Planning Board
September 6, 2011
Approved October 4, 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 7:12 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act
June Fichter, executive director, Lake Sunapee Protective Association (LSPA), presented a Summary of Changes made to the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act by House Bill 2 (HB 2) in the 2011 legislative session (see Attachment).
Ms. Fichter reviewed the changes in the new Shoreland protection Act, now called the Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act. Specifically, she discussed changes in the areas of Permit by Notification (PBN), Waterfront Buffer, Natural Woodland Buffer, and 15 other itemized changes. She noted that the changeswill result in weakening the old Shoreland Protection Act.
Ms. Fichter requested that the Board not change the Town’s existing shoreland protection regulations because they represent more stringent protective measures than the recently passed HB 2. She added that the new Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act allows a more lenient buffer zone which could result in more damage to the water bodies in Newbury.
Katheryn Holmes, chair, Newbury Conservation Commission (CC), agreed and questioned which regulations carry – the Town’s more stringent regulations or the state’s more lenient regulations. Ms. Fichter said the Towns regulations would carry.
There was discussion about oversight and follow up in light of the increasing employee cutbacks within the Department of Environmental Services (DES).
There was discussion about the CC’s role in signing off on PBNs and the continued challenge of educating property owners abutting water bodies regarding the Town regulations versus the state regulations.
Ms. Holmes asked about the consequences to the property owner who violates the shoreland regulations. Mr. Weiler said it is the responsibility of the Board of Selectmen to initiate proceedings in the event of a violation.
There was discussion about impervious surfaces and the Board reviewed Paragraph 7.11 Impervious Surfaces in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Williams raised the topic of ducks on Lake Sunapee and the impact on the people who swim in it, namely a condition called “swimmer’s itch”. Mr. Williams suggested that the three towns surrounding Lake Sunapee form an ordinance that carries a penalty for feeding ducks. There was discussion about ways to discourage the feeding of the ducks through additional signs.
Mr. Vannatta thanked Ms. Fichter and Ms. Holmes for their presentation and discussion.
Ms. Ruppel said the topic of rural water systems will be covered at the upcoming UVLSRPC workshop on September 28, 2011.
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of August 2, 2011 and made corrections. Mr. Williams made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion. All in favor.
Proposed Amendments to Zoning Ordinance
Ms. Ruppel reviewed the proposed amendment to the definition for road frontage in the zoning ordinance. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the definition of road frontage and frontage requirements in Business and Residential Districts. Under discussion were Paragraphs 2.58 Frontage, Road; 4.5 Frontage Requirement; and 5.8 Frontage Requirement.
Amendments to Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations
Ms. Ruppel reviewed the state laws pertaining to changes in the subdivision and site plan review regulations (RSA 676:4, 1(b)). She noted that the state laws indicate that an application cannot be denied as incomplete if pending state permits are not present. Such missing permits may be conditions of approval.
Ms. Ruppel referred the Board to Paragraph 9.18 Agency or Permit Approvals, of the Newbury Land Subdivision Control Regulations. Significant discussion followed regarding the existing language and how to incorporate the language in Paragraph 9.18 and Paragraph 10.12 of the Newbury Site Plan Review Regulations, and the need to make sure the regulations comply with the state law. Ms. Ruppel agreed to present a proposed amendment for review at the October 4, 2011 meeting.
Ms. Ruppel reviewed the recent changes in state law regarding waiver requirements (RSA 674:36) and presented an amendment to Paragraph 4.10 Waiver Requirements for review.
Ms. Ruppel discussed recent requirements pertaining to Notification of the Dam Safety Bureau. Effective August 13, 2011, the Dam Safety Bureau wants to know when any development downstream from a dam is being considered by the Planning Board. The new regulation (HB 205) calls for sending the full abutter notification list to the Dam Safety Bureau if the subdivision or site plan for building is within 500 feet of shoreland. Ms. Ruppel noted that this requirement is for Planning Board applications only and applies to all bodies of water affected by the proximity to dams. Significant discussion followed. The Board agreed to leave the requirement as a state law and not make it a Town regulation.
Conditions Precedent/Conditions Subsequent Review
Mr. Weiler noted that “conditions precedent” meant the application would not be approved until the applicant met all the conditions listed. There was discussion about placing a reasonable time limit on the conditions and if the conditions were not met within that time limit the application approval would be null and void.
Mr. Vannatta reviewed the advice given by Town counsel on the topic as follows: (1) to place a reasonable time limit of 60 to 90 days on the conditions; and (2) until all the conditions are met and approved by the Board, the plat will not be signed by the Board. He added that Town counsel stated that the applicant should be doing due diligence to meet the conditions within the 60 to 90 day time limit to ensure all permits, etc. are in process.
Mr. Weiler defined “conditions subsequent” as things that the developer promises to do outside of the scope of the regulations such as off-site work. The certificate of occupancy would require that conditions are met.
Mr. Weiler discussed a new form that he prepared for the Notice of Decision which includes five spaces for the “conditions precedent” which will vary from case to case. The sixth space requires the provision of security to ensure the completion of improvements. The seventh space requires the signing of the Development Agreement, which is a new concept.
The Development Agreement is a draft two-page Subdivision Development Agreement that details what is expected of the developer by the Planning Board. The Agreement ensures that the subdivision is built according to plans submitted, within a reasonable time frame, and completed as agreed. The Agreement dovetails with the letter of irrevocable credit and the Notice of Decision. Mr. Weiler added that the Development Agreement will protect the Town from being left with unfinished development projects.
Mr. Weiler requested that further work on the draft document be tabled until the winter. The Board agreed.
CIP Status and Schedule
Mr. Vannatta reported that the CIP has met three times and a final draft of its proposed budget has been prepared and distributed for CIP review. The committee considered capital projects only. He added that the Board will meet with the CIP in October to review the proposed budget.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 9:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
