Planning Board
February 15, 2011
Approved March 15, 2011
Members Present: Tom Vannatta, Chair; Bill Weiler, Bruce Healey, Travis Dezotell, Elizabeth Ashworth, Members; Ron Williams, Deane Geddes, Alison Kinsman, Russell Smith, Alternates; Rachel Ruppel, Advisor; Jim Powell, ex-officio member.
Mr. Vannatta called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
Mr. Vannatta passed around a thank you note from Ken McWilliams, who retired as the PB consultant in December to accept a full-time position with the Town of Alton as town planner.
Mr. Vannatta requested that the Board review the December 21, 2010 minutes at the end of the meeting. The Board agreed.
Mr. Vannatta appointed Russell Smith as a voting member for this meeting.
CASE: Case 2011-002 Conceptual/ One World Retreat/short term furnished rentals in accessory apartment over existing garage. Brett & Cindi Croft, 70 Winding Brook Road, Newbury Tax Map/Lot # 35-410-428.
Mr. Croft asked for clarification regarding the process involved in a conceptual. Mr. Vannatta explained that a conceptual is a discussion and provides an opportunity for Mr. Croft (or any applicant) to present his proposal and to receive guidance from the Board on how to proceed to the next step.
Mr. Croft said that he is and his wife would like to use existing living space above their attached garage as an accessory apartment and offer that space for short term furnished rentals as a cottage industry. He said they would prefer weekly or monthly rentals but would accept nightly or weekend rentals as well. He said meals and housekeeping services would not be provided. The accessory apartment requires no new construction. He said the attached garage has existed since 1991 and in 2007 the area above the garage was made into a family living space. The area is a studio with a ¾ bath and a small kitchenette. He said the area was examined by the property tax assessor in 2008 and included in the property assessment and taxes.
Because no new construction is involved, Mr. Croft said he would like waivers for the following site plan review requirements:
- Article 13.6 Documentation: request that all documentation is presented on size 11” x 17” copies instead of one full size copy and seven 11” x 17” copies
- Article 13.8 Site Plan: request site plan drawn to 1” = 62’ drawn on 11” x 17” paper instead of a site plan drawn to the scale of 1” = 20’.
- Article 13.10.1 Permits and Approvals: request that no permits are required because there are no new systems needed for installation.
- Article 13.10.2 Permits and Approvals: questions whether fire chief and road agent approval is necessary.
Mr. Croft noted that he applied for a special exception for an accessory apartment from the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) and was sent to the Planning Board because it was felt that the application sounded more like a bed and breakfast than an accessory apartment.
Mr. Vannatta said Mr. Croft also would need a special exception for a cottage industry because the property is in a residential district. Mr. Vannatta added that the Code Enforcement Officer determines if a special exception is needed for an accessory apartment.
Mr. Weiler asked when the accessory apartment was created. Mr. Croft said in 2007. Mr. Weiler said the accessory apartment was subject to the regulations at the time of its creation. Mr. Croft said it was not created as an accessory apartment but rather as living space for the family.
Mr. Weiler noted that a kitchen and bathroom were installed in 2007 which made it into another dwelling unit and subject to the requirements under Article 5.7 of the zoning ordinance (Accessory Apartments). He said Mr. Croft should have gotten a special exception in 2007 when the space was converted into living space.
Ms. Ashworth asked if Mr. Croft had a building permit in 2007 when the work was done. Mr. Croft said yes.
Mr. Healey said the building permit in 2007 indicated that a family room with a bath was going to be installed and the installation of a kitchen was not included. Mr. Croft said that is correct. He asked Mr. Croft what his plans were for the space that would prompt him to install a kitchen in 2007. Mr. Croft said the intention was to have the place for his children and said the kitchen sink was put in 2007 and the stove was added later.
Mr. Vannatta said Mr. Croft created an accessory apartment in 2007 and should have obtained a special exception at that time. Mr. Vannatta added that Mr. Croft’s proposal calls for short-term rentals of the space which means it becomes a cottage industry. He said Mr. Croft must first get a special exception for a cottage industry in a residential district from the ZBA before applying for a site plan review for same from the Planning Board.
Ms. Ashworth asked why the proposal is considered a cottage industry and not just an accessory apartment. Mr. Vannatta said Mr. Croft proposes to use the space as a short-term rental – nightly, weekly, monthly rentals – much like a motel/hotel/inn.
Mr. Weiler added that because it is a short-term rental it is a business and not a standard apartment rental.
Mr. Dezotell said his understanding is that if the proposed rental does not carry a lease it is considered a hotel/motel cottage industry.
Mr. Geddes said often short term rentals do not carry leases and added that he considers this proposed rental situation to be more like a guest house.
Mr. Weiler reviewed Article 5.7 Accessory Apartments of the zoning ordinance and read into the record the following: “it is the specific purpose and intent of allowing accessory apartments on one-family properties in all residential districts to provide the opportunity and encouragement for the development of small rental housing units designed, in particular, to meet the special housing needs of single persons and couples of low and moderate income, both young and old, and of relatives of families presently living in Newbury.”
Mr. Vannatta noted that the above description does not align with Mr. Croft’s proposed use of the property and said the issue of a special exception for pre-existing accessory apartment must be examined by the Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Powell said Mr. LaCasse has spoken to the ZBA about this.
Mr. Vannatta told Mr. Croft that if the ZBA grants a special exception for an accessory apartment and a cottage industry, then he may apply to the Planning Board for a site plan review for a cottage industry. Mr. Vannatta said at that time, Mr. Croft may request waivers in writing for the aforementioned listing of requested waivers.
Mr. Weiler referred to Article 5.4 Uses Permitted by Special Exception and subject to Site Plan Review approval by the Planning Board of the zoning ordinance and noted that the first item on the list is Item 5.4.1 Cottage Industry.
Mr. Vannatta asked for a sense of the Board regarding Article 13.6 of the site plan review regulations (Documentation). The Board’s consensus was favorable.
The Board reviewed the Articles 13.8, 13.10.1 and 13.10.2 with Mr. Croft. Mr. Weiler said Mr. Croft should supply a completed application with a sign-off sheet to both the Fire Chief and Road Agent. Mr. Powell said the Land Use Coordinator will handle contacting them for sign-off.
Mr. Williams asked about the access to the apartment. Mr. Croft said there are two entrances on the back side of the garage. Mr. Geddes asked about the location of the apartment exits. Mr. Croft said there is a deck with a set of stairs attached off one of the entrances/exits and another exit on the back side of the garage.
Ms. Ruppel asked if the existing sewage disposal can support the additional demand of an accessory apartment. Mr. Croft said the current septic system can handle a four bedroom house and the current use is three bedrooms so the addition of an apartment would not exceed the system’s capacity.
There was further discussion regarding the requested waivers.
Mr. Vannatta reminded Mr. Croft that even though the Board gave a consensus of approval for allowing 11” x 17” to be used for Article 13.6 and Article 13.8, a written request for waivers of the same must be submitted in the application.
Mr. Croft asked if Article 13.9 Structure Plan gave the option of drawings or photographs. Mr. Vannatta said that is correct and added that if photos are submitted it would be helpful to have interior and exterior photos available.
CASE: Case 2011-001 Final Site Plan Review/ Baker Hill Golf Course
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an
Application for a Site Plan Review from Baker Hill Golf Course, for property located at 123 Baker Hill Rd, Newbury, NH, Tax Map 038-758-501 on Tuesday, February 15, 2011, 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 and Ms. Ruppel reviewed that application for completeness.
It was noted that the application did not include the required landscaping plan.
Richard Chase, governor, Baker Hill Golf Club, and the presenting agent for the application, said there is no landscaping planned except one six-foot wide center strip of grass in the parking lot which is shown on the plans. He said lights will be placed in the center strip and existing paths will be paved. He added that there are no plans to add trees or bushes, just grass and that the landscaping is very minor.
It was noted that the application did not include the required drainage plan. Mr. Chase said the plans for improved drainage are included on the final plan and will be discussed in detail during the presentation by Pat Buccellato, the project’s civil engineer.
Mr. Healey said drainage is a potential issue when paving over a formerly pervious surface. Mr. Vannatta suggested that the applicant request a waiver for the landscaping plan and drainage plan.
Mr. Weiler said this application is an amendment to the existing site plans and questioned the necessity of requiring waivers for landscaping and drainage since the project’s landscaping has already been done and drainage will be covered during the presentation.
It was noted that the application did not include the required written summary. Mr. Vannatta suggested making a condition of approval.
It was noted that the application did not include the required input from the Conservation Commission. Rick Flint, old Hampshire Designs, New London, said a copy of the application was directed to the Conservation Commission upon submission.
Mr. Vannatta called for a motion to accept the application as presented with a possible condition for a written summary.
Mr. Powell made a motion to accept the application as presented. Mr. Dezotell seconded the motion. All in favor.
Richard Chase, governor, Baker Hill Golf Club, presented to the Board. He introduced Mr. Buccellato, the project’s civil engineer, Mr. Flint, Old Hampshire Designs and
Bob Turcock, Baker Hill’s golf course superintendent.
Mr. Chase gave six reasons for paving the parking lot and the existing paths: safety, appearance, elimination of dust from the existing parking lot, need for more lighting, drainage improvement and improving the appearance of the front gate.
He said over the years there have been several cases of people tripping or twisting their ankle in the gravel going to the parking lot from the clubhouse and in the parking lot. He said poor lighting in those areas also contributed to the injuries. He said members feel that a paved parking lot and cart paths would greatly improve the appearance of that area. Paving those areas would eliminate the presence of dust which kicks up on windy days, covering cars and people.
Lighting would be improved by the addition of four lights to be placed in the landscaped median strip in the parking lot. He said the new lights will be the same as the existing lights. They are lanterns on top of granite posts and stand eight feet high with a single 100 watt bulb. He said the lights are on a timer and go off at 11:00 p.m.
Mr. Buccellato reviewed the plans indicating the existing drainage pattern into Blodgett Brook. He said the proposed drainage system will accommodate the anticipated increased water flow from the paved parking lot. He said the plan is to maintain the existing drainage structures with the major change involving the existing system that takes water off to the irrigation pond. HHHe said an eight inch pipe will be brought up from the irrigation pond to the existing catch basin and will match the 12” invert going out. That means the increased water flows will be evenly distributed. He said research shows that this arrangement has the capacity to handle up to a 50 year storm event. He said the water flow will be distributed to the irrigation pond, to the fairways (as it currently is delivered) and to Blodgett
Brook.
Mr. Buccellato said there will be 24 parking lanes in the parking lot and the lot will have two “dogbone” islands at each end to protect the end spaces. There will be four lights placed in the median strip as described by Mr. Chase.
Mr. Buccellato described the existing paths and said concrete pavers or stamped concrete will be used to cover the paths to the clubhouse.
Mr. Healey asked if there was a picture of the proposed light. Mr. Buccellato said no but it is a brass lantern and will match the lights that are on site now.
Mr. Vannatta asked if the light is directed downward. Mr. Turcock said yes it resembles a generic porch light and are four-sided.
Mr. Weiler asked about a hatched area denoted on the plan at the entrance to the parking lot. Mr. Buccellato said that is currently grass and will be paved and said the hatches on the plan indicate areas that are gravel and will be pavement.
Mr. Chase indicated the location of the proposed wrought iron gate. Mr. Smith asked if the gate would be lighted. Mr. Chase said not at this time.
Mr. Vannatta asked if there was lighting on the building. Mr. Turcock said there are motion sensor floodlights on each end of the clubhouse, a porch light at the clubhouse entrance and a light on the curve by the pro shop walkway is proposed.
Mr. Smith asked about the respective heights of the 8” and 12” pipes in the catch basins. Mr. Buccellato said they are matching inverts.
Ms. Ruppel asked if the paved cart paths will substantially increase water runoff. Mr. Buccellato said evaluations conducted indicated that it’s less than one CFS which doesn’t require an alteration of terrain amendment to the permit. He added that there are grass borders on either side of all paths.
Mr. Vannatta asked about the square footage of the proposed paved area in comparison to the square footage of the existing graveled area. Mr. Buccellato said the difference is roughly 500 square feet less than the existing gravel area.
Mr. Vannatta asked if the drainage could be improved without paving the parking lot and gravel paths. Mr. Buccellato said yes.
Mr. Williams asked about the design calculations on the runoff. Mr. Buccellato said he can provide the full calculations to the Board showing the parking lot versus the paved parking lot, noting that the calculations were not included into the application.
Mr. Vannatta requested that the calculations be provided. Mr. Buccellato agreed.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Vannatta opened the meeting to the public for input. There being no public present, the following letter from an abutter was read into the record:
February 8, 2011, Re: Baker Hill Golf Club, Dear Board, I am unable to attend the hearing for the Baker Hill Golf Club. I am away on vacation and can’t get to the Town offices to see what is proposed. I am concerned about the lighting. When the club house went through site plan review, it was a condition that the club would not have the lights on after 10 pm, and, I believe, only if someone was there. My understanding is that the lights are on a timer and are on each night whether someone is there or not, and they do not go off until early morning. I would like to see the original condition enforced. If they are proposing to change or add lights, I would like this same condition imposed. That the lights only be on if someone is there and be off after 10 pm. This is a rural residential area in which we like
it dark. I also request that the lights be shielded lights so they are not glaring at my property, or off the Golf Club property. Per the site plan regulations 12.14.1 Exterior Lighting shall be installed and operated in such a way that adjacent residential uses are suitably protected and that glare is not experienced by adjacent residential uses and by passing motorists. I understand they would also like to pave the parking lot. I think this is a good idea. The blue stone keeps getting into the road which is a hazard. Thus I support the paving. I trust they will take appropriate storm water run-off measures. Thank you in advance for taking my concerns into consideration. Sincerely, Brenda Digilio.
Mr. Vannatta asked Mr. Chase to respond to Ms. Digilio’s concerns. Mr. Chase said they will address Ms. Digilio’s concerns about the timing of the lights and work with her to arrive at a mutually beneficial arrangement.
Mr. Healey said Ms. Digilio’s concern is that the original covenant be upheld. Ms. Ashworth said Ms. Digilio’s letter implies that the lights are left on all night. Ms. Kinsman said power outages may be affecting the timers on the lights.
Mr. Chase said they will address those possibilities and work directly with Ms. Digilio.
There was further discussion about light timers, placement of lights, maintaining proper lighting for late-night workers, and placing a film on the light glass facing Ms. Digilio’s property.
Mr. Vannatta closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Vannatta said a written summary and the drainage calculations are needed and called for a motion to vote.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to approve the application with the conditions that a written summary and the drainage plan calculations are submitted and accepted by the Board. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Smith, Mr. Healey, Mr. Powell, Mr. Vannatta, Mr. Weiler, Ms. Ashworth
Opposed: None.
Mr. Vannatta informed Mr. Chase that any party directly affected by this decision may appeal to the proper Board within thirty (30) days of this decision.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of December 21, 2010 and made corrections. Mr. Healey made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Dezotell seconded the motion. All in favor.
March 1, 2011 Meeting
Mr. Vannatta reviewed the agenda for the March 1, 2011 meeting noting that Robert (Woody) Woods, Lake Sunapee Protective Association (LSPA) will make a presentation from 7:15 p.m. – 8:45 p.m. on the Lake Sunapee Watershed Infrastructure Project. Mr. Vannatta said others have been invited to attend including the Conservation Commission, Zoning Board of Adjustment, Cal Prussman (Road Agent), Paul LaCasse (Code Enforcement Officer) and the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
