Planning Board
September 20, 2011
Approved November 1, 2011
Members Present: Tom Vannatta, Chair; Ron Williams, Vice-Chair; Bill Weiler, Bruce Healey, Russell Smith, Members; Deane Geddes, Alison Kinsman, Alternates; Rachel Ruppel, Advisor.
Mr. Vannatta called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of August 16, 2011 and made corrections. Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
LSPA Infrastructure Project
Ms. Ruppel stated that there is an afternoon meeting on September 28, 2011 regarding the implementation stage of the Lake Sunapee Protective Association (LSPA) infrastructure study. She said the Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission (UVLSRPC) has received funding to begin taking steps towards implementation of the study’s findings. Mr. Vannatta noted that the Board members will receive copies of the meeting notice.
CASE: Case 2011-012: Conceptual- Minor Subdivision- Rick Deschenes. 387-1196.
Map/Lot 036-523-439.
Mr. Deschenes said he owns a 6.5 acre lot on Newell Road in Newbury and wants to
divide it into two lots. He said Lot #1 would be three acres (+/-) with an existing
driveway and house, which he plans to keep. Lot #2 would be three and a half acres (+/-).
There is an existing 75 foot ROW on Lot #2 with the abutter, Christine Zado and there is
a total of 693 feet of road frontage.
Mr. Healey asked about the presence of wetlands. Mr. Deschenes said one small section
of steep slope has been identified but it is minor. Mr. Geddes asked if there are any signs
of deer. Mr. Deschenes said no.
Mr. Vannatta reviewed the application process for a minor subdivision with Mr.
Deschenes and advised him to contact the Land Use Coordinator for guidance on the
Application process.
CASE: Case 2011-013: Conceptual Site Plan Review – NH Electric Co-op. Wants to
put communication dishes on top of Mt. Sunapee.
Jennifer McCourt, McCourt Engineering Associates, PLLC, and Peter Phipps, NH
Electric Co-op, co-presented to the Board. Mr. Phipps said the purpose of this project was
to place additional communication dishes at the existing site for the exclusive purpose of secure communication between NH Electric Co-op and its clients.
There was significant discussion about how to proceed. Mr. Weiler noted that a site plan for the original project was approved by the Board a number of years ago. He suggested updating the original site plan with an executive summary, photos of the additional dishes and the original structure, the FCC license and letter of authorization.
Mr. Weiler volunteered to research the original site plan and report to the Board. Mr. Vannatta suggested that the Board revisit this topic at its work session meeting on October 4, 2011. The Board agreed.
CASE: Case 2011-003: Final Hearing/ Site Plan Review (Continued from August 16,
2011) & Conditional Use Permit- 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 for this hearing.
Mr. Vannatta appointed Mr. Geddes as a voting member for this hearing.
Mr. Vannatta noted that this is a continuance from August 16, 2011 of the final site plan review on the above application. He said the Board accepted this application as complete on that date and that one item was still pending – the sign off/commentary sheet from the Conservation Commission. Mr. Vannatta requested that the Board continue with the final site plan review before addressing the conditional use permit application since information scheduled for presentation at tonight’s meeting may have an impact on the conditional use permit application. The Board agreed.
Mr. Vannatta invited Ralph Littlefield, executive director, Community Action Program (CAP) Belknap-Merrimack Counties, Inc., to present to the Board. Mr. Littlefield indicated that the off-site and on-site details of the application would be presented by five people.
Gary Spaulding, of g.r. Spaulding Design, reviewed the alternatives for secondary access to the site that have been considered as follows:
- Option A - access behind the Post Office down the existing railroad (RR) ROW and into the site. He said the problems with this option included obtaining ROW on the multiple pieces of property along the RR bed owned by others, and crossing sensitive wetland areas. He said this option was discarded because of the eight-step program within HUD for crossing a wetland and the estimated cost of over $600,000.
- Option B - access through the Newbury Historical Railroad Cut off Route 103 and into the site. He said this option was discarded because of the historical value of the Newbury Cut, the amount of blasting required to get a road through the Cut and the estimated cost of $1 million.
- Option C - access through Stone Face Excavation/Josh Perkin’s property to the site. Mr. Spaulding said this option was discarded because the building had to be moved, two culverts replaced, a wetlands crossing which required HUD’s eight-step program, and an estimated cost of $600,000.
- Option D - access to the site from Newbury Heights Road. Mr. Spaulding said this option provided for off site improvements to the road including widening it to 18 feet and putting in guard rails and drainage. He said a grant of $250,000 has been obtained to do the improvements and if the cost exceeds that amount, the applicant will absorb the additional amount to complete the improvements.
Mr. Spaulding reviewed the Existing Conditions Plan. He noted that the site has frontage on Bell Cove Road and Newbury Heights Road and Newbury Heights Road down to the cul de sac. The parcel size is 28.71 acres. He reviewed the survey and test pits work and the property boundaries. He noted the archeologically sensitive sites on the property cited by the NH Division of Historical Resources and added that the site will be protected through an easement.
Mr. Spaulding reviewed the proposed community wells and the crossing of two wetlands on the property. He presented maps of the wetlands throughout the entire parcel.
Tom Sokoloski, a soil scientist and wetland scientist with Schauer Environmental Consultants, LLC, reviewed the wetlands mapping, the test pits and the wetlands report for this site. (See Attachment A) He noted that the wetlands mapping was completed in October 2009 and utilized the same jurisdictional delineations used for state wetland mapping. He described the wetlands present on the site, their location, the soil composition and the presence of intermittent streams.
Mr. Sokoloski said that the big wetlands are outside of the development area and would not be affected by the development. He added that the proposed development minimizes the impact on the existing wetlands because of its (the development) location. He added that best management practices would be observed during construction.
Mr. Healey asked about the distance from the core wetland to the south of the development to the headwater to Newbury Harbor Brook. Mr. Sokoloski said the distance is about 300 feet.
Mr. Healey asked about the wetlands to the west of the development. Mr. Sokoloski said from the edge of the clearing to the wetland boundary is a minimum of 60 feet. This is a well head protection area and would carry stipulations regarding fertilizing, etc. which could have an impact on the wetlands.
Mr. Healey referred to the wetland buffer regulation of 75 feet and asked Mr. Spaulding to put the development within that context. Mr. Spaulding said they are clearing into the wetland buffer by about 15 feet.
Mr. Spaulding referred to a visual overview of the property which indicated the abutters’ property lines and the proposed project’s location. He noted that the building is about 750 feet away from the nearest abutter and the building is not in a direct line of sight to abutters. He said the property parcels has already had significant disturbance by the gravel pit and the proposed development represents far less disturbance to the property. He reviewed the proposed plan to vegetate open areas with wild flowers, the proposed 100 foot cul de sac, the detention ponds and the proposed building.
Mr. Healey asked about the presence of steep slope within the planned clear cut area. Mr. Spaulding said there were some steep slopes that were identified when they did a survey in the winter. He added that a second survey has been done under non-winter conditions.
Mr. Healey reminded Mr. Spaulding that there are regulations surrounding clear cutting in steep slope areas. Mr. Spaulding said they meet those regulations. [CAP’s engineering firm contends there are no step slopes present on the property.]
Mr. Vannatta asked about the total acreage that will be cleared. Mr. Spaulding said 4.7 acres (+/-) out of a 28 acre parcel. He added that the 4.7 acres is in the center of the parcel with wetlands to the north and the south.
Mr. Spaulding described the existing cul de sac and the access road to the well. The road is a 10 foot wide hard pack road with a one foot shoulder and will have a locked gate. He added that the state’s Community Well Program controls what is done in that area. He said the two wells must produce 11,100 gallons a day to satisfy state regulations. He said other CAP projects use 63 to 64 gallons a day in actual use.
Mr. Spaulding described the electric lines, the water lines and the two wetland crossings. He said the first wetland crossing will have about 900 square feet of impact in the wetlands and the second crossing will have about 400 feet of impact. The third wetland crossing involves a culvert and a rain garden.
Mr. Spaulding described the 750 feet of road from the cul de sac to the building, the parking area, the direction of water runoff, the location of porous pavement, the planned snow removal, locations of the detention ponds, the on site utilities that will be placed underground, the sprinkler system and the two leach fields.
Mr. Spaulding described the proposed Clean Solutions system, the leach field usage and filtration process. He said each leach field will be 4500 square feet.
Mr. Vannatta asked about the maintenance program inherent in a Clean Solutions system. Mr. Spaulding said there is an annual inspection or, if there is heavy usage, a possible six month inspection schedule.
Mr. Spaulding reviewed the exterior lighting plan, noting that there will be four exterior lights which will be directed downward.
The landscape plan was reviewed and included rain gardens, naturalized areas, the use of a wildflower mix that requires annual mowing only and the location of lawn on the site. He said there will be 166 different plantings. Ms. Ruppel asked if the access road will be vegetated. Mr. Spaulding said yes.
Kim Hazarvatian, principal, TEPP LLC, the traffic engineer for the project, presented the results of a traffic assessment study he conducted on Newbury Heights Road from August 12, 2010 through August 18, 2010. Mr. Hazarvatian said the assessment indicated that the traffic resulting from this project would produce very low volumes of cars on the access road. He said the assessment examined the existing conditions along Newbury Heights Road, the existing volumes along the road, the anticipated trip generation for the site and a discussion of the proposed width of Newbury Heights Road.
Mr. Hazarvatian said the study indicated that the existing volumes of traffic on Newbury Heights Road fall into the “very low level”. He added that after the project is developed the traffic volumes on the road will remain in the “very low level”.
He stated that the proposed 18 foot width of Newbury Heights Road will provide for safe two way traffic and will allow for a “shared road use” for pedestrians as well.
Mr. Hazarvatian discussed the current road as a Class 5 road which functions as a town street. He discussed the current condition of the road and noted that the road width varies from 13 feet to 16 feet. He discussed the ROWs and encroachments within the ROWs. He described the road condition as good and mentioned that utility poles are located along the road. He noted that there is an advisory 20 mph sign at the beginning of the road off Route 103.
Predicted traffic volumes are about 100 daily and Mr. Hazarvatian said the percentage increase is large but the actual number of daily vehicles traveling the road remains small.
Data was gathered from trip generation tables contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation book and from traffic counts taken during summer peak times at three other CAP projects in NH.
Ms. Ruppel asked if a pedestrian walking in Newbury Heights Road (after its widening to 18 feet) would be safe if two are cars passing each other at the same time. Mr. Hazarvatian said yes. Mr. Geddes asked if two fire trucks could safely pass one another within the proposed 18 foot road width. Mr. Hazarvatian said yes.
Mr. Healey asked how much road footage will be lost in the proposed 18 foot road with snow accumulation and plowing. Mr. Hazarvatian said it would depend on how the snow is plowed. Mr. Healey noted that the question was not answered by the applicant and added that exact measurements regarding the usable road width under varying conditions is a reasonable request to make of the applicant. Mr. Vannatta agreed.
Lou Caron, the Board’s engineer consultant, discussed the possible location of plowed snow and indicated that one side of the road may be able to accommodate piles of plowed snow but the opposite of the road does not appear to have space to accommodate the plowed snow.
There was discussion about the width of fire trucks, particularly trucks that may be purchased by the town in upcoming years. Concern was expressed about the capacity for the fire trucks to safely pass one another within the 18 foot road width.
Dave Eckman, Eckman Engineering, LLC, described the proposed improvements to Newbury Heights Road which included improved drainage, putting a full base under the road, upgrading culverts and working within the recommendations submitted by the Town Road Agent. He added that there is no problem with snow removal. He said all improvements on the road will be done within the ROW. He added that he has been working with the abutters regarding this and described various planned improvements to several of the abutter’s property. He noted that the road improvements present challenges in some areas because of the narrowness of the available ROW. He described the planned retaining wall, the natural vegetation that will ensue and said the purpose remains to stabilize the slopes on both sides of the road. He offered to work with
any of the abutters who expressed interest in working with him.
Mr. Vannatta asked about the lifespan of the improved road. Mr. Eckman said the road will last 20+ years if it is maintained.
Mr. Caron said the under drain on the uphill side of the road is a big improvement and will help with the longevity of the road.
Mr. Eckman discussed the predevelopment watershed plan. He said there is a lot of water coming down onto the site. Test pits and soil analysis were done as well as a review of all the contours of the whole mountain. He presented plans that showed how the water runs off the mountain and how the water will be diverted around the development site. He said there is over 230 acres of watershed and the proposed developed presents 2.6 acres of impervious surfaces. He added that the development is clearing only one sixth (1/6th) of the entire project parcel. He described the portions of the property that have been put into easements. He described how the water runoff will be diverted around the development through rain gardens, a filtration trench around the building, detention/filtration ponds and porous pavement. He
described the process of filtration and treatment, including the water runoff from the roof, before releasing the water.
Mr. Eckman discussed the regulations covering water quality. He said the first inch of water must be treated. He noted that the recharge volume is based on a one-year storm volume and must be treated and taken care of on site.
He discussed the community well noting that it will have 150 foot setback and produce eight gallons per minute which is twice as much as statistics indicate. He said all the abutters within a 1,000 foot radius will be notified and he offered to check their wells if they want him to during the testing to see if their wells are influenced.
Mr. Geddes asked how much excavation is going to take place to clear the building site and the driveway site and how much of it will leave the site and where will it go. Mr. Eckman said he doesn’t have exact volumes right now. He added that he can calculate the quantities of cut and fill.
Mr. Spaulding said that once the wells have been dug, then the pump house will be designed and the storage tanks will be sized after they know the volumes needed. Mr. Spaulding added that the amount of acreage being put into easement is unknown at this time. He added that the remaining acreage not being developed (and not put into easements) is about 10 acres that falls under private development but cannot be sub divided.
Richard Curtis, architect, Richard P. Curtis & Associates, reviewed the project architecture, unit layout and building design. He said all 34 living units are designed for the elderly. Four of the units will be fully handicap accessible and the remaining 30 units have the possibility of being converted into handicap accessible if needed. He described the apartment building as built as a protected combustible building, all wood frame but all the units are compartmentalized and each unit has a one-hour fire rating.
He said the building will have a full fire and alarm system and every smoke detector and pull device in the system has an electronic address. That means the fire department can locate the source of the alarm by checking the building lobby’s electronic locator box. He said there is a full sprinkler system throughout the building and the water is fed from a cistern and fire pumps. Each unit has an alarm “pull” system located in the bathroom and the bedroom.
Mr. Curtis said each unit will have an emergency call system but it is a buddy system. He said there is an electric latch on the entrance doors to the apartments that will release, an alarm will be sounded in the building and a dome light will activate over the door of the apartment in question. He said no signal will be sent to emergency services in town. Other residents or management personnel can go to the apartment to determine if the situation requires a 911 call. He said the residents can take care of the emergency call 80% to 90% of the time. He said HUD uses this system throughout the country.
He described the heating and cooling system and air flow system within the building. A geo thermal system is used for heating and it is a closed loop system. He noted that this system saves about 50% on heating costs.
Mr. Vannatta asked about a backup power source. Mr. Curtis said diesel powered emergency generators will be on site to take care of all the mechanical elements of the building.
Mr. Smith asked about the type of elevator being used. Mr. Curtis said it will be a hydraulic elevator. Mr. Smith asked if it was an in ground piston or hole-less. Mr. Curtis said probably hole-less. Mr. Smith asked if regular hydraulic oil will be used or biodegradable. Mr. Curtis said he didn’t know there was biodegradable oil available but promised to put that in the specifications. Mr. Smith suggested that he consider an MRL – a machine room less elevator - in which the machine is actually in the hoist way which eliminates the need for hydraulics. He said the new MRLs are competitively priced with the hydraulic elevators and are more environmentally friendly. Mr. Curtis promised to look into the possibility.
Ms. Ruppel asked about the exterior construction of the building. Mr. Curtis said it is vinyl clapboard siding and described the windows, gables, cupola and dormers.
Mr. Williams suggested replacing the exterior steps at the northeast entrance with ramps to accommodate any mobility issues with the residents. Mr. Spaulding said they will make that change.
Ms. Ruppel asked if the naturalized area will be seeded. Mr. Spaulding said yes. Ms. Ruppel said that is not in the landscape legend. Mr. Spaulding said they will add it.
Mr. Vannatta called for a break at 10:10 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 10:19 p.m.
Lou Caron reported on his September 8, 2011 review of the site plan and his September 12, 2011 review of the off-site plan. (See Attachment A and B) Mr. Caron noted that the plans need to reflect erosion control plans. He also noted that the roadside ditch crosses three properties on Newbury Heights Road and added that Mr. Eckman needs permission from all three property owners.
Mr. Caron reported on his review of the revised steep slopes plan for the site dated September 15, 2011. (See Attachment C) He said the words “continuous” and “average” should be removed from the revised plans. He said he examined five areas on the plan that were originally 25% slope. He concluded that Areas #1 and #5 do not qualify as steep slope. However, Areas #2, #3, and #4 do qualify as steep slope.
There was discussion about the various computer methods used to calculate steep slope.
Mr. Vannatta said the Board will accept Mr. Caron’s opinion regarding the presence of steep slopes.
Mr. Vannatta asked Katheryn Holmes, chair of the Newbury Conservation Commission, to present the Commission’s sign-off sheet and recommendations concerning this site plan. Ms. Holmes presented the Commission’s written recommendations (See Attachment D) which expressed deep concerns over the site’s sensitive environmental area and recommended that the Board hire an independent wetland scientist to examine the site and report to the Board of his/her findings.
Mr. Geddes made a motion for the Planning Board to hire an independent wetland scientist to generate a report on the proposed project site as recommended by the Newbury Conservation Commission. Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Geddes, Mr. Healey, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Williams, Mr. Smith, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
Mr. Vannatta asked Mr. Littlefield if he objected to this request. Mr. Littlefield said he had no objection.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Development in a Wetland Buffer 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, September 20, 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 called for a motion to continue the above hearing until October 18, 2011 at 7:15 p.m.
Mr. Williams made a motion to continue the hearing on the application for a Conditional Use Permit until October 18, 2011 at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Vannatta said the Board will have a Site Walk on the property on September 26, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Littlefield agreed to attend. Mr. Vannatta requested that the markers delineating the driveway and the building area be restored prior to the Site Walk. Mr. Littlefield agreed.
Mr. Williams made a motion to continue the final Site Plan Review until October 18, 2011 at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Vannatta noted that the above Site Plan Review on October 18, 2011 will begin with input from the public regarding this application.
Mr. Williams made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 11:39 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
