heights Road. Map/Lot 020-072-043.
Mr. Vannatta noted that this presentation was another Conceptual review. The last Conceptual was presented at the April 20, 2010 Planning Board meeting.
Gary Spaulding, manager, G.R. Spaulding Design Consultants, LLC presented to the Board in place of Ken Nielsen, attorney for the Newbury Elderly Housing Project. Mr. Spaulding noted that, in addition to the current plan, he included the former plan for the Project as points of comparison in the areas of wetlands, steep slopes, setbacks and overall impact to the site.
Mr. Spaulding reviewed the original plan noting it included six buildings, 1150 linear feet of road, the potential for six separate leach fields (one for each building), and parking. He indicated the delineation of the gravel pit and the adjacent Perkins property.
Mr. Spaulding said that his group met with the Lake Sunapee Protective Association (LSPA) for input. He added that his group also considered the input given by the Planning Board. He said the combined input from the LSPA and the Planning Board resulted in the current concept which he presented to the Board.
Mr. Spaulding said the current plan contains a two story building instead of six one story buildings. He said the first concept resulted in eight acres of impact on the site and the current concept results in just over 3.8 acres of impact on the site. He said the impervious surface layers (the buildings, parking areas and additional road surface) contained in the first concept amount to 96,000 square feet and the current concept reduces that number to 60,000 square feet. He said the current concept includes a road length of 1150 linear feet from Newbury Heights Road to the cul de sac and an additional 732 linear feet to the Project’s parking area for a total road length of 1882 linear feet.
Mr. Spaulding said the number of Effluent Disposal Areas (EDAs) numbered six in the first concept and two in the current concept. He said the current plan includes added bio-retention areas and rain gardens for runoff. He described the changes planned for site grading indicating a site grading of three to one, and said that the current plan reduces the amount of steep slope impact and the number of cuts on the upper side of the property. He said there are two wetland crossings and noted that the current plan reduces the area of wetland crossings.
Mr. Spaulding said the down slope side of the road will be graded two to one and added that his group met with the Newbury Road Agent and the Newbury Fire Chief at the proposed Project site to discuss road widths. Mr. Spaulding said the cul de sac has been located further into the Project property on a flatter area in order to minimize the steep slope impact. He noted that there is a 60 foot diameter for a cul de sac and that the Newbury Fire Chief will inform him of the minimum turning radius needed for that area.
Mr. Spaulding said the current concept is aimed at minimizing the overall impact to the site and he added that the current concept eliminates the need for one waiver regarding the wetland buffer. He added that a survey has been finished for Newbury Heights Road and said the Newbury Road Agent and Fire Chief agree that an 18 foot road is adequate for the fire/safety needs and access to the site. Mr. Spaulding said that the road is currently between 12 to 16 feet wide.
Mr. Spaulding asked the Board if the current concept is still considered a subdivision since there is just one building, or does it now fall under the Town’s site plan review regulations.
Mr. Geddes asked if the number of units will remain the same. Mr. Spaulding said yes. Ms. Ashworth asked how many parking spaces are planned. Mr. Spaulding said the current concept will have 40 parking spaces, which is two fewer than in the first concept.
Mr. Geddes asked if common areas (laundry, elevator, manager’s office, etc.) are included in the current concept. Mr. Spaulding said yes.
Mr. Vannatta asked if the unit sizes in the current concept are the same as in the first concept. Ralph Littlefield, executive director of the Community Action Program (CAP) Belknap-Merrimack County, said the unit size is approximately the same.
Mr. Geddes asked about the amount of digging and material removal needed for the building site. Mr. Spaulding said his group has not calculated how much material will be removed for the current concept. He described the two-story concept as a way to minimize the impact on the steep slope behind the proposed building.
Mr. Williams asked about fire exits. Richard Curtis, architect, said there would be fire stairs to service the upper floor and the building will have a fire detection and alarm system and a full sprinkler system. Mr. Williams asked if handicapped residents would be restricted to the first floor. Mr. Curtis said no and added that all of the units are designed to be handicapped adaptable and four units will be fully handicapped accessible.
Mr. Williams asked what would happen if a handicapped person is on the second floor during a fire and the elevators are not available for evacuation. Mr. Curtis said the building is fully sprinklered and the fire department typically uses a “remain in place” policy. He said if there is a fire it will be contained in a very small area and all fire doors in the building will automatically shut so the building becomes compartmentalized. He said it will be up to the fire department to decide who must evacuate. He added that the fire department has the ability to activate the elevator.
Mr. Geddes asked if there was just one elevator. Mr. Curtis said yes, just one.
Ms. Ashworth asked if the current concept includes providing water storage for the sprinkler system. Mr. Curtis said the current concept will include cisterns for water storage.
Ms. Freeman asked how the current concept addresses the Town regulation of a maximum road length of 1500 feet for a single access road. Mr. Spaulding said the Town Fire Chief and Town Road Agent told him that safety vehicles could access the property without a problem.
Ms. Freeman asked what would occur if the access road is impassable due to an act of nature (a tree across the road or snow/ice) and a resident is in critical need of an ambulance. Mr. Spaulding said the Fire Chief told him the safety vehicles could clear the road.
Mr. Weiler asked for the total length of the access road. Mr. Spaulding said the total length of the road is 2,012 feet.
Mr. Geddes asked if the Fire Chief gave reasons why the road could not go through the Perkins property on an emergency call. Mr. Spaulding said his group’s reasons for not pursuing that possibility involve ongoing maintenance of the access road and liability issues.
Mr. Geddes asked if the Fire Chief is aware of the discussions surrounding the establishment of a footpath along the railroad bed. Mr. Spaulding said yes.
Mr. Weiler asked if the units will be condos or rentals. Mr. Curtis said they will all be rentals.
Mr. Healey asked about the specific concerns raised by the LSPA. Mr. Spaulding said the LSPA was concerned about the impact on the wetlands, the steep slope in back of the proposed building(s) and the amount of impervious area. He said the eight acres of impact was the LSPA’s biggest concern.
Mr. Healey asked about the LSPA’s opinion of the current concept. Mr. Spaulding said he [Robert Wood, associate executive director, LSPA] was “pleasantly surprised”.
Mr. Vannatta raised the question of whether the current concept is a subdivision or a site plan and asked Mr. McWilliams for his opinion.
Mr. McWilliams said the definition of subdivision in the Town Subdivision Regulations (Section II – Definitions, Paragraph 2.23) refers to “two or more lots, plats, sites, or other divisions of land….”. He said the current concept places all 34 units in a single building and, in his interpretation, the regulations governing subdivisions no longer apply. He said a site plan is still required. He added that the first concept included multiple building sites as well as multiple units in each site, thus making it a subdivision.
Mr. Spaulding said that at the last meeting the Board suggested that the cluster housing regulations might also apply. There was general discussion about cluster housing and its applicability to the current concept.
Mr. McWilliams referred to the Town Zoning Ordinance, Article XII (Cluster Development) which describes the purpose, incentives, standards, procedures, and review criteria applied to cluster housing.
Ms. Freeman stated her concerns regarding exceeding the maximum 1500 feet for a road without another exit. She stated that even though there are single-access roads in the Town that are longer than 1500 feet, those roads were in place before the regulations were created. She added that the Board, in the past, has set a precedent of refusing subdivisions because of the maximum 1500 foot road regulation. She said the safety issue surrounding this regulation is paramount to this project especially because of the demographics of the residents (elderly/handicapped). She added that access to the property becomes a critical factor in providing a reliable and safe response to emergency situations. She said another access is needed to the property.
Mr. McWilliams said the road/safety issue is a significant one and recommended that Mr. Spaulding and his group address it.
Mr. Spaulding said the maximum 1500 foot road regulation applies to subdivisions and not to site plans and that the current concept falls under site plan regulations and not under subdivision regulations. Mr. Spaulding said he understood that the Board considers this issue to be a red flag for the Project and asked how the rest of the Board feels about it.
Ms. Ashworth said she concurs with Ms. Freeman’s statements on the matter.
Mr. Weiler asked about the 1500 foot maximum access road regulation governing access roads. Mr. McWilliams said it is in the subdivision regulations. Mr. Weiler asked if there is a regulation governing access roads in the site plan regulations. Mr. McWilliams referred to Article XII, Standards and Requirements for Proposed Developments, Section 12.8.1 Parking, Loading, and Safety which reads as follows: “There shall be adequate traffic access to and from Town and State streets and highways to insure the safety of vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles.”
Mr. McWilliams suggested that the Board confer with Town Counsel to find out if the maximum 1500 foot access road subdivision regulation may be cross-linked to the site plan regulations.
Mr. Vannatta concurred with Ms. Freeman and Ms. Ashworth regarding the safety issue connected with the access road in the current concept of the Project. He added that he agreed with Mr. McWilliam’s advice to confer with Town Counsel regarding whether the subdivision regulation covering the maximum 1500 foot access road may be carried over to apply to site plan regulations.
There was further general discussion regarding the road, its length, the cost to upgrade and alternative access points.
Ms. Freeman suggested that the Chair ask for a sense of the Board regarding the issue of the road length and the safety concerns.
Mr. Vannatta asked for a non-binding sense of the Board (members and alternates) to indicate whether or not the access road and safety issue is a concern. Six members indicated the access road is a serious issue connected with the proposed Project, one member felt it was not a serious issue, and two members remained undecided. A majority agreed that the access road is a serious issue connected with the proposed Project.
Mr. Spaulding asked if there were any other issues that concerned the Board.
Mr. Vannatta said he felt that Mr. Spaulding and his group went back to the drawing board and addressed the setback issues, the wetland issues and reduced the impact on the road, all of which were positive things to do.
There was further general discussion about the Project, specifically about burying the electrical wires underground, the isolation of the site, and the residents’ age and ongoing needs for support services.
Mr. Vannatta said the Board will consult with Town Counsel and suggested that Mr. Spaulding and his group return on August 3, 2010 for a continuation of the conceptual and the Board’s suggestion regarding the next step. Mr. Spaulding agreed.
CASE: Case 2010-006: Conceptual Subdivision- Diane Heller. 763-2902. Rollins Road. Map/Lot 030-666-376.
Diane Heller was present to meet with the board and stated that she was representing her mother, Rheta Heller.
Ms. (Diane) Heller said she and her mother were interested in sub-dividing and selling a portion of their property in order to meet financial obligations. Ms. Heller said she wanted to meet with the Board before presenting a preliminary plan for the Board’s consideration.
She said the property is a tree farm and the proposed sub-division is located on the far corner of the property, closest to the John Hay estate and Rollins Road/103A. She said there is a gentle grade to the land, a view of the mountain, and an array of hand cut granite.
She noted that she could not afford a full survey of the entire tree farm and asked if a waiver for same would be appropriate to request at this point in the planning process.
Ms. Freeman said the first point to discuss is the fact that Ms. Heller sub-divided her property in 2009. Mr. Vannatta said the Letter of Decision approving the subdivision was dated November 20, 2009. He said the Town regulations limit the number of minor subdivisions within a five year period.
Mr. McWilliams said the minor subdivision regulations allow for three or fewer subdivided lots within a five year period. Ms. Heller said she subdivided her one lot into two lots in 2009 but that she thought the property was subdivided in 2006. There was further discussion about the history of subdivision on the property.
Mr. Vannatta said Ms. Heller should research the dates for the previous subdivisions.
Mr. McWilliams advised the Board on two possible ways to proceed. The first would require that Ms. Heller file the current subdivision request as a major subdivision with waiver requests for some of the requirements inherent in a major subdivision application. The second approach would be for the Board to consider Ms. Heller’s situation and discuss waiving the requirement of filing this subdivision request as a major subdivision and accept it as a minor subdivision application.
Mr. Healey added that the second suggestion should carry a condition that Ms. Heller does not return with another minor subdivision request within the next five years.
Mr. Vannatta suggested that Ms. Heller research the exact date (month, day and year) of the first subdivision and leave the information with the Land Use Secretary.
Ms. Heller asked about the lot ratio of one to four. Mr. Weiler referred Ms. Heller to the Town’s Land Subdivision Control Regulations, Section X –Standards for Subdivision Design, Paragraph 10.5 Lot Layout.
Mr. Vannatta said the Board will work with Ms. Heller as she moves forward with her research.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Mr. Vannatta reviewed the agenda for the Board’s work session meeting on August 3, 2010 at 7:00 p.m.
There was discussion regarding a joint work session meeting with the Zoning Board of Adjustment scheduled for September 7, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. It was agreed that the ZBA compile a list of discussion topics for distribution the Planning Board prior to the scheduled meeting.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Freeman seconded the motion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
