Planning Board
October 18, 2011
Approved December 6, 2011
Members Present: Tom Vannatta, Chair; Ron Williams, Vice-Chair; Bill Weiler, Bruce Healey, Travis Dezotell, Russell Smith, Members; Deane Geddes, Alternate; Rachel Ruppel, Advisor.
Mr. Vannatta called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board did not review the minutes of September 20, 2011 due to unavailability. They will be reviewed at the next meeting. The Board did review the minutes from the site walk done on September 26, 2011. No corrections were made.
Mr.Weiler made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
CIP
Ivor Freeman was asked to give an update on the CIP. Mr. Freeman thanked Ms. Ruppel for all her help on this project. Mr. Freeman distributed a packet with all the CIP numbers and recommendations. He explained that they have added $10,000 to the South Newbury Building fund to maintain its historic value to the town. The fire department and highway department equipment was outlined. He went over one of the tables discussing the fact that the cost of equipment in the future will go up. He discussed a 3% inflation factor that is figured into the recommendations. Mr. Freeman asked if there were any questions. Mr. Vannatta said the Board has had a month to review this report. He stated that Ms. Ruppel has been available to answer any questions along the way. He
asked if there were any questions from the Board. There were no questions.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to accept the CIP as presented. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Vannatta explained to the public that the Board just reviewed the capital expenditures for the upcoming five year period (2012-2017).
Case 2011-014: Conditional Use Permit – Scott Falvey, Briott, LLC/ Agent: Richard Bartlett & Associates Map/Lot 051-694-483
Mr. Vannatta explained that the Board has a list of abutters and a permit that was submitted by Briott, LLC. Mr. Vannatta asked the Board if they would accept the application for a Conditional Use Permit submitted by Briott, LLC.
Mr. Williams made a motion to accept the application for a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Smith, Mr. Healey, Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Williams, Mr. Vannatta.
Opposed: None
Mark Sargent, agent, presented to the Board. He identified the wetlands area by information gathered by Goldman Environmental Services in Exeter. He said the driveway would be 14’ wide by 3000’ long and that 400’ would be within the wetland buffer. He said the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) tabled the case until the impact on the slope can be identified. Once the ZBA determines the impact Mr. Sargent said they can assess whether they are compliant with zoning ordinances 8.6 and 8.5. According to the ordinances, there can only be one access point. The location in the wetland buffer will also need to be the one with the least impact to the wetlands. Mr. Sargent said it is the only available location for access, adding that DES has determined that it is a two-to-one
slope.
Mr. Vannatta asked if there were any questions. Mr. Healey asked if the road was going to stay away from the boundary. Mr. Sargent said yes, it will be away from the town line. He stated it is going to be a gravel driveway.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Vannatta opened the public portion of the hearing.
Dennis McComish, 72 Southgate Road, said he would like consent to be given to allow them to go ahead with the project.
Kenneth Dustin, 88 Southgate Road, asked if there would be blasting at this site. Mr. Sargent replied no. Katheryn Homes, ZBA chair, was involved in the onsite review. Although the ZBA originally was concerned that there would be a great deal of runoff from the area, Ms. Holmes claims the runoff water was not flowing strongly during the review. She asked the engineer to look at the runoff water from the slopes. She thinks they could get a culvert in there and not impact the area greatly.
Ben MacNutt, 63 Southgate Road, said that his property is directly in front of this proposed project. He is on the downward slope from this driveway. He said that he would like proper engineering in place for the runoff water. Mr. Sargent said that this particular property is only a 4% slope. The main concern is behind the wetland area. Mr. Sargent said they will be looking at some sort of detention for the runoff before it gets to the wetland area. Mr. McNutt asked about the construction hours. Mr. Sargent said the hours of construction should be during regular working hours. Mr. Vannatta asked Mr. Sargent to discuss this concern with Scott Falvey, the applicant. Mr. Dezotell said there are noise ordinances in place that they
will need to adhere to.
Mr. Dustin said there is a history for this property. He explained that it was denied for a previous permit due to the impact on wetlands. He said Mr. Falvey has tried for 8 ½ years to put a development in the back of the property. Mr. Dustin said Mr. Falvey needed a permit to do what he wanted to do. He was denied. Mr. Dustin thinks 14’ is extremely wide for this proposed driveway.
John and Sharon Rogers, 56 Southgate Road, said they bought property from Mr. Falvey earlier this year. They bought the land with the stipulation that it had a 10’ easement with restrictions. Mr. Rogers wanted to know why Mr. Falvey was not present for this meeting. Mr. Vannatta said as long as there is an agent present, the applicant does not need to be present.
There being no further comments from the public, Mr. Vannatta closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Vannatta asked if there were any other concerns that were brought up by the public that should be addressed. The Board had no other concerns.
Mr. Williams made a motion to approve the permit as presented. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion.
Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Williams, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Healey, Mr. Smith, Mr. Vannatta.
Opposed: None
Mr. Vannatta explained there is a 30 day appeal period for the planning board decision.
CASE: Case 2011-003: Final 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. Vannatta explained that this is a continuance of case 2011-003 for the Final Hearing/Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit. The first process is to see if the Conditional Use Permit application is complete. The next step is to open the hearing to the public to discuss the presentation that took place on September 20, 2011.
The Board reviewed the Conditional Use Permit application for completeness. Mr. Vannatta reminded the board that both applications were received concurrently and can be reviewed concurrently. Mr. Vannatta went through the checklist and noted that everything that was required was received from the applicant. Mr. Vannatta said the application appears to be complete.
Mr. Healey made a motion to accept the Conditional Use Permit application as complete. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. All in favor.
(Note: Further consideration of the Conditional Use Permit was suspended until later in the meeting.)
Mr. Vannatta opened the hearing to the public for comment on the presentation that took place on September 20, 2011.
A Newbury resident asked if the wetlands scientist made his report. Mr.Vannatta the report would be presented at this meeting.
Cynthia Trudeau asked if a site visit was made. Mr. Vannatta said they walked the route from the caboose to the site of the proposed building.
Chris Hallisey, 39 Newbury Heights Road, said he had not been contacted about the road expansion. He wants to make sure that his septic, which goes under the road, is not affected. Dave Eckman, Eckman Engineering, LLC, assured Mr. Hallisey that it would not be affected by this. Mr. Eckman said all the work they are currently doing is entirely in the right of way (ROW). He added that the upgraded road will only be 18’ wide.
Rodney Zukowski, 15 Newbury Heights Road, asked if there is a fire wall above the ceilings in the proposed units. Gary Spaulding, G.R. Spaulding Design Consultants LLC, said the architect is not present but that it would meet all fire codes. Mr. Vannatta asked the architect to share this answer in writing. Mr. Spaulding agreed to have the architect put this in writing.
Barbara Lawnicki asked what rules the applicant was following for fire safety. Was it HUD regulations, state regulations or town regulations? Ralph Littlefield, executive director, Community Action Program, said all codes need to be met and the Newbury fire chief has looked at this project and has approved the plans.
Ed Rehor, 47 Newbury Heights Road, talked about four different options for access for this project. He said the reason they turned down some of the other access roads was due to cost. He said that the Newbury Heights Road access was the least expensive and therefore the one chosen. The cost difference was $300,000 vs. $600,000 using different access roads. Mr. Rehor complained that the homeowners are making up the cost of this project. He said the homeowners are not going to be able to sell their houses. He also said that it does not make sense to put this project at this location because of the environmental impact that it will have to the property. He added that the snow removal is a problem on that road due to the steep slope. The snow
banks are high and it is a one-car traveled road in the winter. He does not want to see this project have access by this road.
Katheryn Holmes, Newbury Conservation Commission chair, said there were a lot of discussion on Newbury Heights Road and the actual width of fire trucks. She asked if this was reviewed at the September 20, 2011 meeting. She asked if the fire trucks can safely pass on this road. She asked how wide a fire truck was and can it travel on this road safely. Mr. Vannatta said the sign-off sheet was submitted by Fire Chief Thomas, and therefore declared safe for travel with safety services vehicles. Mr. Eckman said the truck can fit but it will be tight. Mr. Vannatta reviewed the Fire Chief’s review which stated that the improvements to Newbury Heights Road will make it safer to the homes on Newbury Heights Road. In his opinion, Chief Thomas
said it would be much safer than it currently is.
Suellyn Stark, 25 Lakeview Avenue, said that at the last meeting there was a discussion on the lighting. She is concerned about the disruption the lighting on the second floor of the building will create in the environment and the neighborhood. Mr. Spaulding said it would be no different than any other two-story lighted building. Ms. Stark disagreed saying this is a 30-unit structure rather than a home.
Bob Stewart, 6 Circle View Drive, made a comment on the width of the roads. He stated that most of the roads in town are 18’ wide with pavement throughout the town. He did not think this should be problem for safety. Ms. Lawnicki said this is a dead end road and there could be a lot of traffic by safety services vehicles since they would be tending to the elderly. Mr. Stewart disagreed with this comment.
Mr. Vannatta thanked everyone for their questions and concerns. Mr. Vannatta closed the public portion of the hearing.
Lou Caron (consulting engineer hired by the town of Newbury) distributed originals of a letter that was emailed earlier. All the comments have been addressed. There was one recommendation on the naturalized area of the plan. He included this to the report so the public would know what this would mean. It was not intended to mow or brush cut the area.
Mr. Vannatta stated that there were five areas of steep slope that were of concern. Are they still a concern? Mr. Caron said he looked at the areas and only thought that two of the areas definitely met the steep slope requirements. He said there are three that could be considered steep slopes. He was also concerned with a ravine that goes beneath the building in the corner. Mr. Eckman surveyed that area and confirmed that there was a ravine but that it was not a steep slope. Mr. Caron explained that of the five areas of steep slope that were of concern, Areas #1 and #5 have been ruled out as steep slope. Areas referred to as #2, #3 and #4 could be a concern depending on how the town interprets the rules. He explained the method that he used to do the analysis. He
explained that he split the contour intervals to get a sense of how close one parameter or another were in a particular region in these slopes. He showed a color-coded map of the steepness of the slopes. He feels that he would disregard anything under 22%. There is an area up by the cul-de-sac in the 25-30% area. He said it depends how the town interprets the rules.
Mr. Caron went over various drawings explaining the various slope findings. Mr. Vannatta asked that, based on the original contour of two feet, where do we stand? Mr. Caron explained the three remaining areas. Mr. Vannatta asked at this point, looking at areas #2, #3, and #4, are all areas with a 25% or more slope using two-foot contours? Mr. Caron said yes. Mr. Vannatta asked the board if they wanted Mr. Caron to continue to do more extensive research on Area #4. Mr. Eckman explained that it depends on how you interpret the definition.
Mr. Williams said he thinks that we are bogged down in a lot of detail. He asked that with Mr. Eckman’s plan there are no steep slopes? Mr. Caron stated that if they were to run the same data with two-foot contours they would be less than 25%. The accuracy of the six-inch contour points is more accurate than the two-foot contours. Mr. Weiler said he believes the regulation of steep slopes is important due to the runoff that is caused. Mr. Weiler said he did not think that there was the intention to look at these slopes under the microscope. He believes that it was to look at the whole thing as a unit and to get a general idea of the scope without going through computerized analysis. He said this was not in the mind of the crafters. He thinks we need to bring some common
sense to this.
Mr. Vannatta asked about the average of the area. Mr. Weiler said he would like to ask Mr. Caron if we have 25 % slopes in the area in a general sense or less. A portion of the hill falls within this 25%. It follows a narrow band. It flattens out at the end. If you begin to ask what impact the project will have due to these steep slopes, he said there will be less run off when the project is done because the water will be directed to a stone lined ditch. The other slopes are above the proposed driveway and will not affect this area. They are really pushing the 20’ limits. Mr. Caron said what you need to do is to see what the purpose of the rule was and how it should be interpreted. How much is affected? Mr. Weiler said he does not think the board has the power to interpret
whether or not these are steep slopes.
Mr. Vannatta said, based on his analysis, there is a concern of steep slopes in #2, #3 and #4. Considering this, Mr. Vannatta asked the board if they should grant approval of this application. Mr. Vannatta asked Mr. Caron if he thought Areas #2, #3 and #4 should be considered steep. He said that variances would be needed to be made for Areas #2, #3 and #4 if this were the case. Mr. Caron said, based on these contours, we can eliminate Area #3 and possibly Area #4. Mr. Caron said that Area #2 remains a 25% slope even if the contours are changed. Mr.Vannatta asked Mr. Caron to get a more detailed analysis on Area #4 for the next meeting. Mr. Caron will do this for the next meeting.
Mr. Caron went through the wetland report and made a comment on page 6 of the wetlands report. He would like to clarify and say that there are actually two stream crossings with a 36” pipe and there is armor stones on both ends and there is an 18’ pipe on the second entry with armor on just the outlet of the pipe. The third pipe is 18” with armor on both ends. He thinks that probably we would not need armor but it is not a big deal to put in. Mr. Vannatta asked if he could send out his analysis on Area #4 as soon as possible. Mr. Vannatta thanked him for his efforts. Mr. Caron said he would get to it by the beginning of next week.
Mr. Vannatta called for a break at 9:17 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 9:32 p.m.
Mr. Vannatta introduced Dr. Rick Van de Poll, NH wetlands scientist. Dr. Van de Poll gave a brief background of his credentials. He explained that he reviewed the site plan and provided a wetland review in his report. This report was sent to the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board. (See Attachment)
Dr. Van de Poll gave a brief summary of his report.
He did two field visits to support the findings he came up with. He also looked at emails concerning this project. He advised the Conservation Commission to have a second site visit and looked at slopes and storm water runoff. His concerns are with wetlands and environmental impacts. He showed a map where the wetlands are located. All wetlands in this project are streams. There are two crossings located at the initial driveway site which are streams that stem from Mount Sunapee. One is at the bottom and one at the northeast of the site. One of the first and most obvious things that he noticed was that things were not the way they used to be. He said that he saw signs of previous human disturbance. He said the site has been impacted for a long time. The railroad bed split it in half and changed the hydrology at the bottom of the hill. The other thing he noticed was that there was a large amount of extraction of gravel on this site. He discussed the wildlife. He said
this would not be a location where a significant number of bobcat, bear or moose would live. It is, however, important for deer, coyotes and fox. He said that the most significant impact will be to the marsh area. He explained that there were a low number of long distance migrants. He was paying attention to the 50 year flood event for runoff. Even though the armoring is included, he recommends that it be enhanced. He would like it to go to 25 – 30 feet. He said flood water storage function is the most important function of the lower wetlands below. Everything seems more than adequate to handle this flow. Nutrient transformation is a great benefit to having the marsh area kept intact. He also stated that they will need to unblock the culvert near the railroad bed. In his opinion, the ecological integrity has a very minor impact overall.
Mr. Vannatta asked if the Board had any questions for Dr. Van de Poll. There were no questions.
Mr. Vannatta asked how this might project might affect Lake Sunapee. Dr.Van de Poll said if he owned a house at the end of the runoff he would not be concerned at all for drinking of water. Relative to the site design he has no concerns with this design.
Mr. Vannatta asked if there were any questions from the Conservation Commission chair. Ms. Holmes replied no.
Ms. Ruppel asked a question to the design team. In Dr. Van de Poll’s report, he noted that the locations would not need as much clearing as originally thought. She would like the site plan to amend the plans to indicate where the new edge of clearing has been suggested.
Mr. Vannatta then returned to the Conditional Use Permit. He asked the applicant to approach the Board. Mr. Spaulding explained that the purpose of the Conditional Use Permit is to cross the two streams. Once he gets this approval from the Planning Board then he can go to the state and apply for permission from the state. They need approval on this before they can continue on in the process. He said the impact on the two streams would be held to a minimum and they are crossing at the narrowest point. He added that that the minimum impact to wetlands has been taken into account.
Mr. Weiler asked what is the size of the wetlands. Mr. Healey asked if the second stream just peters out. The applicant answered yes. It goes about 100 feet and then just disappears into the ground.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Vannatta opened the hearing to the public for comment.
Barbara Lawnicki asked what the difference of a flow path versus a river was. Mr. Eckman said the difference is a stream has water and the flow path is runoff water from a storm.
There being no further comments from the public, Mr. Vannatta closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Williams made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion.
Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Smith, Mr. Healey, Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Williams and Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None
Site Plan Review Hearing:
Mr. Vannatta asked Mr. Littlefield if anything else should be added. Mr. Littlefield said no. Mr. Vannatta asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. Mr. Williams said that there are no protective devices or structures near the emergency generator. He also said the fuel storage tank should have a concrete retention structure to contain fuel spilled. He would like these added to the plans. Mr. Eckman said the additional suggestions will be added to the plans. On September 27, 2011, the water conservation plan was approved by DES. The next step would be to drill a well to look at the water quantity.
Mr. Vannatta said there have been several letters that have been addressed to the Board. He would like these put into the record. The first letter was written by William Annable. Mr. Vannatta asked the Board to read this letter. A second letter was received from Cynthia Trudeau. Ms. Trudeau was asked if she would like to speak to her letter. She declined. He suggested this letter be reviewed by the Board.
Mr. Vannatta then reopened the floor to the public to make any further comments. He explained that the floor would be open for 10 minutes then the meeting would continue on November 15, 2011. Mr. Vannatta asked if there were any questions for the Board.
Ed Rehor asked if a private property owner were to build on these slopes, would he be able to so. Mr. Vannatta said each application is looked at individually.
Carol Rehor said there were three options at the beginning of the night and it had been narrowed down to one. She has concern that the Board narrowed it down to one. Mr. Vannatta explained that after looking at all the information presented, the Board came to the conclusion that one more area has been identified as not having steep slopes and there were two that were still questionable. He said they are still looking at Area #4 and Area #2 which have been deemed steep slopes.
Mr. Vannatta closed the public hearing.
Mr. Williams made a motion to continue the hearing to November 15, 2011 at 7:45. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 10:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna Long
Recording Secretary
| 
