Planning Board
May 17, 2011
Approved June 21, 2011
Members Present: Tom Vannatta, Chair; Ron Williams, Vice-Chair; Bill Weiler, Bruce Healey, Travis Dezotell, Russell Smith, Members; Alison Kinsman, Alternates; Rachel Ruppel, Advisor; Dick Wright, alternate ex-officio member.
Mr. Vannatta called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of April 19, 2011and made corrections. Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
Rules of Procedure
Mr. Vannatta reviewed the timeline regarding the proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure that were discussed at the Board’s work session meeting on May 3, 2011. He said a minimum period of five days must pass before the Board may vote on the amendments and noted that two weeks has passed since the Board’s discussion of same. Mr. Vannatta called for a motion to vote.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to adopt the amendments to the Rules of Procedure as presented. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. All in favor.
Newbury Town Center Buildings Committee (TCBC)
Mr. Vannatta said the Board of Selectmen (BOS) has formed a committee to address concerns regarding several areas in Town including Bald Sunapee and the harbor. The BOS has requested that each land use board have a representative on the committee. Mr. Healey, who was already invited by the BOS to participate as a private citizen, agreed to act as representative for the Board if nominated. Mr. Vannatta called for a motion to vote.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to appoint Mr. Healey to the TCBC as the Planning Board representative. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion. All in favor.
Waiver Requirements per RSA 674:44
Mr. Weiler requested clarification regarding what constitutes unnecessary hardship under RSA 674:44 and suggested that the question be raised at the upcoming OEP conference on June 11, 2011. Ms. Ruppel said her research indicated the difficulty of a clear definition because there is no case law about unnecessary hardship for a waiver and it is therefore subject to interpretation. The research surfaced that unnecessary hardship is more than mere inconvenience and there must be some substantial hardship present. Discussion followed. Mr. Vannatta agreed to surface the question at the OEP conference.
ZBA Motion for Rehearing
Mr. Vannatta informed the Board that Paulette Lowe’s Motion for Rehearing to the ZBA regarding the granting of a special exception to Brett & Cindi Croft for an accessory apartment was denied at the ZBA’s meeting on May 9, 2011. He added that the Board acknowledged receipt of Ms. Lowe’s letter pertaining to the Croft’s application for a site plan review for a cottage industry that the Board reviewed and voted on at its April 19, 2011 meeting.
CASE: Case 2011-006: Conceptual- Justin Willett, 437 Route 103, Newbury - Meat Business
Mr. Vannatta introduced the Board. Mr. Willett said his property is less than one acre with an existing house and a shared driveway. He wants to establish a business that sells organic meats and locally gown and produced food products. He anticipates removing the existing house and building a new structure on the footprint. The new building will contain coolers and retail space for the sale of product.
Mr. Weiler said Mr. Willett’s concept falls under the category of retail trade and is subject to a site plan review. Additionally, a new structure must meet all zoning requirements.
Mr. Wright said Mr. Willett will have to comply with all state regulations regarding right-of-way (ROW) connected with the shared driveway.
Mr. Vannatta recommended that Mr. Willett obtain a copy of the zoning ordinance and site plan regulations – both available on the Town website – and then get appropriate applications from the Land Use Coordinator. Mr. Vannatta suggested that Mr. Willett consult with Ms. Ruppel prior to the next conceptual meeting with the Board to ensure that all the necessary applications and information are in place. Mr. Willett agreed and thanked the Board for their guidance.
CASE: Case 2011-007: Conceptual- David Long- Captain’s 1st Choice. 938-2355.
Map/Lot 043-797-526. Wants to serve ice cream.
Mr. Long presented to the Board. He said Captain’s 1st Choice is currently a retail gift shop and he wants to offer ice cream for sale. He said he has applied for a license to do that and distributed copies of same to the Board. He said his shop currently has a kitchen and he will use this area to serve soft and hard ice cream to customers through a dedicated window.
Mr. Weiler said the Board needs a record of Mr. Long’s last site plan review to ascertain all the uses that have been approved for this property. Additionally, Mr. Weiler said the Board must determine the use category that covers serving ice cream.
There was discussion about the contents of Mr. Long’s prior site plan review and Ms. Ruppel said she will research the document, the minutes from that meeting and the letter of decision concerning that earlier application. She said she will also research the regulations that govern the serving of ice cream.
Mr. Long said he wants to be able to serve ice cream this summer. Mr. Vannatta suggested that the Board agree to meet with Mr. Long during the next work session meeting on June 7, 2011 to review Ms. Ruppel’s research and provide guidance regarding the next step. The Board agreed.
Mr. Long said he also wants to change the parking lot configuration to accommodate several greenhouses. Mr. Vannatta said that change would require a separate site plan review.
CASE: Continued from 4/19/11…
Case 2010-003: Preliminary Hearing/ Site Plan Review- Davis Revocable Trust/ Agent: Community Action Program, Ralph Littlefield 225-3295. Newbury Heights Road. Map/Lot 020-072-043 & 020-223-195
Ms. Kinsman recused herself to the audience.
Mr. Wright recused himself to the audience stating that, as a Selectman, he has publically expressed his support for the project.
Off-site Plan Review
Mr. Vannatta called upon Lou Caron, consulting engineer, to review his findings concerning the engineering plans submitted by Eckman Engineering LLC, for the on- and off-site plans for the proposed Newbury Elderly Housing project.
Mr. Caron said the applicant submitted revised on-site plans following the former’s comments presented at the Board’s April 19, 2011 meeting. The applicant submitted a revised plan dated May 2, 2011. Mr. Caron said most of the suggested changes were drafting changes and that he was satisfied with the changes made on the on-site portion of the plan.
Mr. Caron reviewed his comments on the proposed off-site plan and noted that most of his suggestions are drafting questions and included the following comments: relocating utility poles, improving the slope for one of the residential driveways, relocation of a guard rail, improving residential access, providing a graphic regarding residential driveways, placement of a Stop sign, working with an abutter regarding the removal of a portion of the abutter’s existing retaining wall and off-street parking.
Mr. Vannatta asked if Mr. Caron’s suggestions regarding the site plan were incorporated into the revised site plan dated May 2, 2011. Mr. Caron said yes.
Mr. Vannatta asked if Mr. Caron was satisfied with the changes made on the site plan. Mr. Caron said yes.
Mr. Vannatta asked if Mr. Caron felt there were still some problems with the off-site plan. Mr. Caron said yes.
Mr. Eckman said Mr. Caron’s comments were good ones regarding the off-site plan and added that if the abutters will allow it, the proposed plan could go beyond the ROW and the road expansion can be made to look nicer. He said he has been knocking on doors, trying to meet with the individual abutters but so far he has had no luck. He said there are three property owners whose approval is needed for the revised off-site plan.
Mr. Healey asked if Mr. Eckman has talked with the three property owners. Mr. Eckman said no, not yet.
Mr. Eckman said the next step for the on-site plans is to apply for state permits.
Mr. Caron noted that there are now two sets of off-site plans before the Board – the original set submitted on February 21, 2011 which worked within the ROW, and the most recent set submitted on May 2, 2011 which works outside of the ROW. He said the most recent set of plans is an attempt to get a more pleasing and efficient use of the area. He added that Mr. Eckman must get approval from the three property owners in question before the second set of off-site plans can be used. Otherwise, the original off-site plan must be the one considered by the Board.
Mr. Caron said state permit applications for the site-specific on-site plan may take a few months and estimated the wetlands permit may take up to two months.
CAP Cost Benefit Analysis
Mr. Vannatta asked the applicant to review the answers to the Board’s questions contained in the “CAP/Newbury Elderly Housing Project Cost Benefit Analysis” questionnaire (See Attachment A). Michael Coleman, Housing Director for CAP, Belknap-Merrimack Counties, Inc., read his answers verbatim from the document titled “Response to the Newbury Planning Board Request for a Cost-Benefit Analysis of the CAP/Newbury Elderly Housing Project” (See Attachment B).
Questions arose concerning the following:
- Why 2000 Census data was used in the answers and not 2010 Census data. Ms. Ruppel said the 2010 Census data for population is available but not the data reflecting income levels.
- How many residents in Newbury would actually qualify for this type of housing based on the statistics supplied by Mr. Coleman. Mr. Coleman estimated that 83 individuals would qualify in Newbury. Ms. Ruppel asked about the percentage of residents/non-residents at CAP’s other projects. Mr. Coleman said other projects have a 75% resident population.
- The cost of safety services support. Mr. Coleman said he is still researching the cost-per-occurrence cost at other project locations.
- The voluntary Board of Directors for the project. Mr. Coleman said members are recommended by the Newbury BOS and other civic groups. Mr. Vannatta asked if any such boards at other CAP projects have ever defaulted. Mr. Coleman said no, every year there is an independent audit and two HUD audits covering management and operations. Mr. Healey noted that the board is not an independent entity since CAP approval is needed for board appointment. Mr. Coleman said that is true.
- The security bond for the project. There was discussion about requiring two separate bonds – a performance bond and a payment bond. Mr. Vannatta asked what happens if the off-site costs exceed the allotted $275,000. Mr. Coleman said HUD and CAP will not allow any project to be incomplete.
Mr. Healey asked if the term “elderly resident household”, per Mr. Coleman’s answer to question # 2, is the correct term to describe the residents of the proposed project. Specifically, Mr. Healey asked if there were any restrictions on who the second person in the household could be. Mr. Coleman said there is no restriction other than children are not allowed. Mr. Healey asked Mr. Coleman for the definition is of a child. Mr. Coleman said anyone under the age of 18. Mr. Coleman said an adult child may only move in if they are certified as a live-in attendant to the elderly head of household. Mr. Coleman added that every member of each household must go through the HUD certification process before being granted occupancy. Following that certification process, whoever is approved by HUD is considered the
resident household.
Mr. Williams asked if there is insurance provided for the volunteer board of directors. Mr. Coleman said CAP purchases personal and professional liability insurance for the group.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Vannatta opened the public portion of the meeting.
Sandra Cody, concerned citizen, Newbury, asked when the 2010 Census data regarding income levels will be available. Ms. Ruppel said the information will be available to the public later in the year, noting that the U.S. Department of Commerce will be compiling/verifying the data before it is released. Ms. Cody noted that the data will be too late to apply to this application.
Iris Thomas, Chalk Pond Road, Newbury, voiced her concern about the project and questioned why it is necessary in Newbury when there are available empty units in Wilton. She said the proposed project will become a burden on the taxpayers in town and questioned who will actually be living in the 34 units. Additionally, she voiced concern about the increase in needed services for the project’s residents and said the town taxpayers would have to absorb the cost of those services.
Mr. Coleman said there is a waiting list of over four years at CAP’s other projects and there are 84 people on an active waiting list for 165 units.
Ms. Thomas asked where the 84 people are from. Mr. Coleman said he didn’t have that data available.
Dick Wright, 168 Morse Hill Road, Newbury, spoke as a Newbury Selectman and expressed concern about the phasing in of the road improvements and recommended that the final phase of road improvements be implemented after the building project is completed. Otherwise, the road will have to be repaired by the Town because construction vehicles will undoubtedly damage the completed road. He added that all such repairs would be at the taxpayer’s expense.
Ralph Littlefield, executive direction of the Merrimack-Belknap Community Action Program (CAP), said CAP will work with the Town regarding the timeline for on-site and off-site construction. He said the Town signs off on the occupancy permit.
Mr. Williams asked who interprets the income portion of the 2010 Census data. Ms. Ruppel said the U. S. Department of Commerce interprets that data and when it is released, the state breaks out the New Hampshire portion of the data and develops the population projections.
Clay Rucker, 3 Bartlett Road, Newbury, said the CAP numbers don’t add up. He said 34 housing units times two occupants increases the Town’s population figures by about 2% to 4%. He asked how much in taxes CAP would be paying for a project like this.
Mr. Coleman said it depends on a number of factors but said the estimated maximum amount in taxes would be about $25,000. Mr. Coleman said the Town controls the property assessment.
Mr. Rucker said he feels the project would be a tax burden on the Town and asked the Board if a cost base analysis has been done on the increase on the Town population and the resulting increase on the cost burden created by that population increase.
Mr. Vannatta said an analysis of that kind would be the applicant’s burden to produce.
Mr. Rucker asked if the Board would wait to render a decision until that information is produced.
Mr. Vannatta said the Board is a long way from rendering any decision on this application.
Daryl Anderson Mooney, Lakeview Avenue, Newbury, said the idea of an elderly housing project is good but that the location of this proposed project is the wrong idea. She said typically, every building built requires two forms of egress and questioned why this proposal is even being considered when there is only one access and exit. She cited fire safety issues for the project residents and the limited width of the access road in the winter, with or without guard rails.
Robert Kenison, P.O. Box 348, Newbury, said he was curious about the project and noted that he has experience with serving on planning, zoning, and selectmen boards. He said the proposed 34 units is overriding the boundary and questioned the HUD economists data given the fact that his social security and military disability payments have not been raised in two years because of inflation. He questioned the economists who are trying to build this in a bankrupt nation. He addressed the claim that 75% of occupants could be from Newbury, saying that his experience in his former town was that the 98-unit CAP project there did not attract one resident from that town and no one from the town moved into those units for six years. He added that the income requirements for the
occupants were violated and questioned the HUD standards applied to this project. He urged a closer look at the claims made concerning who is going to live in the proposed Newbury project. He questioned the HUD guarantee to complete the project and wondered if the federal money will continue in the face of this economy. He also expressed concern regarding the tax exempt status of the project and urged serious consideration that the finances that may or may not fund this project may leave Newbury high and dry.
Carol Rehor, 47 Newbury Heights Road, Newbury, said the HUD website does not contain a statement regarding the requirements for the additional occupant in the unit. She said the website does not contain any information regarding a live-in attendant to the elderly resident. She said the website states that one person must be 62 years old or older at the time of the application. She submitted information taken from the HUD website. (See Attachment C)
In response, Mr. Coleman read the following: “Although the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHAct) was amended in 1988 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability and familial status, Congress intended to preserve housing specifically designed to meet the needs of senior citizens. Housing that meets the FHAct definition of housing for older persons is exempt from the law’s familial status requirements.” Mr. Coleman continued to read from the document titled “Senior Housing: What you should know…” (See Attachment D)
Ken Dustin, 88 Southgate Road, Newbury, commented on the proposed parking lot and the use of pervious concrete for same. He asked about the reasoning for that.
Mr. Eckman said the pervious surface was used to preserve the water quality. Mr. Dustin asked if this was in lieu of catch basins. Mr. Eckman said it was in lieu of a rain garden.
Mr. Dustin cited a UNH study regarding the use of pervious concrete and the salt and sand used for snow removal. He said in one year the salt eroded the concrete. He urged the Board to look into the study since it means snow removal for that parking lot must contain zero salt.
Mr. Eckman said he is aware of the issue regarding salt.
Shannon Obey, 18 Steves Road, Newbury, asked who will be monitoring the occupants of the project to ensure that only qualified persons are living there.
Mr. Coleman said there will be a project manager on site two to three days a week plus the maintenance staff will be there every day.
Mr. Eckman said the units are only 500 – 600 square feet and wouldn’t allow for more than two people.
Cynthia Trudeau, Bell Cove Road, Newbury, asked if there will be a project manager’s office on site and if it be staffed full time.
Mr. Coleman said the project manager will be on site two to three days a week depending on need. He added that the maintenance staff will be on site daily and would notice if someone is there who shouldn’t be there.
Mr. Vannatta asked what role the project’s board of directors would play in monitoring the occupants.
Mr. Coleman said the board of director’s involvement in this area is not applicable. He said it falls under HUD Fair Housing and will be covered during the certification process applied to all occupants prior to acceptance into the project.
Carl Chistiansen, 22 Proctor Road, Newbury, asked if the Town will have to maintain the project’s parking lot and if the driveway into the project will become a town road.
Mr. Vannatta said that the Town will not have to maintain the project parking lot and that the driveway into the project will not become a Town road.
Harlan Page, 74 Cheney Road, Newbury, asked if there would be sidewalks on Newbury Heights Road for the project residents to use or will the people have to walk down the middle of the road to get to Route 103.
Mr. Littlefield said there will not be sidewalks on Newbury Heights Road and a bus will be provided to transport the residents. He said there is current consideration regarding the old RR bed as a possible non-vehicular walking path. He said he is in the process of discussing the possibility with the land use boards and other interested groups.
Anne Lally, 18 Newbury Heights Road, Newbury, said she has been a social worker in Massachusetts for 33 years and has worked in 16 housing communities. She said an attendant can be a family member and someone who is 18 years old. She said the attendant for this proposed project will probably come from Claremont since New London VNA does not offer home service. She said home attendants are paid and can live in the home. As a result, she said the access road into the project will be very well used by visiting nurses, state homemakers, social workers, and clergy, among others. She said the resulting traffic flow will be very different than anticipated. She expressed concern over walking down and up the road safely.
Rodney Zukowski, 15 Newbury Heights Road, Newbury, referred to the statement made by Mr. Coleman about 180 people in Merrimack County who are on a waiting list to get into a CAP elderly housing project. Mr. Zukowski asked how many from that list are from Newbury.
Mr. Coleman said he did not know.
Mr. Zukowski asked about the need for housing of this kind in Newbury. He said he researched the HUD website and it stated that HUD granted 17 such units to Newbury. He questioned why the Town is considering 34 units.
Kenneth Neilsen, CAP attorney, said CAP sent in two applications, each for 17 units and both were approved.
Mr. Vannatta asked Mr. Neilsen to forward that application to the Board and Mr. Neilsen agreed.
Barbara Lawnicki, 15 Newbury Heights Road, Newbury, noted that at all the meetings held regarding this project – both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Adjustment – she said there have not been low income elderly individuals speaking at these meetings. She said she researched various NH websites and census groups and found there were no more than 30 low income residents listed in Newbury but it did not describe them as elderly. She shared information from the CAP website regarding the board of directors for the project which noted that the board would not control the day-to-day management or overall functioning of the project – that would all be handled by CAP. She also noted that on the CAP website, the project is listed as elderly housing. She
said the CAP Alton project has 40% occupancy under the age of 62. She said there are 73 program services offered at the Alton project which translates into more traffic on the access road. Ms. Lawnicki said AARP research shows that the nationwide trend is for elderly individuals to remain independent and stay in their own homes. They don’t want to move into new construction. She questioned where will the plowed snow piles be placed and if all the parking spaces at the project are full how will emergency vehicles get in and out? (For the complete contents of the above submitted data see Attachment E)
Mr. Caron said the snow piles may be pushed to the low areas on the project site and if there is too much snow a front loader may be brought in for snow removal.
Ms. Lawnicki said there are three designated Indian archeological sites on the property that may not be disturbed and that includes using the sites for snow removal.
Mr. Caron referred to the site plan and described how the snow will be plowed. Also, he said the road will be wider so it will be easier to maintain.
Discussion followed regarding the kind of snow plow that would be practical and more discussion about where the snow piles could be placed on site.
Bob Wilkonski, 243 Winding Brook Road, Newbury, said in the event of a fire in Newbury, surrounding towns typically lend support and send fire apparatus to the scene.
As a result, he said there can be up to five trucks on the scene, not including aerial support. He questioned where the water would come from since there are no fire hydrants on the project site. He also questioned how the sprinkler system would be activated.
Mr. Spaulding said the project architect could answer that question at a future date.
Mr. Wilkonski urged the Board to examine how a fire on site would be handled, how the water source would be accessed, how the access road would handle the responding apparatus, and how the sprinkler system is activated.
Carol Rehor commented on the suggestion by Mr. Wright regarding having the final improvements to the road made after the project construction is completed. She asked how that will impact the residents. She said there is a construction project currently going on in the neighborhood and her tenant said the construction vehicles regularly cause a ten minute delay in getting out of Newbury Heights Road.
Mr. Eckman said access for all residents must be maintained during project construction.
Mr. Vannatta said Ms. Rehor’s question was a good one.
Daryl Mooney asked if Newbury Heights Road is a town road. She said her family has been paying taxes for 90 years and when the town plows Lake View Avenue in the winter, you can’t get up the road and she questioned whether or not the same situation will exist on Newbury Heights Road.
There being no further comments from the public, Mr. Vannatta closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Vannatta noted that a letter was received concerning this application from the following individual:
- Jeffrey E. Trottier (See Attachment F)
Mr. Vannatta noted that sign-off sheets were submitted by the Town’s Road Agent, Police Chief, Fire Chief and Conservation Commission. Mr. Vannatta asked Cal Prussman, Road Agent, to comment on the off-site plans for Newbury Heights Road.
Mr. Prussman said he had a concern with the drainage on Newbury Heights Road but that if the applicant did what they promise to do, the drainage issue would be taken care of. He said he did not think Lake View Avenue will be worked on.
Mr. Vannatta called for a motion to vote on continuing the preliminary site plan review.
Mr. Williams made a motion to continue the preliminary site plan review for the Davis Revocable Trust/CAP Newbury Elderly Housing project until June 21, 2011 at 7:45 p.m. 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.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
