Planning Board
November 16, 2010
Approved December 21, 2010
Members Present: Tom Vannatta, Chair; Barbara Freeman, Vice-Chair; Bill Weiler, Bruce Healey, Members; Deane Geddes, Alison Kinsman, Russell Smith, Alternates; Ken McWilliams, Advisor.
Mr. Vannatta called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of October 19, 2010 and made corrections. Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
Upper Valley Regional Planning Commission (UVRPC) Update
Mr. Vannatta informed the Board that a meeting was held with the Christine Walker from the UVRPC to initiate the process of finding the appropriate individual to fill the position of Board Advisor. A tentative date of December 21, 2010 was cited to conclude the process.
Mr. Healey asked if meetings may be conducted without the presence of a Board Advisor. Mr. Vannatta said it is not a requirement to have a Board Advisor present but it is the Board’s preference to do so.
CASE: Case 2010-011: Final Hearing/Minor Subdivision- Raymond Schilke. 763-2963. 307 Mountain Road. Map/Lot 022-273-043.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application for a Final Hearing for a Minor Subdivision from Schilke 1997 Revocable Trust, for property located at 307 Mountain Road, Newbury, NH, Tax Map 022-273-043 on Tuesday, November 16, 2010, at 7:15 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. Vannatta appointed Ms. Kinsman and Mr. Smith as voting members for this hearing.
The application was reviewed for completeness.
Ms. Freeman made a motion to accept the application as complete. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion.
In Favor: Ms. Freeman, Mr. Weiler, Ms. Kinsman, Mr. Healey, Mr. Smith, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None
Clayton Platt, a licensed surveyor and forester with Pennyroyal Hill, Land Surveying & Forestry, LLC, presented on behalf of Mr. Schilke. He said Mr. Schilke has owned the 51 acre property for over 50 years and now wants to subdivide and create a 7.4 acre lot out of the total parcel so he can move from the existing house to the adjacent barn on the property, which he plans to renovate into a home for himself. Mr. Platt presented plans showing the final subdivision plans, detailed topography and wetlands on the 7.4 acre lot. The plans show a one-acre building envelope and steep slope. The USGS maps were used to depict the remaining 43+ acres, as granted through a requested waiver. He reviewed the density calculations and soil descriptions.
Mr. Vannatta asked Mr. Platt to describe the right of way (ROW) question raised by an abutter, John & Winfred Stearns, via an email dated October 19, 2010. Mr. Platt said that Mr. Schilke’s property was part of an 80-acre parcel that, on or about 1926, 50+ acres were sold and kept 20 acres in the rear with a ROW reserved. He said the ROW is mentioned in Note 5 on the plans.
Mr. Healey asked for the location of the ROW. Mr. Platt said he did not know and added that the ROW was never mentioned in any of the subsequent deeds.
Mr. Platt said it is Mr. Schilke’s opinion that the Stearns have a right to walk across his property to get to their property. Mr. Platt noted that there is another ROW granted to Newbury Homes but that no development has ever taken place resulting from the two ROWs.
Mr. Vannatta read a note sent to the Land Use Coordinator from Mr. Schilke which reads as follows: “According to my deed dated 1932, to my knowledge this has been an access private way across the brook leading to the Stearns’ property. The private way is approximately 1,000 feet from the barn which I am converting into a home.”
Mr. Weiler asked if the ROW is an issue for the Board to examine. Mr. McWilliams said as long as the ROW rights that were in place previously are left in place moving forward, the ROW rights do not have to be defined for the minor subdivision as long as the rights are not extinguished by the property owner.
Mr. Geddes discussed the buildable acres indicated on the plans, noting the buildable acreage totals 18 + acres.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta opened the hearing to the public for comment at 7:34 p.m. There being no comment from the public, Mr. Vannatta closed the public portion of the hearing at 7:36 p.m.
Ms. Freeman made a motion to accept the minor subdivision as presented. Ms. Kinsman seconded the motion.
In Favor: Mr. Smith, Mr. Healey, Ms. Kinsman, Mr. Weiler, Ms. Freeman, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None
Mr. Vannatta informed Mr. Platt that the applicant or any party directly affected by this decision may appeal to the proper Board within thirty (30) days of this decision.
The Board signed the mylar for the Schilke minor subdivision.
CASE: Case 2010-012: Conceptual Minor Subdivision- Clayton & Debra Johnson. 938-5030. 542 Old Post Road. Map/Lot 043-353-256.
Mr. Vannatta explained the process involved in a conceptual discussion.
Clayton Johnson presented to the Board. Mr. Johnson said he and his wife want to subdivide their property from one lot to two lots to allow their daughter to build a house on the second lot. This would divide the current 7.38 acres into one lot of 4 acres and a second lot of 3.38 acres. The proposed single family home would be built on the 4-acre lot.
Mr. Weiler asked if there are wetlands on the total parcel. Mr. Johnson said yes, wetlands are located in the back of the property. Ms. Kinsman asked if the two apartments are located in the same building. Mr. Johnson said the existing apartments are located in two separate buildings.
Mr. Smith noted the location of the Andrew Brook on the property.
Mr. Weiler noted that he examined the property in question on the tax map and believes the proposed concept will be a difficult one to implement. He suggested that the Johnsons bring a more formal proposal to the Board and suggested that they review Articles 5.8 through 5.12 of the subdivision regulations. He added that each lot must have 200 feet of frontage. Also, he reminded the Johnsons that the wetlands must be subtracted out of the total buildable acreage.
Mr. Weiler also recommended that the Johnsons research the newest floodplain regulations.
Ms. Freeman reminded the Johnsons that Town regulations prohibit building on a floodplain.
Mr. McWilliams noted that the amount of floodplain, steep slopes, and wetlands must be calculated and then subtracted from the total acreage. Additionally, frontage must be considered. He noted that there are two houses on the property already. To construct a third house would require a minimum of six acres of viable land and if there was more than 1.38 acres of floodplain, wetlands and/or steep slopes then there would not be enough acreage to subdivide into another lot.
There was general discussion regarding steep slope and whether or not the Johnsons should have the property surveyed. The Board concluded that the challenges of the property are fairly obvious and advised the Johnsons against spending the money on a full survey.
There was further discussion about alternative possibilities concerning repositioning the two existing dwellings and the subdivision regulations applying to same.
The Board recommended that Mr. Johnson obtain a surveyor’s less formal overview of the property and make recommendations concerning how to proceed. At that point, Mr. McWilliams recommended that Mr. Johnson return to the Planning Board for another conceptual to obtain direction from there.
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.
Ms. Kinsman recused herself from this hearing.
Mr. Vannatta directed the Board to administrative business at hand concerning the motion made by the Board on October 19, 2010 to send the applicant to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for variances from Steep Slopes, Wetlands, and Density. He said the ZBA Chair advised him that the ZBA will not hear the case unless the applicant receives an administrative denial from the Planning Board. Mr. Vannatta spoke with Town counsel and composed a motion that would enable the applicant to apply for variances from the ZBA. The original motion made on October 19, 2010 must be rescinded and the new motion put on the table. Mr. Vannatta said both the applicant and the ZBA are in agreement regarding rescinding the first motion and presenting a new motion.
Mr. Vannatta appointed Mr. Smith and Mr. Geddes as voting members for this hearing.
Ms. Freeman made a motion to rescind the motion to send the applicant to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for variances from Steep Slopes, Wetlands, and Density. Mr. Healey seconded the motion.
In Favor: Mr. Healey, Mr. Geddes, Mr. Smith, Mr. Weiler, Ms. Freeman, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None
Ms. Freeman made a motion to send the applicant to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for variance relief from Density and Frontage requirements since the Planning Board has concluded that the submitted plans do not conform to the Newbury Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion.
In Favor: Mr. Weiler, Ms. Freeman, Mr. Healey, Mr. Geddes, Mr. Smith, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None
Gary Spaulding, Spaulding Design Consultants, presented to the Board. He asked the Board if there were any questions regarding the traffic study presented at the October 19, 2010 meeting. The Board had no questions.
Mr. Spaulding said the applicant’s plan is to go to the ZBA in December seeking variance relief from Density and Frontage and return to the Planning Board in January for a continuance of the preliminary site plan review. Mr. Vannatta said the January meeting will have to be re-noticed and that the applicant is responsible for that cost. Also, all documents and an amended abutter list (if applicable) must be submitted within 21 days before the hearing. Mr. Spaulding agreed.
There was general discussion regarding the upcoming Board meeting schedule through January 2011. Mr. Vannatta set the site plan review continuance for January 18, 2011 at 7:30 p.m.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta opened the public portion of the meeting at 8:19 p.m.
June Fichter, executive director of the Lake Sunapee Protective Association (LSPA), said that the applicants spoke with LSPA about the project. She noted that the applicant has made an effort to reduce the footprint of the project and reduce the number of leach fields, both of which will reduce the project’s impact on Lake Sunapee. She questioned the absence of a hydrologic analysis of the bio retention areas on the plans. She noted that it was not clear if there were delineated wetland buffers and questioned the handling of runoff considering the steep slopes on the property.
Mr. Spaulding said that the bio retention areas are in a conceptual stage and will be firmed up if the variances are granted by the ZBA. He said the wetlands have been mapped and the plans show the buffer zones. He said the plans will be shared with the LSPA as the project moves forward.
There being no further comments from the public, Mr. Vannatta closed the public portion of the meeting at 8:22 p.m.
Angel Hawk Subdivision – Discussion with Noel Collins. 781-738-3485.
Carl Hanson, attorney, was present for Noel Collins and represented Kookaburra LLC, which recently bought an interest in the five remaining lots in the Angel Hawk subdivision. He said he wanted to find out if there were any requirements on these lots before building permits can be issued.
Mr. Vannatta said the agreement worked out by the attorneys who were working on that project when the other developer failed required that the internal road be completed, brought up to specifications that are approved by the road agent, and accepted by the Town at the Town Meeting. Town approval occurred at the March 2010 Town Meeting. Mr. Vannatta said the off-site work requirement has gone away. He said at this point it is his understanding that there are no outstanding requirements.
Mr. Weiler added that the developer will be subject to the Newbury subdivision regulations and zoning ordinances and anything included in the final minutes of the meetings covering the Angel Hawk subdivision issues.
Mr. Healey asked which lots are involved. Mr. Hanson said Lots 4, 6, 10, 11, and 12. Mr. Geddes asked if the lots were subject to current use penalties. Mr. Hanson said those penalties have already been paid.
Mr. Geddes made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
