Planning Board
August 17, 2010
Approved September 21, 2010
Members Present: Barbara Freeman, Vice-Chair; Bill Weiler, Bruce Healey, Members; Ron Williams, Deane Geddes, Alison Kinsman, Russell Smith, Alternates; Ken McWilliams, Advisor.
Ms. Freeman chaired the meeting in Mr. Vannatta’s absence.
Ms. Freeman called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and appointed Mr. Williams and Ms. Kinsman as voting members for this meeting.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of July 20, 2010 and made corrections. Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
There was general discussion regarding the In-House Seminar topics scheduled for presentation later in the meeting.
CASE: Case 2010-006: Conceptual Subdivision – Diane Heller. 763-2902. Rollins Road. Map/Lot 030-666-376.
Ms. Heller was present to meet with the Board regarding subdividing her property. She told the Board that she researched the subdivision history of her property and sent the information to the Board for their review.
As a result of her research, Ms. Heller said she arrived at three options for consideration by the Board:
- Consider this a minor subdivision with the Rollins Road subdivision of 12+ acres as the third lot;
- Consider this a major subdivision with waivers; or,
- Consider this a minor subdivision with a request that no further development occur for 36 months.
Ms. Freeman asked Ms. Heller for clarification on the dates of the previous subdivisions. Ms. Heller said her first subdivision was in February 2007, the second subdivision was in 2008 and the current request would be the third subdivision.
Mr. McWilliams reviewed the chronology of the property subdivision activity as follows: the first subdivision occurred in 1994 followed by another subdivision in 1999. Additional subdivisions occurred in 2007 and 2009. He read into the record the regulations governing minor subdivisions, Section II Definitions, Paragraph 2.15:
“Minor Subdivision shall mean the subdivision of land into a total of three or fewer lots, plats or sites within a five year period requiring no new roads, utilities, or other public improvements as defined by RSA 676:4,III.”
Mr. McWilliams said that the regulation applies to the 2007 and 2009 subdivisions which resulted in the creation of three lots and Ms. Heller’s current request would mean the creation of a fourth lot. Mr. McWilliams reviewed the options available to her. He said she could request consideration for a minor subdivision with a waiver for the five-year limitation, or apply for a major subdivision with waivers.
Mr. Healey said the subdivision in 2007 created two lots and questioned why the 2009 subdivision was not considered in the same light. Ms. Freeman said the reason the 2009 subdivision was not considered two lots is because it occurred within the five year period cited in the regulation.
Mr. McWilliams said the reason for the five-year time frame in the minor subdivision regulation is to prevent a property owner from continually subdividing his/her property without an overall plan. He recommended that the Board consider requesting any minor subdivision applicant to take a long term view of his/her property and discuss the potential plans of same.
Ms. Heller said her preference is to not sell any more of her property but unforeseen medical expenses are driving this decision to subdivide. She reviewed with the Board the property map containing the proposed subdivision and described the intent of the subdivision as creating a larger lot for a house or tree farm.
There was discussion about the potential for future subdivision requests from Ms. Heller.
Ms. Freeman suggested that Ms. Heller think about the latter’s need for future subdivisions and use that as the basis for structuring her current subdivision request as a minor or major subdivision application.
Ms. Heller said she was open to considering her current request as a major subdivision with numerous waivers. Additionally, Ms. Freeman said the Board would want a rough idea of any future subdivisions that might occur on the property.
Mr. Geddes requested a surveyor’s plot of the entire remaining property along with an indication of what is planned for future development of the property. Ms. Heller said the property survey was done in 1994.
Ms. Freeman suggested that Ms. Heller meet with Mr. McWilliams to review the requirements involved in applying for a major subdivision.
Ms. Heller asked the Board if she applied for a minor subdivision now, and subsequently became deceased, would her heirs be able to apply for a major subdivision. Mr. McWilliams said there would be no time limitation on her heirs for applying for a major subdivision.
Ms. Heller asked if she applied for a minor subdivision now, could she return in four years and apply for a major subdivision. Mr. McWilliams said it is the determination of the future Board whether or not she could do that.
Ms. Freeman suggested that Ms. Heller consider applying for a minor subdivision first and directed the latter to the subdivision regulations for application guidance. Ms. Freeman added that further guidance and informational assistance is available from her, Mr. Vannatta, Mr. Weiler and Mr. McWilliams.
Mr. Weiler expressed his concern that the property development plans avoid creating land locked lots. Ms. Heller assured the Board that that would not happen.
CASE: Case 2010-007: Conceptual Subdivision – Jeffrey Bates. 927-4066. 323 Sutton Road. Map/Lot 048-588-287.
Jeff Evans, Evans Land Consultant LLC, presented to the Board as the Bates’ agent. He said Jeffrey and Darcey Bates are in a hardship situation. He said the Bates currently house two grown children and two 20-month old youngsters and they want to subdivide and build the young family a house of their own.
Mr. Evans asked the Board for guidance on what waivers may be needed for the minor subdivision application, specifically Section V, Developer’s Responsibilities, Paragraph 5.1 and 5.2 for the section of the property containing the Bates’ current house. Additionally, he questioned whether a waiver is needed for Paragraph 9.5 Topographic Map.
Ms. Freeman asked if the property contained steep slopes. Mr. Evans said no, the property is open field. Mr. Williams said the topo on the plan indicates about 12% plus or minus.
Mr. Weiler said the plan needs a symbol on the Legend indicating wetlands. Mr. Evans said he will take care of that. Mr. Evans reviewed the soil types and indicated that the buildable envelope was 1.81 acres. Mr. Weiler referred to the regulations governing buildable envelopes indicating the regulations call for one (1) contiguous acre.
Ms. Freeman asked Mr. Evans if the Bates believe they can meet all the requirements for a minor subdivision. Mr. Bates said he believes they can. Ms. Freeman said if that is the case, then waivers are not needed.
Mr. McWilliams asked Mr. Evans if the required soils report and map will be provided, citing Paragraph 9.6 Soils Report and Map, “In addition to the Soils Map, the subdivider shall submit a Soils Report prepared by a Soils Scientist or an engineer which provides an analysis of the suitability of the soils for the proposed development.”
Mr. Evans asked if a waiver could be requested for the Soils Report. He said they have a septic design for the plan. Ms. Freeman said the septic design could be a used as a consideration for the waiver request for the Soils Report.
Mr. Evans said he intends to write a waiver letter concerning the interpolation of the contours.
The Board took a break at 7:50 p.m.
The Board returned from break at 7:55 p.m.
CASE: Case 2010-008: Conceptual – Maureen Clement. Owns over 50 lots in Park 10 and wants to create clusters of lots similar to what is shown on today’s tax maps.
Ms. Clement presented to the Board. Ms. Clement owns over 50 of the original Park 10 lots. She told the told the Board that several of her lots were “combined” – not merged – by the Town Tax Assessor several years ago. Also, she has merged several of her lots in past years and would like to merge her lots in Blocks J and I into one lot. She said she had a survey done on the lots and showed the Board the lots in question on the plan.
Ms. Freeman asked for the total acreage. Ms. Clement said the total acreage would be 1.7 acres if the Town agrees to sell her a small parcel adjoining her lots. Ms. Clement claimed that her property taxes indicate she owns eight acres while her survey shows that she owns six acres.
Mr. Weiler advised her to contact the Board of Selectmen regarding purchasing the small parcel owned by the Town.
Ms. Freeman told Ms. Clement that property deeds for every piece of land in question are required before a merger can be considered.
Mr. Weiler advised Ms. Clement regarding the appropriate form to use for a property merger request and to reference the Book and Page number of each deed.
There was discussion about the property tax map and lot numbers and how to list them on the merger application.
Ms. Freeman advised Ms. Clement that Mr. Vannatta, Planning Board Chair, has the authority to sign the merger application when completed. She added that he will require all the property deeds and proof that there is only one building on the resulting property.
Mr. McWilliams said the Board must accept that the “combining of lots” that was done through the Tax Assessor is not a merger recognized by the Board. However, from the standpoint of the property owner, the proposed merger reflects the original lots prior to the “combining of lots”. He added that the deeds are the documents that control the process.
There was discussion about roads that were indicated on the Park 10 map prior to the “combining of lots” that are no longer indicated on the current Park 10 map.
Mr. McWilliams questioned whether there would be an issue with creating land locked lots. Mr. Weiler disagreed, saying Ms. Clement should be able to produce original deeds that will reference lot numbers and the merger application will use those reference numbers.
Ms. Freeman advised Ms. Clement to write a detailed description of the latter’s intent, fill out the merger application, present all the original property deeds and submit it all to the Land Use Secretary for review by Mr.Vannatta.
Mr. McWilliams said standard procedure is to include this on the Board agenda for review by the Board. If acceptable, the Board authorizes the Chair to sign the merger application. Ms. Freeman said the Board has given the Chair permission to sign such documents without bringing them to the Board for further review.
The Board further recommended that Ms. Clement contact the Tax Assessor to discuss the “combining of lots” issue.
Ms. Freeman asked Ms. Clement about access to the lots in question. Ms. Clement said she has a right-of-way letter on record giving her access and indicated an original road on the Park 10 map.
Mr. Healey asked Ms. Clement why she was doing this. Ms. Clement said because she wanted to.
The Board took a break at 8:08 p.m.
The Board returned from break at 8:11 p.m.
IN-HOUSE SEMINAR
Mr. McWilliams presented to the Board a review of the Newbury Subdivision Control Regulations for the benefit of new members and alternates.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Mr. McWilliams asked if the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) has compiled its list of topics for discussion at the Planning Board/ZBA joint meeting on September 7, 2010 The Recording Secretary said the ZBA Chair is refining the topic list and will distribute same early next week.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Geddes seconded the motion. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
