Planning Board
November 15, 2011
Approved December 20, 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 7:05 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Town Counsel Review/Case 2011-015 Great Island Realty Trust
Mr. Vannatta reviewed the status of Case 2011-015 Final Review Lot Line Adjustment-Great Island Realty Trust, which was reviewed by the Board at the November 1, 2011 meeting. He said the Board decided to seek Town Counsel advice concerning a boundary line dispute that arose between the applicant and an abutter on a portion of the property.
Patrick Dombrowski was present to act as agent representing Great Island Realty Trust.
Mr. Vannatta noted that the boundary dispute was a civil matter and did not fall under the Board’s jurisdiction. He outlined the options suggested by Town Counsel as follows:
- Have the applicant withdraw the application, settle the boundary issue with the abutter and resubmit an application with a new survey of the property.
- Table the application for a period of time.
- Dismiss the application without prejudice.
Ms. Ruppel said the Board could also vote to continue the meeting for four months to allow the applicant and the abutter to settle the boundary dispute.
Mr. Dombrowski requested time to contact his co-agent, Tom Dombrowski, by telephone. The Board agreed. Discussion followed.
Mr. Dombrowski returned to the meeting and Mr. Vannatta informed him that it was the consensus of the Board to dismiss the application at this time while the two parties resolved the boundary issue.
Mr. Weiler noted that when a lot line is changed, ownership is also changed. When an area of the property is in question concerning who owns what, the Board is unable to move forward with the application.
Mr. Vannatta agreed, adding that the Board must be certain that the property survey is accurate for both property owners.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to deny the application without prejudice because of the boundary line dispute. Mr. Healey 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 said there is a 30-day appeal period in which any affected party may appeal the Board’s decision.
Minutes
The Board delayed reviewing the minutes of October 18, 2011 until the meeting on December 6, 2011.
CASE: Case 2011-017: Conceptual- Major Subdivision- Rheta Heller Revocable Trust/ agent: Diane Heller. Rollins Road. Map/Lot 030-666-376.
Mr. Dezotell, an abutter, recused himself.
Ms. Heller was present to meet with the Board. She explained that the proposed plan is to subdivide the property into five areas with the intent of selling four lots. The fifth lot contains the Heller home and will not be sold. She described Lot #1 & #2 as being about six acres, Lot #3 is between nine and 11 acres, Lot #4 is about 12 acres, and Lot #5 is 20 acres. She said she wants to make sure the wetland setbacks are all right for future development. She noted that no roads are needed since all the lots have ample road frontage.
Mr. Vannatta said she will need to review the regulations for major subdivisions. Mr. Healey asked about the calculation of width to depth ratio under paragraph 10.5 Lot Layout. Discussion followed.
There was discussion concerning the wetland setback, permanent versus transitory wetlands, Article 9 Drainage Plan, required inspections, required contours, waiver request procedures and what constitutes hardship. Mr. Vannatta also explained the benefits of having a preliminary review before submitting a final application.
Mr. Vannatta suggested that Ms. Heller contact Ms. Ruppel with any questions.
Continued…CASE: Case 2011-003: final Hearing/Site Plan Review & 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.
Mr. Vannatta noted the ongoing concerns voiced by the public and the Board regarding the access road, particularly whether safety service vehicles can safely access the development under all weather conditions, if snow removal will pose problems, and if the road width can accommodate all needed vehicular traffic.
Mr. Vannatta called upon Fire Chief Hank Thomas to address these concerns and questions from the public and the Board. Chief Thomas said some of the concerns voiced by the public and the Board have to do with the road maintenance for the access road (Newbury Heights Road) leading up to the cul de sac where the development begins with a 400 foot driveway. He said he spent two hours on Saturday evening, November 12, 2011, measuring road widths throughout town including roads within subdivisions containing multiple homes. He said it is up to the owners of the development to maintain the roads within that development. Likewise, it is up to the town to maintain the town roads.
Chief Thomas said he has no particular problems with being able to get up Newbury Heights Road. He said the proposed two story building is totally sprinklered, which is a blessing. He noted that there are only five other buildings in town that are fully sprinklered. He said having a fully sprinklered building makes a big difference in fire response to have sprinklers that activate and put out fires. So the fires will handle themselves with the NFBA approved sprinkler system.
Chief Thomas addressed the question of the road width of Newbury Heights Road. He said he measured Summer Street and Gray Stone off of Bay Point Road, noting that Bay Point Road measures 18’ to 19’ wide with one part measuring 14’ wide. He said there is a 40 unit subdivision up there that the fire department has responded to on several occasions with fire apparatus and have not had any problems getting up there in the winter time. He said he did not see any difficulty in operating his fire equipment up Newbury Heights Road to get to the elderly housing building. He said the ambulance and rescue units are small vehicles and they would not encounter problems getting to the building either.
Chief Thomas invited questions from the public at this time.
Janet Krueger, a Newbury resident, asked what would happen if there was a house fire at one of the properties on Newbury Heights Road and an emergency call came in from the elderly housing project. She asked if the fire trucks were clogging the street, would the ambulance be able to get to the housing project. Chief Thomas said there is always that possibility anywhere in town. He said the responding safety services personnel would find a way to get to the elderly housing project regardless of the street situation. He said there is a four wheel drive kaboda with a stretcher on the back that could respond up and around the fire trucks if needed.
Al Bachelder asked if the road is adequate based on a comparison to other projects and access roads in town. Chief Thomas said it is difficult not to compare this access to other in town but if this is the only way into the elderly project he said he will be able to get in there if needed.
Ed Rehor, 47 Newbury Heights Road, said he has lived on the road since 1978 and many times over the years in the winter it has been a one-car lane road. He said in 1998 he was without power for a week. He questioned the wisdom of having 68 additional people living at the end of what often becomes a one-lane road. He asked what would happen to the elderly residents if there is another power outage. Chief Thomas said the project is equipped with generators.
Carol Rehor, 47 Newbury Heights Road, asked what would happen if a tree fell and blocked the road and an emergency vehicle needed to get to the project. She added that in the past, a fallen tree often blocked the road for several days. Cal Prussman, Road Agent, said his crews would be on the scene with chain saws to clear the road. Chief Thomas said if electric wires are down, he calls a special number and the situation takes priority over other situations. Ms. Rehor asked if the priority for the road will change since in the past they have been trapped by fallen trees and power lines for days.
Mr. Rehor said a second access to the project would be beneficial to ensuring the safety of the residents. Chief Thomas said a second access to any property is always beneficial.
Ken Dustin, 88 Southgate Road, asked about the size of the fire cistern on the property. Dave Eckman, Eckman Engineering LLC, said the cistern is a 5,000 gallon tank that acts as a re-supply to the sprinkler system. Mr. Dustin asked if 5,000 gallons is enough for effective fire suppression. Chief Thomas said it is enough to put out an awful lot of fire and his truck will handle the rest of the fire suppression.
Rodney Zukowski, Newbury Heights Road, asked if the cistern is dedicated entirely for water to suppress fires. Mr. Eckman said yes. Mr. Zukowski said there was a very damaging fire in a similar project in Massachusetts where there were no partitions in the ceiling but there was a sprinkler system. Chief Thomas said it was his understanding that there are one-hour fire ratings on a lot of the units and stairways so it would take a while for a fire to burn up into the attic with the sprinklers going off. However, he added that there is always that one time when something doesn’t work the way it was planned. Mr. Zukowski asked if it would be possible to build a two-hour firewall. Chief Thomas said yes.
Gary Spaulding, G.R. Spaulding Design LLC, referred to a letter dated November 2, 2011 from the project’s architect, Richard Curtis, AIA, that describes in detail how the attic spaces in the building are being handled in compliance with the building code. (See Attachment)
Mr. Prussman said the roads in Blodgett’s Landing are 16 feet in width and there are no problems getting plows through there in the winter time. He also said other roads in town range from 15 feet to 17 feet and the plows are able to effectively clear the roads in the winter. Chief Thomas added that he has been able to get the fire apparatus around and through those roads as well.
Mr. Prussman said he has looked at all the project plans and has concluded that the Newbury Heights Road will be going from a width of 14 feet/16 feet to 18 feet withone-foot shoulders, which is an improvement over what is there now. He said there are other single access roads in town, namely Rollins Road and Winding Brook Road. He said he saw no problem from a safety issue and if there is a lot of snow, he will be able to plow Newbury Heights Road on his way out of town and then again coming back into town. He added that the increased width of the road will be helpful.
Mr. Rehor asked about how Mr. Prussman will plow the road, particularly the part where the plow hits the uphill slope and the snow piles down. Mr. Rehor asked if Mr. Prussman will plow that to the other side of the road. Mr. Prussman said that part of the road will bump out to 18-to 19 feet so the situation should improve over past years. He added that if an issue arises, he will handle it.
Lou Caron, engineering consultant, addressed the issue of steep slope. Mr. Caron examined three areas as directed by the Board at the October 18, 2011 meeting. He concluded that Areas #1 and #3 qualify as steep slope but that Area #2 does not qualify as steep slope. (See Attachment).
Mr. Vannatta asked the applicant if they had any new information to present regarding the two areas of steep slope. Mr. Spaulding presented new plans containing the placement of a retaining wall in Area #3 that would eliminate the steep slope issue. Likewise, he presented new plans for the cul de sac (Area #1) which contains a modified curve of the cul de sac and moves the retaining wall so the presence of steep slope is eliminated.
Mr. Spaulding asked for a 35 day extension for this hearing unless the Board makes the two new plans conditions of approval.
There was discussion regarding the specifics of the new plans. Mr. Caron said the modifications to the cul de sac make that area smaller with less pavement and the turning radius is shortened. He said it is up to the Road Agent to determine if the modifications jeopardize the overall safety of that area. Regarding the modifications to Area #3, Mr. Caron said the proposed retaining wall is a strategy of avoidance. He said this was done to avoid having to get a variance for steep slope. He referred to the necessity to examine the spirit and intent of the ordinance regarding drainage and erosion with regard to this modification.
There was discussion among the Board members regarding granting the applicant an extension of 35 days. Mr. Dezotell said the Board should not deliberate without a full set of up-to-date plans. Mr. Smith agreed. Mr. Healey said he was in favor of a continuance. Mr. Weiler said he had no opinion on the subject. Mr. Williams said the areas of steep slope in question are insignificant areas and he was OK with the solutions presented.
Mr. Vannatta called for a motion to vote.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to grant the applicant an extension of the hearing process according to the RSA of 35 days. Mr. Healey seconded the motion.
Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Healey, Mr. Smith, Mr. Vannatta, Mr. Weiler
Opposed: Mr. Williams
Mr. Vannatta asked the applicant if there was any additional information to be presented. Mr. Eckman reviewed the containment measures around the fuel tank. Mr. Vannatta asked about access to the pump house and Ms. Ruppel noted that there isn’t a need to clear as much land around the well heads as previous plans showed. Mr. Eckman said there is only one well head now. Mr. Vannatta said all of the new information should be on the new set of plans.
Mr. Healey asked Mr. Caron about the lighting plan. Mr. Caron said he examined the lighting plan and the proposed light intensity is comparable to being 50 feet away from parking lot lights.
There was further discussion about the light plans as presented. Mr. Caron said wall packs will be included at all building entrances to enhance the exterior lighting.
Mr. Healey asked Mr. Littlefield about the intended use of the remaining acreage on the 28-acre property. Mr. Little field said the acreage left after deducting the project acreage and the two easements will be put into conservation. He added that the donation of the RR track area is still under consideration.
Mr. Spaulding said 15 of the 28 acres will be protected under a historical easement.
Mr. Caron said the cul de sac should be in a piece of land dedicated to the town because it will become part of the town road system, a Class 6 roadway. He added this should not be an easement; it should be a right of way as stated by Mr. Eckman. Mr. Caron said the ROW statement by Mr. Eckman needs to be on the final plans before the Board for approval.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Vannatta opened the meeting to the public.
Cynthia Trudeau asked about the designation of the steep slopes, noting there were five areas designated at the October 18, 2011 meeting and tonight there were only three areas mentioned. Mr. Vannatta said two of the areas were determined not to be steep slopes by Mr. Caron and the three areas discussed tonight were merely renumbered for the sake of clarity.
Al Bachelder wanted clarification regarding the donation of the RR bed area by CAP. Mr. Vannatta said the Planning Board cannot broker that and the possibility of that donation can only occur after the land is acquired. He added that the donation of the RR bed may not be a condition of approval for this application.
Daryl Anderson Mooney asked about the cost of this project thus far. Mr. Littlefield said $360,000 has been spent so far out of a total of $5.3 million for the whole project. Ms. Mooney asked who hires the contractors for this job if the project is approved. Mr. Littlefield said the project will use local contractors where they can.
Ed Rehor asked why money could not be used to look at a second access to this project through Stoneface. He added that the disturbance to the existing wildlife will be extreme and referred to documentation he presented to the Conservation Commission regarding the presence of black bear and bobcat along the streams. (See Attachment) Mr. Spaulding said the wetland scientist hired by the town said the project would not adversely affect the wildlife.
Rodney Zukowski asked about the line of sight requirement for a driveway, noting he was told he had to have 300 feet of clearance for his driveway. Mr. Weiler said the state requires a 400 foot line of sight for highways.
There being no further comments from the public, Mr. Vannatta closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Vannatta noted that letters were received from the following individuals:
- Cynthia Trudeau, dated October 19, 2011
(Note: The complete contents of the submitted letters/emails are contained in the Planning Board final minutes binder at the Town Office and available for review.)
Mr. Caron made a recommendation regarding the construction sequence for Newbury Heights Road as follows: The placement of the 1” hot bituminous pavement course shall not occur until the site development (including building construction) is substantially complete.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to continue this hearing until December 20, 2011 at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
