Planning Board
March 15, 2011
Approved April 5, 2011
Amended April 19, 2011
Members Present: Tom Vannatta, Elizabeth Ashworth, Ron Williams, Russell Smith, Members; Deane Geddes, Alternate; Rachel Ruppel, Advisor.
Mr. Vannatta called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. and turned the meeting over to the Recording Secretary.
The Recording Secretary called for a motion to nominate the Planning Board Chair for the upcoming year.
Mr. Williams made a motion to nominate Tom Vannatta to serve as Planning Board Chair for the upcoming year. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
The Recording Secretary turned the meeting over to the newly elected Chair.
Mr. Vannatta accepted the nomination and thanked the Board for their support and dedication to the town.
Mr. Vannatta congratulated Mr. Williams and Mr. Smith on their election to the Board as full members.
Mr. Vannatta called for a motion to nominate the Planning Board Vice Chair for the upcoming year.
Mr. Smith made a motion to nominate Mr. Williams to serve as Planning Board Vice Chair for the upcoming year. Ms. Ashworth seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Williams accepted the position of Vice Chair for the upcoming year.
Mr. Vannatta appointed Mr. Geddes as a voting member for this meeting.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of February 15, 2011 and made corrections. Mr. Williams made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
The Board reviewed the minutes of January 4, 2011 and made corrections. Ms. Ashworth made a motion to accept the minutes as corrected. Mr. Smith seconded the motion All in favor.
The Board reviewed the minutes of March 1, 2011 and made corrections. Mr. Geddes made a motion to accept the minutes as corrected. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Vannatta reviewed the upcoming meeting schedule and noted that he will be absent on April 5, 2011, April 19, 2011 and May 17, 2011.
CASE: Case 2011-002: Final Site Plan Review- Brett Croft 938-2527. 70 Winding
Brook Rd. Map/Lot 035-410-428.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application for Site Plan Review (Cottage Industry) from Brett & Cindi Croft for an apartment rental at 70 Winding Brook Road, Tax Map 035-410-428, on Tuesday, March 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. Croft addressed the Board and requested a continuance. He said his application to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for two special exceptions has been continued until March 28, 2011 at 7:15 p.m.
Mr. Vannatta said the Board cannot proceed with the final site plan review until the ZBA has granted the two special exceptions. He called for a motion to grant the continuance.
Ms. Ashworth made a motion to continue the final site plan review for Case 2011-002 until April 19, 2011 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Williams seconded the motion.
Mr. Geddes asked about the time limit between submission of an application for final review and the hearing date. Mr. Vannatta said there has not been a hearing on the final site plan and therefore the time limit of 60 days should be adequate.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Ms. Ashworth, Mr. Williams, Mr. Smith, Mr. Geddes, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
Mr. Vannatta discussed the status of the Wild Goose boat launch project and said another legal avenue has been pursued and a final decision has not yet been made.
There was general discussion concerning the amendments that were approved at Town Meeting and when the amendments go into effect. Ms. Ruppel said the effective date is the date of the public hearing on the amendments.
CASE: 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.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an
Application for a Preliminary Site Plan Review from Community Action Program on behalf of Clark & Evelyn Davis Revocable Trust, for property located on Newbury Heights Road, Newbury, NH, Tax Map 020-072-043 & 020-223-195 on Tuesday, March 15, 2011, at 7:30 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.
The application was reviewed for completeness.
Mr. Vannatta noted that the Conservation Commission (CC) sign-off sheet was missing from the application and added that Katheryn Holmes, CC Chair, will submit the sign-off sheet/comments by April 19, 2011. Mr. Vannatta noted that the Highway Department sign-off sheet/comment was missing.
Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Mr. Williams made a motion to consider the application as complete pending the receipt of the comments from the Highway Department and the Conservation Commission prior to the next Board meeting. Ms. Ashworth seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Geddes, Mr. Smith, Mr. Williams, Ms. Ashworth, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
Mr. Vannatta introduced Lou Caron, PE, L.C. Engineering Company, LLC, Concord, NH, as the Board’s third party engineering consultant who will supervise the CAP/Newbury Elderly Housing proposed project on behalf of the Planning Board.
Gary Spaulding, of g.r.spaulding, presented to the Board. Mr. Spaulding requested that the Board address the requested waivers before proceeding to the presentation. The Board agreed.
Waiver Requests
Mr. Spaulding presented the following waiver requests under Article X – Application Requirements:
- Paragraph 10.7 Site Plan Scale 1”=20’: Because of the lot size we are proposing that the Site Plan would be at a scale of 1”=20’, Detail sheets at 1”=20’ or larger, Existing Conditions Plan at 1”=50’, Overall Site Location Plan at 1”=150’ and the Watershed Plans at 1”=50’ and 1”=200’.
Mr. Spaulding said the waiver request meets the intent of the regulation to provide plans and detail that will allow the Planning Board and their consultant(s) to review the plans.
Mr. Williams said the overall location site plan at 1”=150’ would be adequate but questioned the watershed plans at 1”=50’ and 1”=200’. He said the watershed plans are drainage plans and asked if those are proposed at 1”=20’.
Mr. Spaulding said no, the detailed drainage plans are proposed at 1”=20’ because they are part of the detailed site plan.
Mr. Vannatta reviewed RSA 674:44 III.(e) and read the following into the record: “The basis for any waiver granted by the planning board shall be recorded in the minutes of the board. The planning board may only grant a waiver if the board finds, by majority vote, that: (1) Strict conformity would pose an unnecessary hardship to the applicant and waiver would not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulations; or (2) Specific circumstances relative to the site plan, or conditions of the land in such site plan, indicate that the waiver will properly carry out the spirit and intent of the regulations.”
Mr. Vannatta asked Mr. Spaulding what hardship is present to the applicant. Mr. Spaulding said because of the size of the property and the overall project, the waiver request would allow the project to be viewed on one sheet of paper but that it does not change the intent of Paragraph 10.7.
There was discussion regarding whether or not the applicant needs to seek a waiver on Paragraph 10.7. The Board concurred that a waiver was needed.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Mr. Williams made a motion to grant a waiver to Paragraph 10.7 because of RSA 674:44 III.(e)(2). Ms. Ashworth seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Ms. Ashworth, Mr. Williams, Mr. Smith, Mr. Geddes, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
- Paragraph 10.7.7 Names, mailing addresses, tax map # and lot # of abutters: requesting to waive the requirement that addresses be shown on the site plan. We have provided Names, Tax Map and Lot numbers on the site plans. We have provided the names and addresses on the existing conditions plans and the abutter’s list provides site and mailing addresses for each abutter as requested.
Mr. Spaulding said the waiver request meets the intent of the regulation to provide abutters information by using the submitted abutters list and existing conditions plans. He said it is on the plan set but not on the site plan.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Ms. Ashworth made a motion to grant a waiver to Paragraph 10.7.7 because of RSA 674:44 III.(e)(2). Mr. Williams seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Smith, Mr. Geddes, Mr. Williams, Ms. Ashworth, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
- Paragraph 10.7.9 Location of large existing trees: requesting to waive location of large trees on the property. Plan will show limits of project impact areas.
Mr. Spaulding said the cost associated with showing all large trees on the property creates a financial hardship. By showing the limit of construction all trees outside the project area will be preserved.
Mr. Vannatta asked how many trees are involved. Mr. Spaulding said it is impossible to estimate because of the size of the area in question.
Ms. Ashworth asked about the intent of the regulation concerning large trees. Mr. Vannatta said that it pertains to ensuring the preservation of as many large trees as possible. Ms. Ashworth said it would be useful if the Board knew of the number of old growth trees that would be removed at the building site.
Mr. Spaulding said the gravel pit area has already been logged which means there would be very little impact to large trees in the project’s impact area.
Mr. Vannatta asked about the size of the area affected by Paragraph 10.7.9. Mr. Spaulding said that, as it reads, it pertains to over 20 acres while the actual impact area is just over eight acres. He said the regulation would require identifying trees throughout the entire property.
Mr. Vannatta said it seemed like an unnecessary requirement. Mr. Geddes agreed.
Mr. Williams asked about the impact on the root systems of large trees. He said the impact area could extend out by 25 feet and affect the root systems of the trees. He said the impact area extends beyond the actual construction area.
Dave Eckman, Eckman Engineering, LLC, Portsmouth, NH, said there is a usual five to ten foot clearing shown on the plans extending from the tree line clearing.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Mr. Williams made a motion to grant a waiver to Paragraph 10.7.9, because of RSA 674:44 III.(e)(1), subject to a clear understanding of the limit of the impact area extending to the tree drip line. Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Discussion followed.
Ms. Ashworth said the plans should show the impact zone of the construction. She said the impact zone is not the line of construction. She added that it is not the Board’s responsibility to specifically identify each and every impact line pertaining to large growth trees. She said it may mean that someone has to identify each tree involved.
Mr. Geddes said this regulation is about protecting the trees.
There was further discussion about what constitutes the tree drip line.
Mr. Spaulding referred the Board to Sheet C-6 of the Site Plan Approval Package, February 21, 2011, for clarification.
Mr. Caron said it is hard to evaluate until all the limits are flagged in the field. At that point, the flagged points may be compared to the paper drawing of same.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote on the motion.
In Favor: Ms. Ashworth, Mr. Williams, Mr. Smith, Mr. Geddes, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
- Paragraph 10.7.10 Existing grades 200’ beyond boundary: requesting to waive existing grades beyond boundary line and limit showing the existing grades on the property to the project impact area. The project impact area is located near the center of the property and we have provided USGS topo beyond property lines for reference.
Mr. Spaulding said the waiver request meets the intent of the regulation by providing a general overview of the existing grades beyond the property lines. The use of USGS topo will allow the Planning Board and their consultant(s) to review the plans. Mr. Spaulding referred the Board to pages WS 1, 2 and 3 of the Site Plan Approval Package for clarification.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Mr. Williams made a motion to grant a waiver to Paragraph 10.7.10 because of RSA 674:44 III.(e)(2). Ms. Ashworth seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Smith, Mr. Geddes, Ms. Ashworth, Mr. Williams, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
- Paragraph 10.7.11 Existing streams, wetlands, marshes…Within 200 feet of boundary: requesting to waive location of existing streams, wetlands, marshes…within 200 feet of boundary. We have shown wetland areas down gradient of the property. This information has been taken from USGS and from the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory. All of the wetlands within the project impact area as well as the wetlands that abutt the project impact areas have been mapped by a wetland scientist and field located.
Mr. Spaulding said the waiver request meets the intent of the regulation by providing a general overview of the existing wetlands beyond the property lines. The use of USGS maps of the National Wetland Inventory will allow the Planning Board and their consultant(s) to review drainage areas and abutting wetlands systems.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Ms. Ashworth made a motion to grant a waiver to Paragraph 10.7.11 because of RSA 674:44 III.(e)(2). Mr. Williams seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Ms. Ashworth, Mr. Williams, Mr. Smith, Mr. Geddes, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
Mr. Spaulding presented the following waiver requests under Article XII – Standards and Requirements for Proposed Developments:
- Paragraph 12.6 Recreational Areas: The HUD 202 funding does not have provisions to develop recreational areas for these types of projects.
Mr. Spaulding said the request to provide recreational areas creates a financial hardship for the applicant and is not supported by the funding program. He said the regulation was intended for multi-family housing, not elderly housing.
Mr. Vannatta asked Mr. Spaulding if any of the other six CAP/Elderly Housing Projects have recreational areas. Mr. Spaulding said no.
There was discussion concerning the possible use of the abandoned railroad bed as a pedestrian walkway. Mr. Spaulding referred the Board to page C-2 of the Site Plan Approval Package for clarification, indicating the limits of that possibility. He said the railroad bed has multiple owners and that developing a pedestrian path there is not in the budget for this project. Mr. Vannatta noted the idea of a pedestrian walkway along the abandoned railway bed as a valuable one.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Mr. Geddes made a motion to grant a waiver to Paragraph 12.6 because HUD 202 funding does not provide for recreational areas for this type of project. Ms. Ashworth seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Williams, Ms. Ashworth, Mr. Smith, Mr. Geddes, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
- Paragraph 12.8.8 Parking requirements (requires 51 parking spaces for multi-family dwelling): Appendix A does not address parking for elderly housing units. We are proposing 1-parking space per unit plus 8 visitors’ spaces. Other projects completed by the applicant show between 60% and 75% of the residents have vehicles.
The waiver request meets the intent of the regulation by providing parking to meet the needs of the proposed project and minimize the overall project impact and runoff from impervious areas.
Mr. Smith asked if there was a drop-off area in the parking lot for bus passengers. Mr. Spaulding said the drop off area is at the main entrance next to the designated handicap spaces. Mr. Smith asked about the provisions for the safety of the passengers when loading and unloading. Mr. Spaulding said the passengers would enter and exit the bus between the handicap parking spaces. Mr. Smith asked if the bus will be housed at this site or in Bradford. Mr. Spaulding said Bradford.
Mr. Vannatta asked where large vehicles turn around in the parking area. Mr. Spaulding referred the Board to page C-2 of the Site Plan Approval Package for clarification. Mr. Eckman said the plan has been modified per the suggestions of the Town’s fire chief.
Ms. Ruppel asked if there are parking issues on the weekends and holidays at CAP’s other six locations. Michael Coleman, housing director, CAP Belknap-Merrimack Counties, Inc., said no.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Ms. Ashworth made a motion to grant a waiver to Paragraph 12.8.8 because of RSA 674:44 III.(e)(2). Mr. Williams seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Ms. Ashworth, Mr. Williams, Mr. Smith, Mr. Geddes, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
Mr. Spaulding presented the following waiver request under Article XV – Security for Construction on Improvements: HUD’s 202 program as well as the CDBG approved for this project requires the project be bonded for construction. The requirement of having a separate bond issued to the Town of Newbury would result in having two bonds in place that cover the same project, increasing the project cost.
Mr. Spaulding said this request creates a financial hardship for the applicant to require bonding for work that will be covered under the Bonds required by the project funding sources.
Ms. Ashworth noted that the HUD bond does not name the Town of Newbury in its bond and added that the Town wants to have protection and recourse in the event the project fails.
Mr. Spaulding said HUD will step in and complete the project in the event the contractor fails to complete construction for any reason. Ms. Ashworth said the only assurance the Board has regarding that is Mr. Spaulding’s word.
Discussion followed concerning exactly what the HUD bond covers.
Mr. Smith asked if it covers the project building and the Newbury Heights Road improvement. Mr. Spaulding said the Newbury Heights Road improvement is covered under a Community Block Grant (CBG) grant.
Mr. Vannatta suggested holding this waiver in abeyance until the April 19, 2011 Board meeting pending more research into the specifics of the proposed HUD bond and the need to ensure the Town is protected.
Ms. Ruppel said the Board has the power to specify the amount of security in the bond. She said the Board may deny the waiver request with the understanding that the Board will review additional information and there is no requirement for the Board to place a value on the bond.
There was further discussion regarding the above.
Mr. Williams asked who determines when the project has been completed, namely, who issues the certificate of occupancy – HUD, Town Code of Enforcement Officer, etc.
Ralph Littlefield, executive director, CAP Belknap-Merrimack Counties, Inc., reviewed the HUD oversight process on the project from point of site plan approval through occupancy. He said the Town Code Enforcement Officer works in tandem with HUD to ensure that all codes are met. Mr. Littlefield added that CAP could probably get a letter from HUD on whether or not the Town of Newbury could be named as co-insured on the HUD bond or have HUD explain how the Town is protected.
Mr. Williams said it would be very helpful to have that correspondence with HUD detailing how the entire process will unfold and reach implementation.
Mr. Vannatta asked Mr. Caron how other similar projects are handled regarding the periodic reporting of project completion.
Mr. Caron said sometimes substantial completion is tied into the building documents. He suggested that the Town might ask for the non-building aspects of completion. He added that the septic will be inspected by the state. He said the Board could request a progress report at any time on the site plan, road improvements, landscaping plans, etc.
Mr. Caron asked Mr. Spaulding about the form of the bond. Mr. Spaulding said it is in the form of mostly insurance and it is a performance bond.
Ms. Ashworth made a motion to deny a waiver to Article XV pending further research into the specifics of the proposed HUD bond. Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Williams, Mr. Smith, Mr. Geddes, Ms. Ashworth, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
Mr. Vannatta requested that the information concerning the HUD bond be made available to the Board before the April 19, 2011 meeting. Mr. Littlefield agreed.
Mr. Vannatta invited Mr. Spaulding to make his presentation.
Mr. Spaulding reviewed the site overview, referring to the printed site plan, indicating property boundaries, the railroad bed, and all abutters.
He said the site plan evolved from a one-story development to a two story building following concerns from the Lake Sunapee Protective Association (LSPA) regarding the degree of impact on the site. He said the degree of impervious surfaces has been minimized. He reviewed the parking spaces, indicated that the building is located about 700 feet from the cul de sac at the end of Newbury Heights Road. He said there are two wetland crossings and noted that the application requests a conditional use permit with one application for 900 square feet of impact and another for 110 square feet of impact.
He indicated the locations of proposed rain gardens, retention ponds, infiltration systems round the perimeter of the building and the emergency access points, per input from the Town fire and police chief. He said the building contains 34 units and reviewed the location of the proposed septic systems.
Mr. Geddes asked if this was a pump system. Mr. Spaulding said yes and that they are looking at pre treatment systems. He said landscape architect plans include lighting and handicap access points.
Mr. Eckman discussed the proposed off-site improvements on Newbury Heights Road. He referred to printed plans to describe the proposed improvements. He said the improvements are for an 18 foot paved width with a foot of shoulder on either side. He said his team took cross-sections every 10 feet. He described the inclusion of retaining walls along the road where needed, using a geo grid retaining wall system. He said the Town road agent requested the installation of another 15” culvert across Bell Cove Road. Mr. Eckman said his team addressed the poor water drainage issue on the property and proposed leach and catch basins to improve infiltration. He said the proposed steepest grade on Newbury Heights Road is 12.9%. He said under drains are used in the plans extensively. The Town road agent requested the replacement
of a 36” culvert to handle the water runoff at the top of the cul de sac.
He described the construction of the proposed road improvements and further drainage descriptions. He said they followed the current path of the water runoff.
Mr. Vannatta asked if some of the proposed retaining walls were pre-existing. Mr. Eckman said no.
There was further discussion concerning the drainage, establishing water runoff direction and culvert location/upgrading.
Mr. Spaulding asked if Mr. Caron could begin the review process with them. Mr. Vannatta said Mr. Caron will be directed to do so.
Kim Hazarvartian, TEPP, LLC, Salem, NH, reviewed the traffic assessment study done in August 2010 on Newbury Heights Road. He said the study revealed that the road handles a low volume of traffic and the addition of the proposed elderly housing project would produce an increase in daily traffic but, according to TEPP ratings, would continue to constitute a low volume of traffic.
Mr. Vannatta asked Kenneth Nielsen to address the narrative for the project. Mr. Nielsen said CAP is the sponsor of the project. He said when the project is ready to go to closing, CAP will turn over control to the Newbury Elderly Housing, Inc., a non-profit group made up of Newbury residents. CAP has worked in Newbury and other communities in the Belknap and Merrimack counties since the mid-1960s and they have developed six other elderly housing projects.
Mr. Vannatta asked Mr. Spaulding if he intended to review the landscaping plan, structural plan and drainage plan at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Eckman said Mr. Caron will be reviewing them and suggested waiting until his input could be included.
Mr. Vannatta said that on January 10, 2011, the zoning board of adjustment granted two variances - Paragraph 5.8 (Frontage) and Paragraph 5.12 (Density). Both variances carry a time limit of 12 months from the date of granting.
He said the conditional use permit may not be addressed this evening because it was not advertised to be heard this evening, just the preliminary site plan review. He said the conditional use permit will be heard at the April 19, 2011 meeting.
Mr. Vannatta referred to the body of letters received from interested parties as being available in an Attachment to these minutes and contained in the project book and final minutes binder. (Note: The names and addresses (when supplied) of the interested parties who submitted letters/emails are contained as Attachment A to these minutes. To read the contents of the letters/emails, please consult the project book or final minutes binder at the Town Office.)
Mr. Spaulding asked if a conditional use permit is needed for the requested upgrade to a 36” culvert.
Ms. Ruppel said a conditional use permit is needed for a culvert upgrade.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Vannatta opened the public portion of the meeting at 9:17 p.m.
John Bisson, Cronin & Bisson, Manchester, representing abutters Barbara Lawnicki and Rodney Zukowski, said the ZBA variances granted has been appealed to the Merrimack County Superior Court and that, procedurally, the process through the Planning Board has the potential of being derailed.
Mr. Vannatta said, based on advice from Town counsel, discussion of that is something that should not be addressed at this hearing. He said that until the Board is given a directive from Town counsel not to continue with the application process, the Board will continue with the preliminary site plan review process.
Mr. Bisson acknowledged the Board’s position concerning continuing to hear the preliminary site plan review until advised to cease by Town counsel. Mr. Bisson expressed surprise that public input was not invited during the Board’s consideration of the waiver requests. He said the trees under discussion in connection to regulation 10.7.9 serve a legitimate function for abutters in the neighborhood. He said the trees deal with erosion, runoff, and they preserve the integrity of Lake Sunapee. He said he felt the applicant did not meet their burden of establishing hardship regarding 10.7.9. He said the Board moved on the waiver without hearing from the public.
Mr. Bisson said the recreational and parking requirements were similarly handled. He said the parking requirement is significant for this project, noting that if parking is not available at the project site, parking will occur on Newbury Heights Road which is a very tight and steep road. Mr. Bisson referred to a letter he submitted to the Board (See Attachment A, page 32).
Mr. Bisson agreed with the Board’s denial of the applicant’s waiver request for Article XV. He said the applicant has not complied with the following regulations: 12.7, which deals with waste and storage areas; 12.10, snow removal and snow storage; 12.8.6 and 12.12, pedestrian access; and 12.5.1 which covers large single mass structures. He referred to the traffic study cited in the presentation and said the reality is that the traffic that is being put on this narrow steep road (as described by the applicant’s engineer) will be three times what is currently on the road. He said the scope of consideration should be broadened to include the feeder roads surrounding Newbury Heights Road. He said if there is any word from the Court he will keep the Board informed.
Mr. Vannatta closed the public session to consult with Ms. Ruppel concerning the required process when considering waivers. Based on his consultation with Ms. Ruppel, he said there is no requirement to open the waiver process to the public for input.
Mr. Vannatta reopened the public session.
Carol Rehor, 47 Newbury Heights Road, Newbury, asked about the proposed retaining walls along Newbury Heights Road, noting that on the plans her existing retaining wall will be removed. She said the plans call for altering her property.
Mr. Eckman said the plans show the proposed road improvements are within the town right-of-way (ROW). He checked the plans (page OS-26) and determined the location of Ms. Rehor’s property. She said the drawing shows the road going right through her retaining wall and asked if her retaining wall is in the town ROW. Mr. Eckman said a small piece of Ms. Rehor’s retaining wall is in the ROW. She said road expansion on the other side of road will affect her septic system. Mr. Eckman showed Ms. Rehor the plans and noted that the road will not be widened at that spot and her retaining wall will not be affected.
Ms. Rehor said the road is too narrow at that spot to handle the anticipated increase in traffic. Mr. Vannatta said that issue will be addressed as the site plan review process unfolds in the months ahead.
Anne Lally, 18 Newbury Heights Road, Newbury, said the proposed road expansion would affect the well on her property because it is located right beside the existing road. Mr. Eckman discussed the proposed improvements to the road at that location. Ms. Lally said her well is eight to ten feet away from the edge of the existing road and the proposed expansion would adversely affect her well. She said if construction on the road moves forward, the weight of the heavy equipment will collapse her well and prevent her access to her property. She said more thought must be put into these plans than what’s just on the paper.
Mr. Eckman said these are preliminary plans and that he is in the process of working with the State of NH to identify all the septic systems and wells along the existing road. He said he would appreciate any input from the abutters.
Ms. Rehor said the concern is where Mr. Eckman was getting the road width from. She asked Mr. Eckman when he contacted any of the abutters concerning gaining their input. She said she has a retaining wall on one side of the existing road and a septic system on the other side and asked Mr. Eckman how he was going to widen the road at that point without damaging her retaining wall or septic system.
Mr. Eckman said the plans are for an 18 foot wide road with one foot shoulders. Ms. Lally said those measurements will still put the road into her front yard. Mr. Eckman apologized for the confusion.
Ed Rehor, 47 Newbury Heights Road, Newbury, said at a previous meeting, concerns were raised regarding the pedestrian safety on Newbury Heights Road for the residents of this project. He said there are no sidewalks, elderly people will be walking up and down the road and the amount of traffic will increase three times over. He said all of those are safety issues. He said 60% of the people of Newbury indicated that they were opposed to a two story building and asked why a two story building is now being considered. He asked how many Newbury residents actually qualify for this type of housing and questioned why a secondary access to this building couldn’t be found.
Daryl Mooney, 26 Lakeview Drive, Newbury, asked if there will be an impact to the wells from the water runoff coming down from the slopes above. She said the description of the number of cars and occupants, along with added potential conditional uses of the project could produce more cars than what is projected. She said she hoped the letters sent to the Board have been read and asked the Board to explain its eagerness to sign off on a project like this that will completely destroy a quiet community forever. She said there are no guarantees that an elderly housing project will remain an elderly housing project and not become a low income housing project.
Mr. Vannatta responded, saying the Board is not eager to support anything and have been extremely careful and demanding of the applicant. He said the consideration of this project is at the very beginning of the review process. He said a third party independent engineer will be closely supervising the applicant’s submissions and reporting back to the Board. He said the Board has signed off on nothing.
Ms. Mooney said the road issue alone should have been enough to prevent this project from going any further.
Mr. Vannatta said the Board has just received the application and the road issue is part of that consideration. He said the public’s input is essential to the Board.
Ms. Ashworth said, as a Board, there is a legal process that the Board members must follow when considering any application and any application that appears before the Board is, essentially, in everyone’s back yard. She said every project in the town affects every person in the town. She said every member of the Board is a volunteer and is serving on the Board because of a commitment to making Newbury a place where every resident wants to live.
Barbara Lawnicki, 15 Newbury Heights Road, Newbury, said the CAP elderly housing project built in Alton, NH in 1986 no longer has an Alton resident as its housing director. She said the housing director is from Concord, NH, and told her that currently, 40% of the residents are non-elderly and this occurred within 16 years of the project’s completion. She said the HUD laws indicate that one person must be 62 years old and the second person can be anybody else. She offered to research other similar elderly housing situations throughout the state.
Mike Marzelli, 2 Bell Cove Road, Newbury, said he didn’t understand why the residents in the neighborhood were never directly asked if they wanted this kind of project. He asked if a study has been done to determine the need for this kind of housing in Newbury.
Mr. Vannatta said the Town Master Plan reflected low income housing for the elderly as a possibility. He said the Master Plan is the result of a survey of the Newbury residents but that he did not know of a specific study targeting the actual need of low income elderly housing in the town.
Mr. Marzelli asked who is responsible for damage to the property owners’ wells, etc. if the construction trucks crush them. Mr. Smith said the contractor is responsible for damages. Mr. Marzelli expressed concern about the extent of night lighting for the project and along the access road.
Cynthia Trudeau, Bell Cove Road, Newbury, asked about rain gardens and increased drainage on Bell Cove Road. Mr. Eckman pointed out the request from the Town road agent for the replacement of a 12” pipe across Bell Cove Road with a 15” pipe. He said rain gardens are a method of treatment for water runoff, especially first flush runoff from the project parking lot. He discussed in detail the composition of a rain garden and the different filtration elements of same.
Ms. Rehor expressed her concern that many decisions regarding the project are based on what’s on paper and what is included in the presentation and when questions are asked about possible consequences to property during construction, the applicant doesn’t have any answers.
Mr. Vannatta said that the application is in a preliminary review and he said as the session’s progress regarding the application more and more detail will be forthcoming and the Board will examine each stage of the application as it pertains to the town regulations.
Ms. Ashworth explained the waiver process, the application process, the hearing process and the steps involved in the ongoing process.
Ms. Mooney asked if the project is a “given”. Mr. Vannatta said there is no “given”. Ms. Ashworth said the applicant has the right to continue to bring forth their application and try to meet the town regulations but that doesn’t mean that the project is guaranteed.
Ms. Rehor said the abutters are concerned with the rapid passage of the two variances and the seven waivers. Mr. Vannatta said the variances carry a time limit on them and said the project is just in the beginning stages of review.
Eric Nato, 910 Route 103, Newbury, said his concern is that this is strictly an elderly housing project and won’t become something else.
Mr. Littlefield said HUD requires that the property must be available to senior citizens for 40 years. He said it is not unusual for a Planning Board to make it a condition that these kinds of properties be used only for elderly housing. He said the size of the unit (580 square feet) means only two people can comfortably live there. He said the other CAP elderly housing projects have a typical resident of a single woman, age 75 or older. He said the planning boards in other towns have typically placed conditions on the projects to prevent them from turning into low income family housing.
Mr. Rehor asked if CAP has looked at other properties for this project in Newbury. Mr. Littlefield said the team has looked at 25 or 30 sites. He said water and boulders present problems when considering the other locations. He said it’s challenging to find a site big enough, unchallenged by wetlands and containing no boulders. Also, he said the Board of Selectmen expressed a desire to have the location be near the downtown area.
Mr. Rehor said the current site contains wetlands, vernal pools, lots of ledge and only a single access which will be problematic for elderly residents to navigate. He expressed concern regarding line of sight regarding traffic at the juncture of Route 103.
Rodney Zukowski, 15 Newbury Heights Road, Newbury, asked why the project needs 34 units.
Mr. Littlefield said the number of units is what is needed to make the project financially sustainable in the face of HUD requirements. He said there are two to three year waiting lists at all of the other CAP projects and said there is a continuing need for this kind of housing.
Mr. Zukowski said according the HUD’s rules, Newbury is allotted just 17 units for the population of the town, not 34 units. He requested that the Board become familiar with the HUD rules. He said increasing the number of units to 34 is not about helping the elderly in Newbury, it’s about making money.
Mr. Littlefield said the project is not about making money in a HUD 202 program. He said CAP is a non-profit organization that wants to provide services to people. He said CAP wants to break even but that’s not always possible. He explained the process of applying for the number of units that would be economically feasible for a project like this one.
Michael Coleman, housing director for CAP, said the housing definitions for the Alton project and the proposed Newbury project are different. He said the Alton project falls under the now-defunct definition of a HUD 202 Section 8 program while the Newbury project falls under a HUD 202 program. This means there are different rules that govern who may live there.
Ms. Rehor asked who goes into the empty units if Newbury doesn’t have enough qualified elderly. She said if only seven Newbury residents qualify, do the rest of the units remain vacant? Mr. Coleman said anybody who meets the eligibility requirement set down by HUD which is 62 or older and an annual income threshold of $26,850 for one person and $30,700 for two people. He said if a unit becomes vacant and there isn’t an eligible person or persons to fill it, it stays vacant. However, he said the other developments have an average waiting list of 2 ½ to three years. He said he didn’t anticipate vacancies being a problem.
Ms. Lawnicki said HUD’s rules, taken from the website, indicate that if there are vacancies a church can apply to place people in those vacant units. Mr. Coleman said that doesn’t apply under HUD 202 project rental assistance. He said it will all be spelled out in the regulatory language.
Bill Annable, P.O. Box 452, Newbury, reading from project summaries prepared by CAP, noted that the Newbury Elderly Housing will be subject to federal fair housing laws in occupancy by eligible applicants yet not be geographically restricted. However, in accordance with current federal fair housing regulation, preference in placement of Newbury residents would be allowed. But they cannot be geographically restricted.
Mr. Coleman agreed, saying this development cannot be stated as being for Newbury residents only.
Mr. Annable said that is in direct opposition to what Mr. Coleman stated above about allowing vacant units to remain vacant if only seven Newbury residents are eligible for occupancy.
Mr. Vannatta said there is a confusing perception that this project is going to be for Newbury residents only and asked if the occupancy opportunities would extend to beyond Merrimack-Belknap counties.
Mr. Coleman said yes, if there are vacancies and there aren’t enough Newbury residents who qualify, then under the federal fair housing laws, the empty units may be offered to residents outside of Newbury. He said preference will be given to Newbury residents but the fair housing laws prevent limiting the occupancy to Newbury residents only.
Mr. Littlefield said most residents in the other projects have had a relationship with the towns in which the projects are located but under the fair housing laws residency cannot be restricted.
Ms. Lally expressed her appreciation to the land use boards and the work they do on behalf of the town. She expressed concern about the road improvements and the impact to her yard. She discussed her concerns about the HUD fair housing rules and said handicap and disabled must be considered as potential residents, not just 62 year olds. She referred to her experiences while living in Massachusetts.
Mr. Vannatta asked if there are different HUD rules from state to state.
Mr. Coleman said the difference is between the HUD funding program and the occupancy plans.
Ms. Trudeau said the amount of boat traffic coming out of the Newbury Station Marina is of concern because it creates a lot of traffic at the bottom of Newbury Heights Road.
Mr. Marzelli reiterated his request for a needs study for a project like this. He questioned the advantages to Newbury from a project like this. He raised concerns about damaging the quality of life for the town.
Ms. Rehor asked if the project is going to bring in people from out of town to ensure full occupancy, is that supportive of the Master Plan.
Mr. Vannatta said the Master Plan does not identify where the individuals come from. He said this concept is one of many concepts that surfaced regarding the growth of Newbury.
There being no further questions from the public, Mr. Vannatta closed the public portion of the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
Mr. Vannatta asked if the Board had any further questions for the applicant.
Mr. Geddes asked whether the utility poles on Newbury Heights Road will be moved. Mr. Eckman said that at this point there are no plans to move utility poles but there may be some extensions and, if so, they will be put underground.
Mr. Vannatta distributed copies of a document titled CAP Cost Benefit Analysis to the Board and the applicant team and reviewed the contents. (See Attachment B) He asked the applicant to provide the information requested in the document at the next meeting.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a motion to continue the preliminary site plan review.
Mr. Geddes made a motion to continue the preliminary site plan review until April 19, 2011 at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Williams, Ms. Ashworth, Mr. Smith, Mr. Geddes, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
There was discussion concerning procedure during the hearing of a case, particularly when to render an opinion on a case. Mr. Vannatta suggested discussing the point at the Board’s next work session meeting on April 5, 2011.
Mr. Geddes made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 10:46 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
