Planning Board
July 19, 2011
Approved August 16, 2011
Members Present: Ron Williams, Vice-Chair; Bill Weiler, Bruce Healey, Members; Deane Geddes, Alison Kinsman, Alternates; Rachel Ruppel, Advisor; Jim Powell, ex-officio.
Mr. Williams chaired the meeting due to the absence of Tom Vannatta, Chair.
Mr. Williams called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Williams appointed Mr. Geddes and Ms. Kinsman as voting members for this meeting.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of June 21, 2011and made corrections. Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
CASE: Case 2011-010: Final Hearing/ Lot Line Adjustment- Bell Engineering, Inc. Robert Bell 603-763-8727.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application for a Final Hearing for a Lot Line Adjustment from Bell Engineering, Inc & Bart & Jane Henderson, for property located on High Point Road, Newbury, NH, Tax Map 030-288-296 and 030-314-262 on Tuesday, July 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. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
David Krause, agent, presented to the Board.
Mr. Krause said the property is up near the end of High Point Road and described Bart & Jean Henderson’s property as being 10.08 acres with a stone wall as one boundary. He said Bell Engineering owns an adjacent property which is 12.13 acres. He said the Henderson’s constructed a tree house across the property lines. Mr. Krause said the proposal is to transfer 4,670 square feet – just over 1/10th of an acre – from the Bell parcel to the Henderson parcel. He said after the transfer the Bell parcel would be reduced to 12.02 acres and the Henderson parcel would be increased to 10.19 acres. He said the frontage would not be changed for either lot and there are no additional lots created.
There being no questions from the Board, Mr. Williams opened the public portion of the hearing.
There being no public comment, Mr. Williams closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Williams asked the Board for further discussion. There being none, he called for a motion.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr. Healey seconded the motion.
Mr. Williams called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Geddes, Mr. Powell, Mr. Healey, Ms. Kinsman, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Williams.
Opposed: None.
Mr. Williams advised Mr. Krause that he or any party directly affected by this decision may appeal to the proper Board within thirty (30) days of this decision.
CASE: Case 2011-009: Conceptual- Hokanson Realty LLC/ Ericka Hokanson. Juice & Smoothie stand featuring healthy snacks.
Ms. Hokanson described her business as a seasonal organic juice and smoothie stand offering healthy snacks. She said it will consist of a sophisticated lemonade stand located on the lawn next to the parking lot at the Outspokin’ Building which she and her brother own. The stand would consist of a large folding table with a canopy for inclement weather. She said everything will be portable so it could be broken down and stored inside if needed.
There was discussion concerning the category of use and whether this concept requires a site plan review. Mr. Williams said it is a commercial use because the location was an existing commercial business. Ms. Hokanson said there will not be additional employees at this time and there will be ample parking available.
Mr. Healey asked if signage was planned. Ms. Hokanson said there will be a folding sign and possibly a banner. Mr. Healey recommended that Ms. Hokanson read the ordinance pertaining to signs for guidance.
Mr. Powell agreed and added that a seasonal sign could probably be obtained for 180 days which would most likely cover Ms. Hokanson’s selling period. He added that the state health department regulations must be addressed as well and recommended that Ms. Hokanson contact Wayne Whitford, the Town’s health/safety officer for more information on that.
There was further discussion concerning the business use category. Mr. Weiler noted that the proposed site is that of a bicycle shop, which is considered retail trade. He questioned whether selling lemonade/smoothies was also considered retail trade.
Ms. Ruppel said that since there is no on- site seating planned, the proposed business is not considered a restaurant and could be considered a retail trade use.
There was discussion about other mobile food operations in town, specifically the hot dog stand by the caboose. Mr. Powell said the hot dog stand owner is regulated by the state health department and the town does not regulate his business since he has been operating for so long.
Mr. Williams suggested that Ms. Hokanson provide a sketch of the stand location on the Outspokin’ site. Ms. Ruppel requested that the sketch include parking availability. Mr. Weiler recommended that the sketch be submitted as an amendment to the existing Outspokin’ site plan on file and filed as such. The Board concurred.
CASE: Continued from 6/21…
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
Mr. Powell and Ms. Kinsman recused themselves from this hearing.
The Board reviewed the following preliminary site plan requirements:
Article 10, Application Requirements, 10.1 – 10.14
The Board determined that the requirements of 10.1 through 10.7.9 have been addressed.
10.7.10: Mr. Williams asked Mr. Eckman about any additional information relative to steep slopes. Mr. Eckman said the survey was originally done in the winter and a few topo shots were taken at that time. Since then, he said topos were taken in abundance. He said visible terraces appeared between the steep slopes. Mr. Eckman said this information will be on the next set of plans for Lou Caron, the Board’s consulting engineer, to review.
10.7.11: Mr. Eckman said the property has been surveyed up to the boundary and there are some large wetlands. He said the wetlands have been located approximately, based on the state maps. Mr. Healey said the regulations cite 200’beyond the site plan yet Mr. Eckman indicated the survey has been done up to the boundary. Ms. Ruppel said that requirement was waived.
10.7.12: Mr. Spaulding said there is a design to show utilities. Mr. Eckman said construction approval has not yet been received from DES.
10.7.12.1: Ms. Ruppel asked if the questions surrounding the water supply for fire protection have been addressed. Mr. Eckman said there is a sprinkler system in the building and there is a 3,000 gallon tank (plus or minus), the size of which will be up to the fire department chief. Mr. Eckman said the tank is just for the sprinkler system. He said there has been discussion with the Fire Chief about additional water supply, nozzle sizes, etc. Mr. Eckman said Lake Sunapee may be the additional supply source for the fire department if needed. Mr. Williams said the Board will need the additional sign-off from the Fire Chief.
10.7.12.2: Mr. Spaulding said all the layout has been done and they are awaiting final construction approval from the state, which will be part of the final plans.
10.7.12.3: Mr. Eckman said the plans are very far along as far as the interior of the building.
10.7.12.4: Mr. Eckman said there is a site lighting plan but was unsure about the question of signage. Mr. Spaulding said there won’t be a lighted sign and said he wasn’t sure if the entrance sign was on the plans. Mr. Williams that item will be needed.
10.7.12.5: Mr. Eckman said all utilities on site are buried and that there will be no change to the off-site utilities except for one utility pole near the ROW.
10.7.12.7: Richard Curtis, project architect, said there are no cooling towers and geo thermal heat is going to be used throughout the project. He said there will not be any water taken out of the ground for this system and it will be a closed loop system and will deliver heat and cooling to the units.
10.8: Mr. Eckman said the landscaping plan is complete including a picnic area and incorporating the suggestions made by Mr. Caron.
10.9: Mr. Eckman said there is a watershed plan for pre-development and a watershed plan for post-development including a temporary erosion control measures during construction. Mr. Eckman noted that Mr. Caron reviewed the drainage calculations in the plan along with all other aspects of the plan.
10.11.2: Mr. Williams asked about the number of employees. Mr. Spaulding said there will be one employee on site who will monitor the project. Mr. Williams asked for a description of duties for the one employee. Mr. Coleman said that was not a requirement of the ordinance. The description of duties fits that of a property manager. Mr. Eckman said that can be added to the plans.
Mr. Williams asked for clarification regarding the employee’s authority, the project advisory group’s responsibilities, and the community board of director’s authority. Mr. Coleman said the property will be owned by a non-profit organization called Newbury Elderly Housing, Inc. The board of directors/advisory group will be a volunteer group made up of Newbury residents. Mr. Williams said there are questions remaining concerning the purpose of the advisory group.
Ralph Littlefield, executive director of Merrimack-Belknap Counties Community Action Program, said the board of directors will function in the same capacity as a similar group for any other community organization. He said this board will approve the budget, and review and approve all the financial information connected with the development. He added that the board will own the property but will not be reimbursed for any of the work they do on behalf of the corporation. He said it will function as any other board of directors of a non-profit organization. He said CAP acts as the sponsor of the program at this point. He said when the project goes to closing, the corporation will take over.
Ms. Ruppel asked who will be responsible for conducting the resident background checks and determining eligibility. Mr. Littlefield said CAP will be responsible for that.
Mr. Coleman said the preference for Newbury residents occurs not only during initial occupancy but also throughout all future openings. He added that Newbury residents will go to the top of the waiting list when an opening occurs.
Mr. Williams noted that 10.11.4 has been submitted, and 10.11.5 and 10.11.6 have been provided.
10.12: Mr. Williams noted that updated sign-off sheets from the Board of Selectmen, Police Department, Fire Department, Highway Department, and Conservation Commission will be required by the next hearing date, per the written request of the Board Chair, Mr. Vannatta.
Article 12, Standards and Requirements, 12.1 – 12.14
The Board determined that the requirements of 12.1 through 12.2 have been addressed.
12.3: Mr. Healey referred to 2.2.1 and the need for ensuring that any project results in a harmonious interaction with neighboring lots. He asked if this development is viewed as harmonious within this community and its neighboring lots. Mr. Spaulding said the proposed building fits into the neighborhood very well. He said it’s a single building and a number of changes to the plans have been made as requested by the Planning Board. Mr. Curtis noted that it is one building but has been designed to be broken up as much as possible.
The Board determined that the requirements of 12.4 through 12.7 have been addressed.
12.8: Mr. Geddes asked about an alternate emergency access to the site. Mr. Williams said the plans appear to provide adequate access but do not contain an alternate emergency access. He added that additional property must be taken in order to have an alternate emergency access and that would involve the issue of eminent domain, which the Town is unlikely to pursue. Mr. Weiler said the topic of alternate access was discussed at the beginning of the preliminary application review.
Ms. Ruppel said 12.8.4 states that the Board will rely on the written input given by the Town safety services.
Mr. Spaulding said such written input is already incorporated into the plans. Mr. Williams said updated written input is needed from the safety services, highway department and Conservation Commission. Ms. Ruppel concurred.
There was further discussion about the content of the sign off written input.
There was discussion about the size of the cistern and the sprinkler system. Mr. Williams said the Board wants to hear from the Fire Chief in a written statement about the proposed cistern and fire protection provisions.
The Board determined that the requirements of 12.9 through 12.11 have been addressed.
12.12: Mr. Healey noted that, although there has been discussion about opening the old railroad bed as a possible pedestrian access path, no pedestrian paths have been provided in this plan. Mr. Eckman agreed. Mr. Spaulding said sidewalks have been designed around the building.
Mr. Healey reminded the applicant that one of the purposes of this project location is for the residents to have access to community services. Mr. Spaulding agreed, adding that there has been discussion about donating the portion of RR bed on the property as a potential pedestrian path. Mr. Healey noted that the suggestion of opening the old RR bed path is not part of this plan and may occur among all the RR bed property owners if this plan is approved.
Mr. Littelfield described the discussions to date among area trail groups, HUD, and the Town regarding the necessary steps involved in opening up the path access after the project is completed.
Mr. Geddes asked who would be financially responsible for upgrading and maintaining the RR path if it is deeded over to the Town or other group as a pedestrian path. Mr. Littlefield said the Town would carry that financial responsibility.
There was further discussion about the cost involved in opening the RR bed as a possible pedestrian path.
Mr. Williams said the Planning Board has no authority to make a determination concerning the RR bed path and that it is a discussion that belongs to other groups within the Town.
The Board determined that the requirements of 12.13 and 12.13 have been addressed.
Article 15, Security for Construction Improvements, 15.1
Mr. Williams noted that there has been previous discussion about security. Mr. Littlefield said HUD requires 100% bond on the property including site related issues and the building. He said in past projects, the town has the final word on whether the building has been built to specifications acceptable to the town. He added that HUD will not make final payments or release the bond until the town has issued an occupancy permit for the building. He said the bond(s) cover on site and offsite improvements as well as the building.
Ms. Ruppel cited 9.16.5 of the sub division regulations regarding how to calculate a security and/or performance bond. Mr. Williams said it is likely that Town counsel will review this thoroughly.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Williams opened that meeting to the public for comment.
Carol Rehor, 47 Newbury Heights Road, questioned how this project could be considered as blending into the existing neighborhood, given the fact that it is a two story apartment building in the midst of a single family residential neighborhood. She expressed concern about the turnaround area adjacent to her property being used for overflow parking for this project. She cited the detrimental effect of parking light pollution from the project lighting at night since all the houses in the neighborhood are built on embankments. She invited the Planning Board to visit the neighborhood at night to see how a fully-lighted development will affect the existing quality of life of the neighborhood.
Ed Rehor, 47 Newbury Heights Road, expressed concern about the amount of traffic this project will create. He questioned the reliability of HUD to ensure full payment to complete the project and to do the necessary ongoing maintenance and repairs. He cited the presence of vernal pools on the project property and asked if the construction would affect those areas. He asked about the water runoff created by the construction.
Mr. Williams said Mr. Caron will advise the Board regarding all those issues.
Barbara Gibson, 1 Lakeside Road, raised the question about the profit involved for the landowner who is selling the property in question. Mr. Williams said it is not a matter for the Planning Board to examine since it is a private sale.
Barbara Lawnicki, 15 Newbury Heights Road, referred to the claim that the town will oversee the operations of the corporation once the project is completed, noting that she contacted the established projects in Warner and Franklin to find out what the board of directors do. She said the projects are regulated and governed by HUD and the local board of directors has no jurisdiction over the project. She questioned CAP’ assurance that Newbury residents will always take precedence for occupancy. She requested that the Town conduct its own traffic study instead of relying on the information provided by the applicant. She emphasized the need to consider the safety factors involved with increased traffic entering Route 103. She said the possibility of the RR bed becoming a
pedestrian path is not part of this application and should not enter this discussion.
Daryl Mooney, 26 Lakeview Drive, questioned the effect on the neighboring wells from the amount of water needed by the project on a daily basis. She asked if the neighborhood will experience a drop in their water pressure as a result of this project. She asked if there would be a lighted sign for the project at the end of the road on Route 103. Mr. Eckman said there not be a sign at that location, only on site.
Ms. Rehor said she and her husband have their house on the market and that two people who were interested withdrew once they learned that there was a HUD project adjacent to the neighborhood.
Sylvia Johnson, a Newbury resident, wanted to know why this project could not go to a public vote. She asked why CAP/HUD chose Newbury. Mr. Williams said the Board of Selectmen invited them to consider Newbury.
Ms. Mooney questioned the inclusion of the discussion of the RR bed as a possible pedestrian path.
Ms. Gibson asked for clarification on why Newbury was chosen for this project. Mr. Littlefield reviewed the CAP/HUD selection process.
Rod Zukowski, 15 Newbury Heights Road, questioned how this two story apartment building could be considered as fitting into an existing single family residential neighborhood. He cited a past poll of Newbury residents indicating 60% of residents do not want a two story building in town.
Mimi Colletti, 20 Ramblewood Place, recommended putting this proposed project to a town vote. Mr. Williams noted that there is no provision in the site plan regulations for that, adding any resident may submit a petition for consideration as a warrant article at Town Meeting.
Ms. Mooney said the Board members are elected officials of the town and, as such, should consider the opinions of the public expressed at public hearings when making a decision concerning this project.
There being no further comments from the public, Mr. Williams closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Weiler asked whether a hydrology report is planned to address the impact to the wells on site and the wells off-site. Mr. Eckman said testing has been done within a 1,000 foot radius with attention to changes in the neighboring wells during testing. He said all wells within that distance may be tested with abutter permission. He added that if permission is not forthcoming, there is no obligation to test that well. He added that the testing process is in-depth.
Mr. Healey asked Mr. Curtis about the on-site lighting and its potential for reflection back into abutters’ properties. Mr. Curtis said the lighting is directed downward but there might be some glow in the air.
Ms. Ruppel asked about the turnaround expansion for snow plows. Mr. Eckman said the turnaround is on CAP/HUD property.
Mr. Spaulding asked if a final application may be submitted. Mr. Williams said he was OK with that.
Mr. Healey noted that it was his understanding that Mr. Vannatta wanted further information submitted concerning safety services comments before moving the application into final review status.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Geddes seconded the motion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 9:24 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
