Planning Board
June 21, 2011
Approved July 19, 2011
Members Present: Tom Vannatta, Chair; Ron Williams, Vice-Chair; Bill Weiler, Bruce Healey, Travis Dezotell, Russell Smith, Members; Deane Geddes, Alison Kinsman, Alternates; Rachel Ruppel, Advisor.
Mr. Vannatta called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Will Willis, Jr.
Mr. Vannatta remembered Will Willis, who passed away on Sunday June 19, 2011, as a credit to the community who will be greatly missed. Mr. Vannatta said the funeral is on Wednesday at 11:00 a.m. at the Center Meeting House followed by the burial at the south Newbury Cemetery. A reception will follow at the Town offices at 12:30 p.m.
“Basis of Need” Determination
Mr. Vannatta referred to the agenda item for tonight’s meeting listed under Case 2010-003 titled “Basis of Need”. He said Town counsel advised that it is not the Board’s role to determine need. Mr. Williams said in order for the applicant to receive HUD money, they had to establish need. The agenda item was removed.
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of May 17, 2011 and made corrections. Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mylar for Marc Moran
Mr. Vannatta noted that the mylar for Marc Moran had not arrived and Mr. Moran was not in attendance.
CASE: Case 2011-009: Conceptual- Hokanson Realty LLC/ Ericka Hokanson. Juice & Smoothie stand featuring healthy snacks.
Ms. Hokanson was not in attendance.
CIP Committee
Mr. Vannatta noted that the CIP Committee will begin meeting at the end of July and will meet through August.
OEP Conference
Mr. Williams and Mr. Smith reported on the OEP Conference that was held on June 11, 2011, noting that the seminar offerings were substantial and very educational. Mr. Williams said he would distribute copies of the written materials on the Legal Update session to the Board for future reference.
CASE: Case 2010-003: Continued from 5/17/11: 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.
Conservation Commission (CC) Sign-Off Sheet
Mr. Vannatta noted that the CC Sign-Off Sheet was submitted on April 13, 2011 as requested. (See Attachment A)
Katheryn Holmes, chair of the Conservation Commission, reviewed the CC’s concerns regarding the proposed project. She said the commission members thoroughly reviewed the project and conducted a site visit. The CC concluded that the engineering plan to date [April 13, 2011] looked good on paper but questioned the long term effect of the project on Lake Sunapee. She added that the CC also raised questions about the long term effect on the wetlands that abut the project. She said the applicant would need an alteration of Terrain permit and must apply to the DES Wetlands Bureau for that. Further concerns of the CC include the long term impact of increased traffic, the safe passage for safety vehicles on Newbury Heights Road, and the potential for increased costs to the town for safety services.
There was general discussion about the possibility of opening up the old railroad bed as a walking path and an access point to the Newbury Cut. Discussion included the number of current owners of the RR bed property and the complications involved in getting everyone to agree to a plan of action.
Gerry Gold Letter
Gerry Gold, trail master for the Sunapee-Ragged-Kearsarge Greenway Coalition (SRKG), was present to review his opinions regarding the RR bed and its potential as a footpath linking the proposed project with the Newbury Cut.
Mr. Vannatta referenced a letter dated April 18, 2011from Mr. Gold to Ralph Littlefield, executive director of the Merrimack-Belknap Community Action Program (CAP) regarding the path. (See Attachment B) Mr. Vannatta also referenced a map of the area under discussion that was submitted by Chuck Crickman, Newbury Conservation commission member. (See Attachment C)
Mr. Gold reviewed the history of the SRKG, the scope of recreational trails within its purview, and the opportunity to reconnect the trail head to south Newbury and to the Newbury Cut. He expressed SRKG’s support in using the old RR bed for the purpose of a footpath.
Mr. Littlefield discussed the possibility of CAP donating its portion of the right of way (ROW) if CAP ends up owning the property. He stated that no promises can be made until the entire project is approved and CAP takes ownership of the property.
There was discussion about the benefits of opening up the RR bed as a walking path including the statement that the access that would be created to the proposed project would be half the distance of Newbury heights Road. Additionally, there was discussion regarding the trend in NH to create walkable communities.
Mr. Vannatta noted that whatever brokering transpires regarding converting the RR bed property into a usable footpath, it will be done between/among the property owners involved and does not fall under the Planning Board’s purview.
Lou Caron, LC Engineering Company, LLC
Mr. Caron reported that Eckman Engineering, LLC was up to date regarding their response to the former’s concerns regarding the off-site and on-site plans. There was discussion concerning how the current engineering plan has changed from the original plan submitted earlier in the year. Mr. Caron stated that the plan has evolved positively for the town and the abutters.
Mr. Vannatta asked Mr. Caron about the next step. Mr. Caron said that his oversight would be needed only if the current plan changes. He added that changes to the plan might occur after the wetlands permit is considered by the state and/or after the Alteration of Terrain permit is considered by the ZBA.
Dave Eckman, Eckman Engineering, said the Alteration of Terrain permit is in process. He added that he will bring in the current topos that show there is no steep slope. He said the original topos were done in the winter with snow on the ground.
Mr. Healey asked about the Newbury Heights Road resident who has remaining issues with the off-site road improvements. Mr. Eckman said that Carol Rehor, 47 Newbury Heights Road, will not grant access to her ROW.
CAP Response to Cost Benefit Analysis
Michael Coleman, housing director for CAP, responded to questions raised at the May 17, 2011 meeting concerning the Cost Benefit Analysis information presented by CAP at the meeting.
Mr. Coleman read into the record CAP’s responses in a letter dated June 14, 2011. (See Attachment D).
Mr. Vannatta asked if the proposed project will be bid out to contractors. Mr. Coleman said yes. Mr. Vannatta asked about the guarantee that Newbury/local contractors will get any of the bids. Mr. Coleman said there is no guarantee but it is more than likely that the project will benefit local contractors (carpenters/framers) who will bid out to the project contractor of the project.
There was further discussion regarding project contractors and the regulations surrounding a project like this. Mr. Coleman said this project would be bid out under a general contractor, per HUD regulations. Mr. Healey noted that HUD regulations are complex which would preclude a local contractor from being able to compete.
There was further general discussion concerning general contractors, sub contractors and the HUD regulations governing a project of this size.
Clerk of the Works Function
Mr. Vannatta asked who chooses the parties or party authorized by the Town to oversee the appointed Clerk of the Works for the project. Mr. Coleman said Eckman Engineering would be the Clerk of the Work for the project and the town could choose anyone to act as overseer.
Mr. Smith asked for a definition of an “adult co-head” of the household. Mr. Coleman said it is a man and a woman living together but not married.
Ms. Ruppel asked about the cost increase of safety services to the towns that have similar CAP projects in them. Mr. Coleman said he has been unable to get that information.
There was discussion concerning an adult child who is an attendant for the head of the household.
Mr. Nielsen submitted copies of the two accepted applications from HUD for this
Project, dated January 26, 2008. (See Attachment E)
Architectural Drawings
Richard Curtis, of Richard Curtis & Associates, presented architectural drawings of the project. He described the exterior colors and said the building, floor plans and elevations are unchanged.
Mr. Healey, referring to the May 17, 2011 final meeting minutes, followed up on a question asked at that meeting about how an on-site fire would be handled. The minutes stated that, “Mr. Spaulding said the project architect could answer that question at a future date.” The question pertained to the water source for fighting a fire and how the sprinkler system would be activated.
Mr. Curtis said the water source for the sprinkler system will be an underground cistern that will be fed from the well and contain 5,000 to 10,000 gallons of water. He said the cistern is not yet designed and will be handled by the sprinkler system company.
Mr. Healey asked where additional water would come from for the responding fire apparatus on site. Mr. Curtis said he wasn’t sure if the cistern could be accessed.
Mr. Healey said that means that the question about additional water sources cannot be answered. Mr. Curtis said that’s right, the cistern has not been designed and will not be designed until after the project has received approval. He added that the fire department will have to sign off on the sprinkler system and the question of accessing the cistern.
Mr. Dezotell said there is also a question on whether the existing fire trucks would be needed to augment the pumping system for the sprinkler system. Mr. Curtis said the fire pump must be designed to handle all the suppression needed to activate the sprinkler system. Mr. Curtis said they are rapid response heads.
Mr. Williams noted that an overall fire plan is needed for the project and added that the water source is a question for the fire department.
There was further general discussion concerning water sources for the fire department.
Mr. Healey asked Mr. Nielsen why this project had two applications, each for 17 units. Mr. Nielsen said the application process is a national competition and that 17 units were granted to Newbury and there were 17 units left over within the national competition that were added to the Newbury application.
There was discussion about the application process, the length of time between the application award notification and the first meeting with the town, alternative locations and why CAP chose Newbury. Mr. Nielsen said CAP responds to inquiries from towns and Newbury must have contacted CAP.
Why Newbury?
Mr. Healey referred to published statistics about the two counties CAP covers noting there are 38 communities in total. He noted that Newbury’s size in comparison with the communities in Belknap is consistently smaller than over 30 other communities. Likewise, Newbury is smaller than over 20 communities in Merrimack county.
Mr. Nielsen said there is a demand throughout New England for this type of housing and added that Newbury helped CAP in identifying potential locations for this project.
Long Term Ground Lease
Mr. Nielsen said a long term ground lease is typically for 10 years longer than the mortgage on the property.
Mr. Healey asked if the project site is a long term ground lease. Mr. Nielsen said this is a straightforward sale and purchase. Mr. Healey referred to the Cost Benefit Analysis statement submitted by Mr. Coleman at the May 17, 2011meeting, page 4 of Attachment 1, which reads as follows: “One factor contributing to the shortage of affordable housing is the lack of affordable land. CAP is securing this property for this project with a long term ground lease which will eliminate the large upfront cost of purchasing the land with limited HUD funds.”
Mr. Nielsen said that was copied off the original application but that he has drafted a purchase and sale agreement for this property.
Payment in Lieu of Taxes
There was discussion about the project’s property tax rate. It was noted that the project would be assessed by the town tax assessor and a negotiated rate of tax would result. The final tax payment would be a non-school tax rate. Mr. Coleman estimated that the tax amount for the project would be about $25,000.
UVLSPC Letter
Mr. Vannatta shared the December 15, 2010 letter from the Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission concerning this project. (See Attachment F). The letter contained regional impact concerns including the access from the site to the Newbury harbor regarding vehicular and pedestrian safety, the project impact on regional wetlands, stormwater management, potable water, and runoff into the lake.
Mr. Vannatta read into the record the following paragraph: “Finally, you may find it useful to contact the Town of Sunapee about a comparable development in Sunapee, Sunapee Cove Assisted Living. While we understand this development has recently closed, discussions with Sunapee Town Staff or Planning Board and community members familiar with the project may provide useful insight regarding likely impacts from elderly housing projects.”
Paragraph 12.3 Harmonious and Aesthetic Development
The Board decided to review Paragraph 12.3 of the Site Plan Review regulations at the July 19, 2011 meeting.
There being no further discussion from the Board, Mr. Vannatta opened the public portion of the meeting.
Carol Rehor, 47 Newbury Heights Road, Newbury, asked if the RR bed is definitely happening. Mr. Vannatta said no, it is under discussion among all the groups heard tonight but it is an issue to be dealt with among them, not the Board. Ms. Rehor said it is being used to weigh the decision concerning pedestrian traffic. Mr. Vannatta said the RR path is not being considered as an access. Ms. Rehor asked if the project goes through, will that property be given back to the town and if so, how? Mr. Nielsen said that CAP would be the party involved and able to give back that portion of the RR bed that transferred with this piece of property. Ms. Rehor asked if the only way the Town is regaining access back to the greenway is if this project goes through. Mr. Nielsen said
yes.
Ed Rehor, 47 Newbury Heights Road, Newbury, questioned the tax benefit to this project because it will not be paying the school rate portion of taxes. He noted that federal monies are paying for the property when the country is in a serious economic decline. He added that he thought the Davises would allow hikers to use their portion of the RR bed for access but doubted that hikers would want to come upon a two story building in the middle of the woods. He expressed concern over the safety of the intersection of Newbury Heights Road and Route 103. He stated that a census study indicating that 60 percent of the people in Newbury said they don’t want a two story building in town. He complimented the Board on its thoroughness in questioning the applicant at this meeting.
He questioned what else could be done to stop this project. Mr. Vannatta said the Planning board cannot give that kind of direction. Mr. Rehor said he understood that to be the case. He submitted pictures of vernal pools on the property. (See Attachments) He said while there may be a need for elderly housing, he did not feel there is a need here in Newbury.
Barbara Lawnicki, 15 Newbury Heights Road, Newbury, submitted an article from the Concord Monitor, May 16, 2011, titled “Hundreds of Millions Lost in HUD”. (See Attachments) She also submitted photos of a protected wood turtle found on the property. (See Attachments) She noted that there are regulations surrounding the protection of the wood turtle. She noted that since the Rehors are not willing to grant access to their ROW, the entrance to the proposed project will be narrow which causes concern for safety vehicles getting into the project. She raised concerns over the road safety in the presence of delivery trucks, snow and safety vehicles.
Ms. Rehor asked how close to her septic system the proposed road widening will be. Mr. Eckman said he is within the ROW. She said if the road is widened it will alter the setback of her septic system. Mr. Eckman said they are not encroaching on Ms. Rehor’s setback because they are within the ROW.
Katheryn Holmes asked for clarification on the required permits – alteration of terrain, wetlands and steep slope. Mr. Eckman said permits are required for Alteration of Terrain and wetlands but not for steep slope.
Jeffrey Trottier, Old Post Road, Newbury, said he is a degreed geographer and has studied demographics and urban development. He expressed concern over the property tax question raised earlier. He questioned the description of “proximity to town shops” as misleading, noting that groceries and other daily essential shopping is not available in downtown Newbury. He referred to the now-vacant building at Sargents Landing and suggested that CAP consider buying that building for a low income elderly housing project. (Applause) He questioned how this project will adequately compensate the town for the added costs of roadwork, safety services, police and fire protection. He noted that 34 living units tapping into existing wells will have a significant impact on the
water table. He suggested that the Board fully investigate every aspect of this proposed project to determine if there is a real value to the community. He said this project doesn’t suit this community. Mr. Vannatta asked if any tests have been conducted concerning the issue of water. Mr. Eckman said they are in the middle of the testing process and it follows very rigorous state procedures. He said it requires three gallons per minute to run the project and seven gallons per minute is the norm. He added that he doesn’t expect any problems meeting those baseline numbers.
Alison Kinsman, Mountain Road, Newbury, described why Newbury was chosen for a project like this. She said over 30 years ago her husband’s grandmother who lived in Newbury for many years found she couldn’t live on her own anymore and had to leave Newbury to move into a low income housing project elsewhere. She said her husband decided then to work towards developing housing for elderly in Newbury to prevent the trauma of separation that he and his family went through. She said her husband talked with the Selectmen, HUD came in and secured funding for the project and then a decision was made that the Kinsman property was not suitable and the process went from there to where it is today.
Barbara Gibson, 1 Lakeside Road, Newbury, said a project like this is more suitable for a larger community. She said a project that houses just the elderly mean more ambulance service and other support services. She said these residents can’t afford to pay for those services so Newbury will have to. Mr. Coleman said federal insurance programs will pay for ambulance services. Ms. Rehor said that’s true as well for those elderly living in accessory apartments in Newbury.
Frank Williams, Brookside Road, Newbury, said the government is broke and shouldn’t be spending any more government funds. (Applause) Mr. Vannatta said the money for this project is already allocated.
Anne Lally, 18 Newbury Heights Road, Newbury, said she wanted to clarify the record to say she did not give Mr. Eckman or the project permission to encroach on her ROW. Mr. Eckman apologized for any misunderstanding. Ms. Lally said the attendant program pertaining to this resident population means that the resident can hire any family member over age 18 as an attendant.
Sylvia Johnson, Blodgett’s Landing, Newbury, said she has lived here since 1974 and expressed concern over further pollution of Lake Sunapee and noted that 34 units with 34 toilets presents that possibility. She also questioned the effect a project of this size will have on the water table.
Mr. Rehor said he spoke with one of the Selectmen who noted the degree of public opposition has grown substantially and questioned the successful passage of the application.
Linda Borders, 936 Route 103, Newbury, said there were two men on her property looking for her well. Mr. Eckman said there were attempts made to notify residents that men would be working in the area. Ms. Borders said she was not notified. Mr. Vannatta suggested that Mr. Eckman improve his notification strategy.
There being no further comments from the public, Mr. Vannatta closed the public portion of the meeting.
There was further discussion concerning the calculations involved in the payment in lieu of taxes formula.
Escrow Account
Mr. Vannatta noted that the escrow account has not been refreshed and outstanding bills from Lou Caron cannot be paid. He outlined two options for the Board to consider: (1) do not move beyond a preliminary hearing on this application until enough money is in the escrow account to cover all outstanding bills; or (2) deny the application because of non-compliance.
There was discussion concerning the most appropriate next step. It was the Board’s consensus to authorize Mr. Vannatta to write another letter to Mr. Littlefield regarding the unacceptable situation concerning the escrow account.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to continue the preliminary site plan review to July 19, 2011 at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Mr. Vannatta said he will invite the Police Chief and Fire Chief to respond to questions concerning the safety issues surrounding this project at the July 19, 2011 meeting.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 10:27 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
