Planning Board
October 19, 2010
Approved November 16, 2010
Members Present: Tom Vannatta, Chair; Barbara Freeman, Vice-Chair; Bill Weiler, Bruce Healey, Travis Dezotell, Elizabeth Ashworth, Members; Ron Williams, Alison Kinsman, Russell Smith, Alternates; Ken McWilliams, Advisor; Dick Wright, Alternate ex-officio member.
Mr. Vannatta called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
Mr. Vannatta recommended reviewing the minutes of September 21, 2010 at the end of the meeting. The Board agreed.
Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Report
Ivor Freeman, Chair of the CIP Committee and Raymond Spahl, Committee member, were present to present the 2011-2016 CIP Report draft. Other CIP Committee members include Ron Williams, Dennis Pavlicek, Ken McWilliams, Tom Vannatta and Gary Budd.
Mr. Freeman read a letter which outlined the CIP Committees findings. (See Attachment A)
Mr. Healey asked if there were any details on the Veteran Hall improvements.
Mr. Freeman directed Mr. Healey to review Table I. He explained that the committee assumed there would be an expenditure of $150,000 that would enable the Town to bring the building up to code for public use. That figure was provided by Mr. Pavlicek.
Mr. Wright commented that at the 2010 Annual Town Meeting, he was going to propose $125,000 that included a $10,000 contingency and would include insulation, sheetrock, upgraded electrical, a small kitchen installation and two handicap accessible bathrooms. The utilities would remain in the back area of the stone-lined cellar. Mr. Wright commented that Mr. Pavlicek probably added to his initial estimation due to the rising costs of materials and labor. He stated that the Board of Selectmen has talked with an architect in anticipation of renovation of the Veteran’s Hall and the Police Station.
Mr. Freeman commented that Mr. Weiler provided good information for the historic building improvements in South Newbury.
Mr. Vannatta commented that at the 2010 Town Meeting there was a motion and affirmative vote that any further work or expenditures on the Veteran’s Hall should be tabled and held to a vote at the 2011 Annual Town Meeting. He then asked if the CIP should not put the $150,000 aside until it is voted on as an approved action by the Town Meeting body.
Mr. Wright commented that the $150,000 is only a plan. Any improvements would still be voted on at the 2011 Town Meeting.
Mr. Freeman explained that the CIP numbers have been steady over recent years and remain so, which is good for the tax rate. It avoids sudden dips which result in sudden peaks.
Mr. Healey asked if reading a letter of the CIP report into the minutes is common practice.
Mr. Freeman explained that this is the first time the CIP was addressing the Board by reading a letter.
Mr. Healey asked why Mr. Freeman mentioned there is a difference between the CIP’s interpretation of “capital” items and the town’s interpretation.
Mr. Freeman explained that he was trying to see if what the CIP had done in previous years had any correlation between the numbers in the CIP and the Town Report Financials, but because of the differences in use of the word “capital” it cannot be done.
Mr. Weiler asked if there was any reason for not planning to fund the South Newbury buildings other than not knowing what their uses are going to be.
Mr. Freeman stated no. He commented that until the Town decides what is going to done with them, the Town should not put any money aside.
Mr. Weiler commented that he has stated that a fund should be started for the Town Hall because it has the most potential.
Mr. Freeman commented that Mr. Weiler’s recommendation is accepted and understood, but until the uses are approved the Town should not do more than maintenance on the building.
Mr. McWilliams commented that there are a lot of public building facility needs that come first before fixing up older buildings.
Mr. Freeman added that the Town has few bonds compared to its bonding capabilities. With the interest rates so low, it may be a good time to consider some more work. There is $909,000 estimated for renovation of four South Newbury buildings. It is a decision the Town and the Board of Selectmen have to make.
Mr. Healey asked Mr. Dezotell to explain the plans and needs for recreation facilities capital expenditures since the recreation allotment almost doubled.
Mr. Dezotell explained that the money that is going into the 2011-2016 CIP is to prepare for Phase B Fishersfield Development Plan which may include a second athletic field and a fund in anticipation of future costs so that a large warrant article doesn’t appear. He said the original Fishersfield Master Plan called for an education center, additional parking and other miscellaneous amenities.
No further discussion.
Ms. Freeman made a motion to accept and approve the CIP Report for 2011-2016 as presented. Mr. Dezotell seconded the motion. All in favor.
Rules of Procedure Amendment (Item 9.3 Quorum and Voting)
Mr. Vannatta reminded the Board that at a previous meeting the Board agreed that documents for board review and discussion should be received by the Board members one week prior to the meeting.
The Board reviewed the draft amendment to Item 9.3 Quorum and Voting in the Planning Board Rules of Procedure. Mr. Healey stated that based on previous discussion by the Board, the phrase “except for routine administrative matters” should be inserted in reference to roll call voting. The Board agreed.
Mr. Vannatta asked the Board if they wanted to move on the draft as presented this evening or if they would like the final draft to include “except for routine administrative matters”.
Mr. Weiler suggested that the Board approve the Rules of Procedure Amendment as presented tonight and amend them at the next Planning Board meeting as pointed out by Mr. Healey. That way, the one-week rule will be satisfied as well.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to adopt the draft changes to Item 9.3 Quorum and Voting as written. Ms. Ashworth seconded the motion. All in favor.
CASE: Case 2010-009: Conceptual Minor Subdivision- Church Family Revocable Trust. (201) 385-1630. Map/Lot 16A-135-049.
Arthur and Barbara Church were present to discuss their application for a simple subdivision of 4.2 acres into two lots of two acres (+) each.
Mr. McWilliams asked Mr. Church what the road frontage would be for each lot.
Mr. Church explained that one end of the existing lot has 117 feet on Route 103A and 30 feet on Indian Road. Indian Road is a private road. There are currently two buildings on the lot; a small, shack-like structure off Route 103A and a barn near Indian Road.
The Board reviewed the zoning regulations for clarification on road frontage.
Mr. McWilliams advised the Board that in order to approve this subdivision a variance needs to be obtained by the Zoning Board of Adjustment per Article 5.8 of the Zoning Regulations. This proposed subdivision is making a non-conforming lot more non-conforming because it is currently one lot with 147 feet of road frontage. Approval of the subdivision would mean one lot with 30 feet of road frontage and one lot with 117 feet of road frontage.
Ms. Freeman asked Mr. Church if there were any steep slopes on the property which may reduce the build-ability. If so, she said there may not actually be two acres of buildable land on the lot fronting Route 103A which would means the lot could not be subdivided.
Mr. Church stated that there is a ‘pretty good grade’ but that it is buildable.
Mr. McWilliams asked Mr. Church if there were any wetlands on the property.
Mr. Church stated that there are no wetlands on the land. He stated that several years ago the property was perked for potential development and the results were mostly all sand.
Mr. McWilliams reiterated Ms. Freeman’s question regarding steep slopes. He advised the Board that more information is needed regarding the slopes in case a steep slope variance is needed in addition to a road frontage variance.
Mr. McWilliams advised Mr. Church to research the grade of slopes on the lot to determine if they meet the requirements for subdivision by contacting a surveyor or referring to a USGS map for topographical contours. With that information, Mr. McWilliams said Mr. Church will then know if he needs to get a variance for only road frontage or if he will need two variances; one for road frontage and one for steep slopes.
Mr. Church stated that the reason they would like to subdivide is to sell the upper lot in order to help with property taxes.
CASE: Case 2010-010: Conceptual Site Plan Review- Soaring Goose LLC/ Tim Green, tenant/agent (603)491-9568. Map/Lot 050-531-080. -CANCELLED
CASE: Case 2010-011: Final Hearing/Minor Subdivision- Raymond Schilke. 763-2963. 307 Mountain Road. Map/Lot 022-273-043.
Mr. Vannatta informed the Board and the public that this hearing cannot be heard by the Planning Board this evening due to an error in the public notice and abutter letters. This hearing will have to be re-noticed for the November 16, 2010 meeting.
Mr. Vannatta apologized to Mr. Schilke for not being able to act on his application this evening and explained that he will need to contact the Land Use Coordinator to set up a time for the hearing and to ensure that he receives a certified notice of the hearing date and time. Mr. Vannatta informed Mr. Schilke that if he is not able to be present at the November hearing a letter of representation appointing a second party needs to be submitted prior to the hearing.
CASE: Case 2010-006: Final Hearing/Minor Subdivision- Diane Heller. 763-2902. Rollins Road. Map/Lot 030-666-376.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application for a Final Hearing for a Minor Subdivision from Rheta Heller Revocable Trust, for property located on Rollins Road, Newbury, NH, Tax Map 030-666-376 on Tuesday, October 19, 2010, at 7:45 p.m. in the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH. If the application is accepted as complete, a public hearing on the application will commence at the same meeting.
Mr. Dezotell recused himself from this hearing as an abutter. Mr. Vannatta appointed Mr. Williams as a voting member for this hearing.
The Board reviewed the application for completeness. There was no soils report present in the application or indicated on the mylar.
Ms. Heller commented that it was her understanding that a soils report is not needed for lots over five acres.
Mr. McWilliams explained that the five-acre rule applied to septic approval. Any lots over five acres do not need a septic approval plan from DES prior to subdivision. However, a soils report is still required.
Ms. Freeman stated that the surveyor had made a notation regarding soil types in the application but neglected to include that information on the plan.
Ms. Freeman made a motion to accept the application as complete contingent on receiving the soils report. Mr. Healey seconded the motion.
In Favor: Ms. Ashworth, Mr. Healey, Mr. Wright, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Williams, Ms. Freeman, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None
Ms. Heller presented a letter from Allen Lee Wilson, ALW Surveys, addressing deer wintering areas as requested by the Board at a previous meeting and submitted a waiver request to the Board to accept 5-foot contour lines instead of 2-foot contour lines. She explained that she misunderstood the Board’s direction at the last meeting and did not realize she was supposed to provide 2-foot contour lines over the whole 12-acre lot. She stated that she is providing the contour lines in 5-foot intervals to show clearly in good faith the actual slope of the lot, which meets the objective of the 2-foot interval requirement.
Mr. Vannatta reminded the Board that at the meeting on September 21, 2010 the Board granted two waivers: one for 2-foot contours on Lot B and USGS contours for the balance; and two, that any further subdivision within the next five years will be considered a major subdivision.
Ms. Freeman asked Ms. Heller if there were any areas of steep slope on the lot.
Ms. Heller stated no, it is “all a gentle slope”.
Ms. Freeman made a motion to waive the requirement of 2-foot contour lines and accept the 5-foot contour lines as submitted. Mr. Wright seconded the motion.
Discussion followed.
Mr. Weiler stated that he would like to take the time to clarify the actual slopes on the property.
Mr. Williams calculated the slopes based on the information provided on the plan and determined that the steepest area of slope is less than a 15% grade.
Mr. Vannatta called for a vote on the motion.
In Favor: Ms. Freeman, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Williams, Mr. Wright, Mr. Healey, Ms. Ashworth, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None
There were no further questions by the Board.
Mr. Vannatta opened up the hearing to public comment.
Cheyrl Fogwill, 257 Route 103A, Newbury, an abutter, stated that she is not opposed to the subdivision but does have some concerns based on past experience of development adjacent to her property. She commented that her family has lived at the above address since the 1940’s and each time there is a lot that gets cleared up above her she experiences a run-off problem onto her property. In the past when she has approached the Board about the problem she was told it is too late to do anything about it. She commented that the upper section of her property is no longer usable due to the water run-off that has saturated the ground and she has spent a lot of money on fill to protect her home and dry out her basement. Additionally, she informed the Board that as a result of near-by
development her well dried up and she was forced to pay for the installation of an artesian well. She stated that she hopes the Planning Board has looked carefully at this plan so that this subdivision does not negatively impact her property.
Mr. Vannatta stated that the Planning Board is only in charge of overseeing the division of this lot not future development or clearing.
Ms. Heller commented that she is aware of the situation and has agreed to certain restrictions. She stated that she also has had silt on her property due to development at High Meadow and can sympathize with Ms. Fogwill.
Being no further input from the public, Mr. Vannatta closed the meeting to the public.
There was no further comment from the Board.
Mr. Wright made a motion to approve the minor subdivision with the condition that the soils map is submitted and that any other subdivision within five years will be treated as a major subdivision. Mr. Williams seconded the motion.
Discussion followed.
Ms. Ashworth asked if a future Board could waive a condition that is placed on an approval.
Mr. Vannatta said yes. He explained that the Board is making the five-year restriction a condition of approval because it has already been waived as a result of a prior subdivision.
Mr. Weiler stated that he is troubled that another Board could reverse a condition or waiver given as part of a previous approval.
Ms. Freeman clarified that a Board can waive a regulation but not a condition.
Mr. Vannatta called for a vote on the motion.
In Favor: Mr. Healey, Mr. Wright, Mr. Williams, Mr. Weiler, Ms. Freeman, Ms. Ashworth, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None
Mr. Vannatta advised Ms. Heller that she needs to return with the soils report and to have it indicated on the mylar. At that point, the Board will then sign the mylar for recording.
Mr. Vannatta called for a break at 9:45 p.m.
The Board resumed session at 9:54 p.m.
CASE: Continuance….Case 2010-003: Preliminary Hearing/Site Plan Review- Davis Revocable Trust/Agent: Community Action Program, Ralph Littlefield. 225-3295. Newbury Heights Road. Map/Lot 020-072-043 & 020-223-195.
Mr. Vannatta reminded the Board that on September 21, 2010 the Board reviewed the application for completeness and found it incomplete for the lack of specific maps and an executive summary. The hearing was continued to this evening. In the interim, the Board determined that this application for development has regional impact. Consequently, the Towns of Sunapee, Bradford and New London and the Regional Planning Commissions have been noticed as abutters for this application. Mr. Vannatta opened the hearing.
Kenneth Nielsen, project attorney and agent, presented a written summary which included information about the Community Action Program (CAP), Belknap-Merrimack Counties. He explained that this will be the seventh elderly housing project for the CAP.
David Eckman, Eckman Engineering, addressed the Board’s request for exploring other options for entry into the site. Mr. Eckman gave the Board members information pertaining to the potential parking needs.
Mr. Eckman informed the Board that he and Kim Hazarvartian, TEPP LLC, Transportation Engineering, Planning and Policy, reviewed several different access point options. Option 1 was behind the Newbury Post Office complex. Mr. Eckman said this option would be very costly due to the ground preparation that would have to be done. There is a rail road bed which is too narrow. Consequently, steep rail road side slopes would have to be built up to widen the travel surface which would mean filling in a high value wetland on either side of the rail road bed. Mr. Eckman said that if there is significant wetland impact the grant is not given so easily, if at all. He said this option could be developed but it would be environmentally harmful.
Mr. Eckman explained Option 2 and referred the Board to maps he had prepared. Option 2 provides two alternatives. The first alternative is to exit off Route 103 across from 877 Route 103, a.k.a. the Elliot Hansen Realty building down toward the railroad bed. This alternative would be 1,200 ft. long and bring the access road to within five-to-ten feet of the existing Stoneface Excavating building. Mr. Eckman said this option would require the costly moving of the building, if the owner agreed. The second alternative to Option 2 would be to egress further away down Route 103, connecting with the rail road bed and passing through the Newbury Cut. This alternative would be 1,600 feet long and require further blasting of the Newbury Cut, which would incur a cost in excess of $500,000, if it
could get approved. Mr. Eckman said as a result, Option 2 does not work out to be a viable secondary access.
Mr. Eckman concluded that Newbury Heights Road is the most viable option as a single, primary access. The housing development is planned to be a single, 34-unit building with each unit averaging 600 square feet. The predicted number of resident vehicles is 24 for a population in the mid-70’s age bracket. He said Newbury Heights Road is in good condition. Considering a single building, Mr. Eckman stated that he and Mr. Hazarvartian are confident that one access via Newbury Heights Road is the best option. Mr. Eckman said other options would do more harm and put the funding in jeopardy due to the impact on wetlands. He said the sight distance at Newbury Heights Road is safe and the existing road is high and dry. He said there will be culvert crossings that will need some
wetland approvals, but added that is pretty standard and will not compromise the funding. From an engineering standpoint, Mr. Eckman said, a secondary access is not needed.
Mr. Hazarvartian explained to the Board that the traffic analysis for road width takes into consideration two components: existing volume plus added volumes. He said those two components produce data for how wide the road should be. He added that the existing volume of traffic averages 26 vehicles per day. Based on other comparable elderly housing developments, he said the added volume is projected to be 106 vehicles per day. The total volumes are approximately less than 200 trips per day. Mr. Hazarvartian added that although the potential 200 trips is more than the existing 26, it is still considered very low by engineering standards.
Mr. Hazarvartian reported that the existing pavement is 12 to 16 feet wide. According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) regulations, 18 feet is the appropriate width for this amount of traffic.
Mr. Eckman stated that it would not be a big undertaking to widen Newbury Heights Road and extend culverts to meet the 18 foot requirement. He said Newbury Heights Road would not need to be dug up and rebuilt, adding that there is a $250,000 grant applied for which would be used in part to upgrade the town portion of Newbury Heights Road.
Ms. Freeman asked if Mr. Hazarvartian ever considers the neighborhood’s perception of traffic. She said AASHTO may not consider 200 trips per day a lot, the residents on Newbury Heights Road will notice an increase of traffic over tenfold. She asked if there is a way to mediate the impact.
Mr. Hazarvartian commented that instead of 30 minute gaps between passing vehicles, there may be a several minute gap instead. The vehicle traffic will be trickling, he said, not flowing.
Ms. Freeman stated that that is still a huge increase in the percentage of traffic.
Mr. Hazarvartian commented that since the volumes are so low to begin with the “percentage” increase doesn’t really tell the whole story.
Ms. Ashworth asked if the other projects that were used as comparables were similar in regional characteristics as the site of this proposed project. She elaborated that there are no stores or shopping options nearby and the facilities within walking distance are few.
Michael Coleman, CAP manager of housing projects, explained that the housing units that were used as comparables are similar to this proposed project in Newbury. He said one of them is in Belmont with no shopping options within five miles, and the other is in Alton which also requires travel for services.
Ms. Ashworth asked if there is any planned transportation provided to those residents who cannot or who choose not to drive.
Ralph Littlefield, executive director of CAP, stated that the Bradford Senior Center has a 16 passenger van which will be shared with this proposed development. He said those trips are part of the calculations provided earlier.
Ms. Freeman asked what variances are needed from the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) regarding this project.
Mr. Vannatta summarized that variances are needed for Wetland Crossing, Steep Slope, and Density.
Mr. Eckman stated that in addition to the access approval, the density variance is the most critical to obtain.
Ms. Freeman commented that in terms of the order of the way the project should proceed, the applicant should not have to complete all of the engineering without knowing what variances are going to be needed. The density variance can be established without any engineering. She stated that the Planning Board should not require all of the costly engineering from the applicant until at least the density variance is approved by the ZBA.
Ms. Ashworth commented that she believes the Board has discussed the project enough and can direct the applicant to which variances are needed and the latter can begin with the ZBA.
Mr. McWilliams stated that the variances could be applied for concurrently, but it is up to the applicant.
Mr. Littlefield commented that, as he mentioned before, this is a private, non-profit project. In the event the project fails, the CAP will have to pay back the borrowed funds to the federal government. The project has already cost approximately $85,000. He said the sooner the proposal can get through the ZBA, the better. However, he said, the grant money may not be available if the project is involved with both Boards concurrently. Mr. Littlefield commented that he would like to see what the Town’s engineer would like to see to review the project.
Mr. Dezotell commented that the public needs access to the information as well as the Planning Board to review.
Mr. Weiler commented that the information should be in at least a week before the hearing if not before.
Mr. Williams commented that a project book should be left in the lobby for public review and access.
Ms. Freeman made a motion to send the applicant to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for variances from Steep Slope, Wetlands and Density. Ms. Ashworth seconded the motion.
In Favor: Ms. Freeman, Mr. Healey, Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Wright, Ms. Ashworth, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None
Richard Curtis, architect, presented maps illustrating elevations of the proposed building. He explained the proposed layout of apartments, community rooms, kitchen, hair salon, common restrooms, etc. No specific dimensions were provided.
Mr. Healey asked if this building will be seen from Route 103.
Mr. Curtis said absolutely not.
Mr. Wright asked if the dormers illustrated are functional.
Mr. Curtis said no, they are mostly for ventilation and light to the attic space which will not be living space. The attic space will only house energy equipment to provide fresh air to the apartments.
Mr. Williams commented that it will be helpful to see directional indications on the elevation map. (N, S, E, and W pointing arrow)
Ms. Freeman commented that the final site plan map should also indicate proposed exterior lighting.
There were no further questions from the Board.
Mr. Vannatta informed the Board that at the last hearing there was a letter submitted by Audree and Robert Byrnes, which was inadvertently omitted. (See Attachment B) Mr. Vannatta read the letter out loud and into the record. The letter has been placed in the project book for public review.
Mr. Vannatta opened up the hearing to public comment.
Eleanor Plunkett, resident of Newbury and volunteer at the Mountainview Senior
Center (Bradford Community Center), stated that in her opinion there is a need for this kind of project. She said other senior housing projects overseen by CAP are clean, quiet and peaceable. She urged the Planning Board and ZBA to give this project as much fair consideration as possible. She commented that Newbury has parks, playgrounds, skiing, and activities for visitors. There is nothing for the seniors in this area. She commented that based on her personal experience, she believes it would be a benefit and satisfy a real need in this area.
Cheyrl Fogwill, Newbury resident, commented that she works in the healthcare field and agreed with Mrs. Plunkett that there is a real need in this area for this kind of development. She said the elderly housing development in Warner is clean and neat and well maintained.
Carolyn LaClair, Newbury resident, commented she has lived in Newbury all of life and agrees with Mrs. Plunkett and Mrs. Fogwill. She added that Newbury really needs this type of facility.
Mrs. Plunkett added that a lot of seniors live alone and are somewhat isolated. This type of development would not only provide a degree of assistance to the elderly but also improve their quality of life by promoting a sense of community and companionship without giving up independence.
Being no further comments from the public, Mr. Vannatta closed the public portion of this hearing.
Mr. Wright commented that it would appear to him that Newbury Heights Road would be the logical single access to the public.
Ms. Ashworth confirmed that the basic conclusion is that there is no viable secondary access.
Mr. Wright commented that given the location of emergency services, he did not think a single access for this site is a concern. Newbury Heights Road does get plowed and maintained by the Town and will continue over the Town’s portion.
Mr. Vannatta advised that the Board is currently on a fact finding mission and should not close the door on anything. When the applicant gets through the ZBA process, then the Planning Board can weigh the facts and render an opinion and/or decision.
Mr. Healey commented that based on the last meeting, he did not think the access option had been exhausted. After tonight’s presentation, he feels satisfied that adequate consideration has been made to secondary access options. Mr. Healey expressed concern that after walking Newbury Heights Road there is adequate room to widen the road to 18 feet.
Mr. Eckman stated that he is very confident that 18 feet can be achieved and says he has approval from the Newbury Fire Department and Newbury Highway Department in addition to meeting AASHTO requirements.
Mr. Vannatta commented that he recently walked the site in the rain and there appears to be lots of work and engineering to do.
Mr. Weiler moved to continue the hearing until November 16, 2010 at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Dezotell seconded the motion.
In Favor: Ms. Ashworth, Mr. Healey, Mr. Wright, Mr. Dezotell, Ms. Freeman, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Ms. Ashworth made a motion to table the review of the meeting minutes of September 21, 2010 until the November 2, 2010 work session meeting. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Vannatta advised the Board that the next meeting falls on November 2, 2010 (Election Day) and that the regular meeting room will not be available. Therefore, the Board will meet in the small meeting room as regularly scheduled.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Freeman seconded the motion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Plunkett & Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretaries
| 
