Planning Board
April 19, 2011
Approved May 17, 2011
Members Present: Tom Vannatta, Chair; Ron Williams,Vice-Chair; Bruce Healey, Travis Dezotell, Bill Weiler, Russell Smith, Members; Deane Geddes, Alison Kinsman, Alternates; Rachel Ruppel, Advisor.
Mr. Vannatta called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Mr. Vannatta told the Board that registration is open for the 18th Annual Spring Planning and Zoning Conference sponsored by the Office of Energy and Planning (OEP). He also mentioned the Board is invited to attend the upcoming Centennial Brainstorm & Discussion meeting with the Friends of Mount Sunapee on April 20, 2011 at 7:30 p.m.
Minutes
The Board amended the final minutes of March 15, 2011. Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve the amended final minutes of March 15, 2011. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. All in favor.
CASE: Case 2011-005: Conceptual Great Island Realty
Tom Hoffmeister, P.O. Box 274, Newbury, agent, presented to the Board on behalf of Great Island Realty Trust. Tom Dobrowski, surveyor, was also present. There are two parcels of property involved – one parcel of 1.3 acres and another of 5.6 acres – and a house that is on both pieces of property. The property is on Great Island in Lake Sunapee.
Mr. Hoffmeister wants to create three lots from the existing two lots. Mr. Dobrowski said the lake frontage for each lot would be 201 feet, 235 feet and 345 feet.
There was discussion about the wetlands regulations. Mr. Weiler said the regulations apply to existing wetlands over 10,000 square feet. Additionally, there was discussion regarding frontage along the lake.
Mr. Weiler noted that the plans show the new property line terminating at a dock. Mr. Hoffmeister said it is actually a storage shed for kayaks and the docks are located elsewhere.
It was determined that the proposed subdivision is a minor subdivision and must follow the applicable regulations. Mr. Smith questioned the total acreage before subdivision. Mr. Dobrowski said the total acreage was 6.9 acres.
Mr. Williams asked about the septic fields. Mr. Hoffmeister said there are two septic fields that serve the whole island. He said he controls 13 bedrooms on that septic system so the proposed subdivision would not jeopardize the existing system.
The applicant said they might want to do an annexation at the same time as the minor subdivision.
Ms. Ruppel referred the applicant to Article VII (Shore Land Overlay District), and Article XV, Section 15.2 Non-conforming Lots of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Vannatta reviewed the next steps for the applicant, namely presenting a preliminary and/or final minor subdivision application.
CASE: Case 2011-004: Final Review Lot Line Adjustment- Emily Welsh/agent: Marc Moran. 938-2043. Morse Ln./South Rd. Map Lots 043-592-097 & 033-197-164
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application for a Final Hearing for a Lot Line Adjustment from Emily Welsh & Marc Moran, for property located on South Road and Morse Lane, Newbury, NH, Tax Map 043-592-097 and 033-197-164 on Tuesday, April 19, 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.
The application was reviewed for completeness.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to accept the application as complete. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Moran presented to the Board. He said he and his wife purchased the lot from Emily Welch in 2008 and that it was part of the original Shultis farm and has been reestablishing some of the original practices of the Shultis’ maple sugar operation. He said a portion of the original maple orchard was discovered during a proposed clear cutting and that was when he decided to try to save the orchard and restore it to productivity. He said his annexation application would add a 20 acre parcel to his property.
Mr. Dezotell commented that Mr. Moran’s annexation would end up making the farm bigger, which would be a good thing.
Mr. Moran said the 20-acre maple orchard contains 100 to 150 year old trees, 60 foot lanes between the trees and a tubing system in the streams that dates back to WW II. He said he conferred with the UNH Cooperative Extension before making a decision to annex the land and continue with a sugaring business. He added that there are original records of production that date up to the 1950s.
Mr. Moran said his original purchase was for 40 acres. Mr. Healey said this resembles historical restoration and said he thought it was a good idea.
Mr. Vannatta noted that Mr. Moran’s signature was missing on the application for the landowner’s certification. Mr. Moran signed the same.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Vannatta opened the public portion of the meeting.
There being no public present, Mr. Vannatta closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Vannatta called for a motion to vote.
Mr. Williams made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call Vote.
In Favor: Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Smith, Mr. Healey, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Williams, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
Mr. Vannatta informed Mr. Moran that he or any party directly affected by this decision may appeal to the proper Board within thirty (30) days of this decision.
Mr. Weiler reminded Mr. Moran that the deed for the 20 acres must be filed after the 30 day period.
CASE: Case 2011-002: Final Site Plan Review- Brett Croft 938-2527. 70 Winding
Brook Rd. Map/Lot 035-410-428.
Meeting Continued from March 15, 2011….
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, April 19, 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. Dezotell made a motion to accept the application as complete. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
There was discussion concerning whether the proposed use of the property is a cottage industry or a bed and breakfast. The Board agreed to proceed with the understanding that the proposed use of the property is that of a cottage industry. However, the Board agreed to discuss the terms cottage industry/bed & breakfast at the next work session.
Mr. Croft presented to the Board. Mr. Vannatta requested that the Board address the requested waivers before proceeding to the presentation. The Board agreed.
Waiver Requests
Mr. Croft presented the following waiver requests under Article XIII Site Plan Review for a Cottage Industry:
- 13.6 Documentation – Mr. Croft said there was no new construction required and asked the Board to accept 11” x 17” copies of all plans instead of requiring one full-size set.
Ms. Ruppel reviewed RSA 674:44 (Site Plan Review Regulations) and read into the record the following portion:
“The planning board may only grant a waiver if the board finds, by majority vote, that:
- 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
- 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.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Mr. Williams made a motion to grant a waiver to Paragraph 13.6 in accordance with of RSA 674:44 III.(e)(1). Mr. Dezotell seconded the motion.
Mr. Smith questioned whether it is an undue hardship. Mr. Dezotell said the hardship is the cost involved.
Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Williams, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Healey, Mr. Smith, Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
- 13.8 Site Plan – Mr. Croft requested that the Board accept a scale of 1 inch = 62 feet, drawn on 11” x 17” paper.
Mr. Vannatta asked Mr. Croft why he requested the waiver. Mr. Croft said the plans were hand-drawn, fit better on the paper and didn’t detract from the information that is conveyed in the drawing.
The Board reviewed the drawings in question. Mr. Williams said the scale is adequate to identify the locations of all the buildings/driveways, etc. Mr. Healey and Mr. Dezotell agreed.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Mr. Williams made a motion to grant a waiver to Paragraph 13.8 in accordance with of RSA 674:44 III.(e)(1). Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Smith, Mr. Healey, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Williams, Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
- 13.8.8 Signage – Mr. Croft said he is not proposing any signage.
Mr. Williams said this waiver is not applicable to the application. Mr. Vannatta said the Board can dismiss the waiver request as not necessary. There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to dismiss the waiver request for Paragraph 13.8.8 as not applicable to the application. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Healey, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Williams, Mr. Smith, Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
- 13.9 Structure Plan – Mr. Croft requested acceptance of elevation drawings drawn on a scale of 2.5” (or 1 cm) = 1.4’. He said the scale fit on the paper better and didn’t detract from the information presented.
The Board reviewed the photos provided in the application.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to grant a waiver to 13.9 in accordance with of RSA 674:44 III.(e)(1). Mr. Healey seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Smith, Mr. Healey, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Williams, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
- 13.10.1 Permits and Approval – Mr. Croft said no permits are required because there is no new construction being proposed.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to dismiss the waiver request for Paragraph 13.10.1 as not applicable to the application. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Weiler, Mr. Williams, Mr. Healey, Mr. Smith, Mr. Dezotell, M. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
Mr. Croft presented to the Board. He thanked the Board for considering his application for a cottage industry. He said he and his wife want to use the area above their garage as an accessory apartment available for short term rentals. He said they made a mistake last year when they rented the space for 14 nights without receiving proper zoning approval from the town. He said that was a mistake, they did not know special exceptions were needed, that they take full responsibility for the mistake and apologized to the Board.
Mr. Croft said the space was initially used as family space (game room, home school functions). He added that he is self-employed as a fee-only financial planner and would like to augment his income by renting out the space above the garage. He said the garage is attached to the house and the house is his family’s primary residence. Multi-month rentals are preferred but will consider shorter stays. In the past, he said he and his wife furnished cookies/muffins occasionally during the 14 nights the space was rented but, moving forward, food will not be offered.
Mr. Croft indicated that it is his understanding there is no exact definition detailing lengths of stay for an accessory apartment and what constitutes a cottage industry. Therefore, he said, he and his wife are seeking this exception to be compliant in all situations.
He stated that a building permit was applied for in 2007 to convert the area above the garage into an open concept family room with a small bathroom and a bar. All work was approved by the building inspector including the installation of all plumbing. He added that no new construction is required or being proposed. He said the area was examined by the assessor and its value has been included in the property assessment and taxes. He added that no signage is proposed or required.
He said the interior floor space of the apartment is approximately 600 square feet which represents 100% of the total area of the accessory apartment. He said the intention is to rent the apartment as a short term furnished rental. The usage will be less than a full time resident and renters would be expected to come and go during normal waking hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. He said there are no hired employees; he and his wife will manage the rental.
Mr. Croft said there will be no noticeable difference in traffic patterns, adding that the apartment is located 270 feet from the end of the driveway where it meets the road. He said one to two cars per rental is anticipated and the parking area is paved and off-street and can accommodate up to six cars. Mr. Croft said the location and height of the existing buildings are not an issue, adding that the front, side and rear setbacks are many multiples of what is required by code. He said two lots abut his house on the north and east sides. He said he and his wife own the lot behind them to the north and the home to the east of their property is a seasonal home.
Mr. Croft reviewed the utilities/electrical components of the apartment. The heating unit is a 95% efficient boiler and the apartment has water conserving low flow plumbing fixtures and toilet. The septic system is rated for four bedrooms and Mr. Croft noted that he has a three bedroom home including the apartment and is rated for eight full time occupants. He said his family numbers four. He detailed his system of refuse storage and disposal and noted that he will be responsible for all refuse created by renters. He said there are smoke alarms in the apartment and heat alarms in the garage below – all hard wired into the house. The apartment has two separate exits, per code, and inspected by the code enforcement officer. Additionally, the apartment has its own fire extinguisher and carbon monoxide
detector.
Mr. Croft said an accessory apartment would not be detrimental to the character or enjoyment of the neighborhood. He said this is a studio apartment and noted that there are three homes on their street that are not owner-occupied (rentals). He said the use of the accessory apartment is strictly residential in nature and is supported by the covenants of his development. He said there is no homeowners association associated with his development, nor has there ever been one. He added that all lot owners of record in his development were notified of these proceedings by the town at his expense.
He indicated several bed & breakfasts in the area that operate under a cottage industry category. He noted there were six residents who objected to this proposal citing safety concerns over strangers in the neighborhood. He said each renter will undergo a thorough check via credit card usage and background checking. Additionally, he said the police chief lives in the neighborhood and does not object to the proposed rental. Also, he said, the fire chief has stated that there are no fire safety concerns.
Mr. Smith questioned the two exits for the apartment indicated both exits lead to one deck and one set of stairs and asked Mr. Croft if there was another way to exit the apartment if the deck was on fire. Mr. Croft said there are windows on both sides of the building, 12 feet off the ground and that there is a portion of the deck that is just four feet off the ground. Mr. Smith asked if a set of stairs would be placed there. Mr. Croft said yes. Mr. Weiler said that isn’t the Board’s area of concern – it is the purview of the code enforcement officer.
Mr. Healey said the code enforcement officer has not yet approved this new use of the property – he approved the use as a family room, not as an accessory apartment. Also, the building permit referred to was for a family room. Mr. Healey said if this application is approved, he would like a condition added requiring an approval of the new use by the code enforcement officer along with a certificate of occupancy.
Mr. Dezotell reviewed the regulations covering cottage industry and noted that the areas of consideration include aesthetics, drainage issues, consideration of adjacent land, public safety, fire safety, and access. Mr. Weiler disagreed.
Mr. Vannatta said the concerns raised by Mr. Healey could be added as conditions.
Mr. Healey noted that Mr. Croft stated that six out of 39 lot owners in the development have told the Crofts that they object to the proposed use of the accessory apartment. Mr. Vannatta stated that the Board received quite a few letters/emails expressing points of review regarding this project. He said the letters/emails in hand are of interest to the Board, not the aforementioned numbers of individuals in favor or opposed to the project. He added that all letters/emails received will be listed by name and address in the minutes and the entire letter/email will be attached to the final minutes at placed in the Planning Board final minutes binder at the Town office.
The Board reviewed Paragraph 5.7 Accessory Apartments in the zoning ordinance, particularly the purpose and intent of the ordinance. Mr. Weiler noted that the ordinance’s intent was for long term rentals and/or family sharing and not for overnight rentals. He asked the Crofts to what extent they have sought long term rentals for their accessory apartment.
Mr. Croft said they were open to any rental situation and that they have just started to focus on the possible rental possibilities. He added that their proposed short term rental approach fills a market niche in Newbury. He added that Paragraph 5.7 also states that “Furthermore, it is the purpose and intent of this provision to allow the more efficient use of the Town’s existing stock of dwellings….”. He said there isn’t a notation regarding the length of rental and cited the other Bed & breakfasts in the area as having cottage industry approval.
Mr. Vannatta noted that the special exception granted by the ZBA was for a cottage industry for the short term rental of a furnished accessory apartment. Mr. Weiler noted that if the applicant was offering long term rentals he would not need to make application to the Planning Board. He said a special exception was needed for the accessory apartment and the only reason Mr. Croft needed Board approval was because he was offering short term rentals as a cottage industry. Mr. Weiler added that documentation regarding the shortfall of available long term rentals in Merrimack County indicates that the Crofts would have no problem finding a long term renter.
Mrs. Croft indicated they are just getting started in the business and wanted to remain open to all rental opportunities. She indicated that they have talked to several real estate agents but the management fees were cost prohibitive at this time.
There was discussion regarding the definition of long term rental versus short term rental, and bed & breakfast. There was further discussion regarding special exceptions versus variances and whether each runs with the property.
Mr. Vannatta noted that on March 28, 2011 the ZBA granted a special exception for an accessory apartment on the second floor of an existing attached garage with the condition that all building code regulations for an apartment are met. Additionally, the ZBA also granted a special exception for a cottage industry for the short term rental of a furnished accessory apartment.
Ms. Ruppel asked the applicant about the landscaping between the accessory apartment and the adjacent lot containing a house. Mr. Croft said there are trees and that the building can been seen in the winter when the trees are bare.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Vannatta noted that letters/email were received from the following individuals:
- Stephanie Lesko
- Kathleen & Kenneth Nunes
- Robert Lee
- Lynn & David Lindh
- Sam Shields
- Ann & Miklos Wright
- Terry Thomas
- Judith Hale
- Jere Williams
(Note: The complete contents of the submitted letters/emails are contained in the Planning Board final minutes binder at the Town Office and available for review.)
Mr. Vannatta suggested that the Board agree to set a time limit on the remaining portion of this hearing because of the length of time spent up to this point on the application. Also, Mr. Vannatta said there is another hearing scheduled after this one. He recommended that if this hearing is not concluded within the Board’s agreed upon time limit, then the hearing be continued to the next regular hearing meeting date. The Board agreed to continue without a time limit.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Vannatta opened the public portion of the meeting.
Polly Lowe, 226 Winding Brook Road, said her letter in opposition was not included in the list that Mr. Vannatta read into the record and added that there were several other letters in opposition that she recalls that were not included in his list. Mr. Vannatta said he will look into it. Ms. Lowe said she has been at the ZBA meetings regarding this case and that a motion for rehearing was filed today. Ms. Lowe asked if she could speak to Mr. Weiler’s comments regarding short term and long term rentals. She referred to Paragraph 5.7 and said accessory apartments were designed to meet the needs of single persons and couples of low and moderate income, both young and old, and of relatives of families presently living in Newbury. She referred to the phrase “low and
moderate income housing” and noted that the Crofts are planning to charge $2800 per month for their accessory apartment rental. She questioned if this qualifies as low income housing. She referred to Paragraph 5.7 and the purpose and intent of the ordinance regarding the opportunity to help people augment their income should they fall on hard times. Ms. Lowe referred to the ordinance language and read the following, “…the purpose of providing economic support for present families of limited income and to protect and preserve the rural one-family residential character of the Town.” She said Mrs. Croft is a doctor, Mr. Croft has an MBA, they own two large lots behind them and their assets are quite numerous. She added that Mr. Croft is a financial planner and she said he is playing upon the Board’s sympathies when he says they need this to pay their mortgage.
Ms. Spinney, 24 Winding Brook Road, said she and her husband David are in support of the Croft’s proposal and noted that the traffic concerns raised are not an issue. She added that the Crofts home school their children and are on the property all the time and will undoubtedly be present for supervision over all renters.
There being no further comments from the public, Mr. Vannatta closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Croft commented on the low and moderate income levels as cited in the town ordinance and noted that Merrimack County Median Income levels for 2010 for a family of four is $76,700. He applied the formulation to determine how much a family of four can pay a month in rent, which comes out to $2400/month. He said their proposed monthly rent of $2800 includes a 9% tax. He added that he has very few clients and home schools his children full time.
Mrs. Croft noted a substantial increase in rental interest since the cease and desist went into effect. Mr. Croft said there have been no rentals since the cease and desist.
Mr. Vannatta called for a motion to vote.
Mr. Healey made a motion to approve the application for a cottage industry for the short term rental of a furnished apartment with the following conditions: inspection by the Code Enforcement Officer for all building and occupancy permits for an accessory apartment and no meals are offered. Mr. Dezotell seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Smith, Mr. Healey, Mr. Williams, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: Mr. Weiler, because the use is inconsistent with the terms of an accessory apartment.
Mr. Vannatta informed Mr. & Mrs. Croft that they or any party directly affected by this decision may appeal to the proper Board within thirty (30) days of this decision.
Mr. Vannatta called for a break at 9:17 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 9:28 p.m.
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.
Meeting Continued from March 15, 2011….
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, April 19, 2011, 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. Vannatta asked the Board to establish a time limit on the hearing because of the meeting length thus far. The Board agreed to conclude the meeting at 10:30 p.m. and continue any business not discussed.
Ms. Ruppel made a clarification regarding bonding and any security that may be required. She said the site plan regulations refer to an established calculation contained in the subdivision regulations. She said there are a set of standards in place for arriving at the amount of security required. Additionally, Ms. Ruppel made a clarification regarding when a conditional use permit is needed in regards to the wetland buffer, specifically whether when replacing 36” culvert in kind would require such a permit. She said replacing a culvert in kind requires a permit only when it is within the wetland buffer for a wetland that is 10,000 square feet or greater.
Mr. Vannatta said, on March 18, 2011, he received a letter from John F. Bisson, Esq., Cronin & Bisson, questioning the Board’s procedure regarding granting waivers to the applicant as being “procedurally and substantively flawed”. Mr. Vannatta read into the record portions of the letter as follows: “From a procedural standpoint, …the Planning Board cannot begin formal consideration of a site plan application, but may only make recommendations during preliminary site plan review. …..Thus, the Board improperly granted waivers at the hearing. ….the Planning Board did not afford the abutters an opportunity to” speak on those issues. “More troubling, Planning Board members, at times, admitted that they did not know the intent of certain
Regulations that they were being asked to waive. Without an understanding of the Regulation’s intent, the Planning Board cannot waive the Regulation. ….In sum, the Planning Board did not satisfy even one requirement of state law when it granted the requested waivers.” Mr. Vannatta added that Mr. Bisson requests that the Board reconsider all the waivers.
Mr. Vannatta said he sought the advice of Town counsel and referred to the letter sent from Town counsel to Mr. Bisson and to Mr. Vannatta. Mr. Vannatta read into the record the following excerpt from Town counsel’s letter: “I see nothing in the statutes of the Board’s regulations that precludes the Board from considering requests for waivers. ….Indeed, it does make some sense to consider waiver requests at this stage of the proceedings. Otherwise, the applicant will not know whether he or she has a completed site plan application until the Board considers the completeness of the final application…”. Mr. Vannatta noted that this approach is what the Board put in place when the applicant first presented the concept to the Board. Additionally,
“Consideration of waivers is similar to the consideration of the completeness of the application. ….the Supreme Court determined that completeness review was not subject to public review and comment. Rather, this task was assigned to the planning board alone.”
Mr. Vannatta said Mr. Bisson also requested a copy of the “Cost Benefit Analysis” and since it was part of the public record, a copy of same was forwarded to Mr. Bisson. He added that a copy of the “Cost Benefit Analysis” is available to anyone upon request.
Lou Caron, L.C. Engineering Company LLC, presented his initial review (in substantial detail) of the submitted site plan for the proposed Newbury Elderly Housing project. Areas covered included specific recommendations to the contractor regarding emergency generators, reduction of footprint, installation of erosion stone by the curbing, a second emergency drive shown on all plans, redesign of gravel driveway, convert parking lot to porous pavement, add stone for erosion control at the south end of the drainage wall, among others.
There was discussion about the proposed 18 foot width access road, the traffic assessment, the stormwater analysis report, rain gardens and stormwater runoff.
Dave Eckman, Eckman Engineering, LLC, said most of Mr. Caron’s comments were beneficial.
There was discussion regarding pedestrian access and creating a pedestrian walking path along the old railroad bed.
The Board discussed the proposed 18 foot access road width, noting that the police chief and fire chief signed off in March 2011 that there are no safety concerns with the proposed width. Mr. Weiler noted that the regulations state that all access roads must be 20 feet wide and questioned the Board’s authority to countermand an established regulation.
Mr. Dezotell said that regulations must be backed up by scientific standards. Mr. Vannatta said the Board’s consensus is that roads must be 20 feet wide.
There was discussion regarding the proposed project’s parking lot regarding the safe loading and unloading of bus passengers, parking spaces and safe turnaround dimensions.
Mr. Eckman said the Board’s and Mr. Caron’s comments were good ones and said they will work with the abutters regarding the access road but that he must stay within the ROW.
There being no further comments from the Board, Mr. Vannatta opened the public portion of the meeting.
Barbara Lawnicki, 15 Newbury Heights Road, presented photos to the Board of Newbury Heights Road in the winter depicting the narrowness of the passable road area. She added that the propane tanks supplying the residential houses along Newbury Heights Road are very close to the road and requested that the engineers take that into consideration.
Mr. Caron said roads do get smaller in the winter and that with an 18 foot road there will probably be more room to maneuver and it will be easier to maintain.
Carol Rehor, 47 Newbury Heights Road, asked when the Board plans to consider what the increased traffic and addition of guard rails is going to do to the property values on Newbury Heights Road.
Mr. Vannatta said that will be covered at a future meeting and added that the Board is considering this application as thoroughly as possible.
Mr. Vannatta noted that letters/emails were received from the following individuals:
- The Sunapee-Ragged-Kearsarge Greenway Coalition
- Cynthia Trudeau
- Michael Marzelli
- Edwin and Carol Rehor
(Note: The complete contents of the submitted letters/emails are contained in the Planning Board final minutes binder at the Town Office and available for review.)
Mr. Vannatta called for a motion to continue the hearing.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to continue the hearing to May 17, 2011 at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 10:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
