Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Planning Board Minutes 12/20/12
Planning Board
December 20, 2011
Approved January 17, 2012
Amended February 21, 2012

Members Present:  Tom Vannatta, Chair; Ron Williams, Vice-Chair; Bill Weiler, Bruce Healey, Travis Dezotell, Russell Smith, Members; Deane Geddes, Alernate; Rachel Ruppel, Advisor.

Mr. Vannatta called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m.

ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS

Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of November 15, 2011 and made corrections. Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. All in favor.

CASE: Case 2011-018: Conceptual – Cottage Industry – Ashworth/Hafer Trust. Mountain Road. Map/Lot 022-127-464.

Ms Ashworth and Ms. Hafer described their business concept, Andrew Brook Tails, to the Board. The business was defined by Ms. Ashworth as a B&B for dogs and not a typical kennel. She said they received a special exception from the Zoning Board of Adjustment and presented aerial pictures of the property to show the location of the driveway, the fenced in area in back of the house and the location of the garage.

Ms. Hafer explained that there will be individual rooms inside the house devoted to cat boarding. She added that she will be conducting dog training classes on weekdays in the evening and on weekends. There will be a maximum of six dogs per training class.

Ms. Ashworth asked the Board what is needed for a final review. Ms. Ruppel referred her to Article 13 Site Plan Review for a Cottage Industry.

Mr. Healey asked if they planned to have a customized flag advertising the business. Ms. Ashworth said yes. Mr. Healey said the town’s Sign Ordinance does not allow that kind of advertising sign in a residential zone. A free-standing sign is allowed, he said, and explained the ordinance. There was further discussion about appropriate signage for a cottage industry.

Mr. Geddes asked if there were state regulations governing the housing of animals, particularly the number of cats and/or dogs allowed under roof at one time. Ms. Ashworth said no, there are no state regulations for that.

Mr. Vannatta asked if there are licensing requirements for this type of business activity. Ms. Ashworth said no, not for a cottage industry. She added that the Humane Society has licensing requirements for a kennel/rescue-type of business.

Ms. Ruppel suggested that the final application include the hours proposed for the dog training classes. Mr. Vannatta indicated that the application executive summary should include that information and referred the applicant to Article 10 Application Requirements for Site Plan Review. Discussion followed.

Further discussion included possible waivers. There was a general consensus among the Board members that Article 10 is not necessary for this application. Ms. Ashworth said she will be prepared for the requirements in Article 10 and focus on the requirements in Article 13.

Mr. Vannatta noted that for Article 13.9 Structure Plan, photos would suffice. He asked if the applicant had a timeframe in mind for final application submission. Ms. Ashworth said sometime after January 2012. Mr. Vannatta suggested that Ms. Ruppel would be available to help with any questions/concerns prior to final application submission. Mr. Vannatta reviewed Article 13 with the applicant.

Ms. Ashworth and Ms. Hafer thanked the Board for their input and guidance.

ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS, Continued…
Mr. Vannatta noted that the Board will review and vote on renewing Ms. Ruppel’s contract for 2012 at the January 3, 2012 meeting.

Mr. Vannatta noted that the Superior Court ruled in favor of the Town regarding the Steve Landrigan case.

Mr. Vannatta noted that the following Board members terms expire in 2012 and they must file an application if they wish to serve on the Board again: Mr. Dezotell (3-year term); Mr. Weiler (1-year term); and Mr. Healey (3-year term).

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.

Mr. Vannatta noted that the scheduled hearing would proceed even though Lou Caron, engineering consultant, had not yet arrived. Mr. Vannatta added that the Board had Mr. Caron’s final report as a reference in the latter’s absence.

Mr. Vannatta announced the reconvening of Case 2011-003: Final hearing/Site Plan Review for Davis Revocable Trust/CAP (above). Mr. Vannatta noted that this hearing is continued because of a request by the applicant to submit new information to the Board for review by the Board and Mr. Caron. Mr. Vannatta said the new information has been submitted and Mr. Caron has reviewed it and submitted his final report regarding same. Mr. Vannatta asked the applicant’s agent to present the new information to the Board.

Dave Eckman, Eckman Engineering, LLC, presented to the Board. He indicated on the new set of plans the places in the cul de sac that have been modified to comply with Mr. Caron’s request to add stations and offsets to make construction easier. Mr. Eckman pointed out the cul de sac was originally circular in pattern and is now elliptical in order to avoid the steep slope areas identified by Mr. Caron. Mr. Eckman said that when a construction document is done there will be a table detailing all the stations and offsets.  Mr. Vannatta asked if the town Road Agent has been notified regarding this change and Mr. Eckman said nothing has changed since the Road Agent saw the plans other than the stations and offsets, which are pieces of layout information.

Additionally, Mr. Eckman presented the second change to the plans in response to Mr. Caron’s concerns regarding an identified thin steep slope area. Mr. Eckman said Mr. Caron’s suggestion was to wrap a retaining wall around the steep slope area for 10 feet and add a culvert.

Mr. Vannatta noted that there were Board concerns about the entryway to the pumps. Mr. Eckman said a retaining wall has been added and showed the well location, adding that the plans now include one well, not two.

Mr. Williams asked about the walkway on the site, particularly the stairs on the sidewalk. He suggested put in a ramp rather than stairs for seniors and for handicap access. Mr. Eckman agreed. Mr. Williams asked about concrete reinforcement bollards and a concrete containment for the emergency generator and the fuel tank. Mr. Eckman said those changes are on the new set of plans. Mr. Williams asked about the sprinkler storage tanks and questioned its location, noting it will be awkward to refill it from a pumper tank if necessary and suggested finding a different site that would be more accessible to the fire department equipment. Mr. Eckman said it is a 5,000 gallon tank/cistern designed to refresh the sprinkler system only and is not intended as a holding tank.

Discussion followed. Mr. Eckman said Fire Chief Hank Thomas has reviewed these plans and has found them adequate.

Mr. Vannatta asked if the Board has a complete set of the new plans. Mr. Eckman said Mr. Caron has a complete set and has reviewed them but the Board does not have a complete set. Mr. Vannatta requested that the applicant provide the Board with the pertinent updated pages for replacement in the original set of plans. Mr. Eckman agreed to do so. It was agreed that the latest set of plans was dated December 1, 2011. The Board agreed that it was acceptable to replace the individual pages in the original set of plans with the updates.

Mr. Eckman said the next step will be obtaining the state permits which will most likely produce more minor changes to the plans.

Mr. Vannatta noted that Mr. Caron commented at a previous meeting about providing the town with a right-of-way (ROW) for the cul de sac so it becomes part of the town road system. Mr. Eckman said the applicant has no problem doing that but a legal document is needed to accomplish it.

Gary Spaulding, of g.r. spaulding design consultants, LLC, said the final plans will provide the ROW and a description of the easement for the historical area.   

Mr. Eckman concluded his presentation to Board. Mr. Vannatta asked if the Board had any questions regarding the presentation. The Board had none.

Mr. Vannatta reviewed the content of Mr. Caron’s final report dated December 13, 2011.

(Note: See Attachment A which is contained in the Planning Board Final Minutes binder at the Town Office and is available for review.)

Mr. Vannatta indicated that Mr. Caron’s final report noted that the changes made and presented by Mr. Eckman addressed the concerns previously raised regarding steep slopes. Mr. Vannatta asked the Board if they had any comments. The Board had none.

Mr. Vannatta asked the agent(s) representing the applicant if there was anything to be added to the presentation. Ralph Littlefield, executive director, CAP Belknap-Merrimack Counties, Inc. said no. Mr. Vannatta asked Mr. Littlefield if he understood the Board’s concern about the cul de sac ROW. Mr. Littlefield said yes. Mr. Vannatta asked Mr. Littlefield if he understood Mr. William’s concern about providing a handicap accessible ramp at the aforementioned sidewalk location. Mr. Littlefield said yes.  

Mr. Vannatta asked if the Board had any questions for the applicant agent(s). Mr. Healey asked Mr. Eckman to explain his repeated reference to a ROW regarding the road improvements on Newbury Heights Road, specifically how Mr. Eckman determined what was ROW. Mr. Healey further asked what is the width of the ROW on Newbury Heights Road.

Mr. Eckman said he believed the width of the ROW on Newbury Heights Road is 33 feet but that it varies. He said this figure is on a boundary survey that was done before he got involved with the project. He said this surveyor surveyed the off site roadway and determined the ROW to be a two rod ROW with variations. Mr. Healey asked if the boundary survey was done on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Eckman said yes, it was done by Web Stout, FWS Land Surveying PLLC, who was listed in the application as one of the consultants.

Mr. Vannatta asked if the Board had any further questions for the applicant or the agent(s). The Board had none.  

Mr. Vannatta asked the Board if they wanted to place a time limit on the public portion of the meeting. Mr. Weiler said no because the public will be commenting only on the limited topic of the changes to the plans that were just presented by the applicant. Mr. Vannatta said there will be no time limit placed on the public comment portion of the hearing.

Mr. Vannatta noted that letters were received and distributed to all board members from the following individuals:
  • Three letters dated December 10, 2011 were received in opposition to the project from businesses in town – Trans-Medic, The Tackle Shack, and The Lake Inn at Mt. Sunapee.
  • A six-page letter dated December 16, 2011 was received from Barbara Lawnicki and Rodney Zukowski, 15 Newbury Heights Road, Newbury opposing the project.
(Note: The complete contents of the submitted letters are contained in the Planning Board Final Minutes binder at the Town Office and are available for review.)

There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Vannatta opened the hearing to the public for comment.

        Cynthia Trudeau, Bell Cove Road, Newbury, asked about the restrictions for the 202 HUD program adding that the project under consideration has been interchangeably described as an elderly project with 32 units of affordable units for seniors aged 62 or over and for the disabled. She asked if the Newbury Elderly Housing project will be restricted to residents of 62 or older.

Michael Coleman, housing director, CAP Belknap-Merrimack Counties, Inc., said every CAP household will be 62 years or older. Ms. Trudeau asked if the 62 year old resident has a younger-aged son or daughter who is disabled; will she be allowed to live in the project with that disabled child?

Mr. Coleman said in a one-bedroom unit, no, because the federal government has occupancy standards. Ms. Trudeau asked who will oversee the occupancy standards. Mr. Coleman said there will be a project manager. Ms. Trudeau said the newspaper coverage indicates the project manager will not be full time. Mr. Coleman said there are only 34 units and if someone is there who shouldn’t be there, they will know about it.

Ms. Trudeau asked what action will be taken if someone is there who shouldn’t be there. Mr. Coleman said the resident will be notified that there is an unauthorized person living in his/her unit and they have 10 days to vacate and if they don’t comply, eviction proceedings would commence for the unauthorized person as well as the head of household.

        Ed Rehor, 47 Newbury Heights Road, Newbury, asked how long does it take for an eviction process. Mr. Coleman said that is beyond their control and it is a matter for the courts. Mr. Vannatta said this topic was not within the scope of the Board’s consideration.

Mr. Rehor distributed a letter to the Board and Mr. Vannatta noted that the Board has not had a chance to review the letter and asked Mr. Rehor to summarize its contents. Mr. Rehor read into the record his letter as follows: December 20, 2011, Dear Members of the Planning Board: You need to do the right thing. You have heard and read what most of the citizens and tax payers of Newbury feel about the 34 unit elderly low income HUD/CAP project. They have published their reasons in the newspaper and have spoken at the Zoning, Planning Board meetings and have attended more than one Selectman’s meeting.
Some questions still unanswered are: How many low income people are there in Newbury? No names, just a number. Have any alternate sites been considered? I asked that question at the last meeting and received no response. Mr. Van de Poll said the wetland markers were removed. Why? If there already has been $300,000 spent why was the other alternate choices eliminated? If a preliminary survey was asked of the Newbury voters on the topic of multi family buildings came back 60% against, why was this allowed to move forward? Why did the Town Manager tell us that the Selectmen said they would not hold a special meeting to address the project even if we had the proper amount of registered voters requesting one?
Some people in town are against the Wild Goose Area as an access to Lake Sunapee. As I understand, their main reason was a safe traffic route of a boat trailer and vehicle entering Route 103. The maximum number of parking spaces would be 16. Why then are we not worried about the impact of increasing a busier area of town from 26 to HUD/CAP’s estimate of 123 during the week and a similar difference on Saturday and Sunday?
Where are you with my photographic evidence of animal corridors being invaded in the suggested building area? We have already invaded wildlife corridors as evidenced by a two-car, two-deer collision on Route 103 on December 9, 2011. When you violate wildlife corridors, this is what happens.
Why are many businesses in town against the project?
Why did one of the Selectmen say it would be tough for the Planning Board to pass this with so many people from the public against it?
You cannot ignore the letter and newspaper article from one of the members of our Conservation Board in town. He expressed himself in plain English. Or was it too wordy?
Once again I bring back the teaching of our children that I continue to do for over 40 years. What is this teaching them? In the HUD/CAP presentation in September they said there were very steep slopes to the west directly draining over 200 acres of land, there were wetlands to the north and east, wetlands to the south and intermittent wetlands throughout the area mixed with steep slopes.
Isn’t there a better place for our low income elderly? I think we should treat them better than this.


        Barbara Lawnicki, 15 Newbury Heights Road, Newbury, said she had a surveyor look over the project plans and found many areas that are designated approximate wetlands and have not been determined based on an on-site investigation. She questioned why Dr. Van de Poll did not make note of that in his report to the Board. She added that there were significant discrepancies regarding steep slopes between what was on the plans and what was on the site. She supported Mr. Rehor’s comments about the wetlands and added that there are almost nine acres on the site that are wetlands, a piece of information that has not been shown or discussed.

Ms. Lawnicki reviewed the information presented to the Board at an earlier meeting by Katheryn Holmes, chair, Newbury Conservation Commission, regarding the designation of the project site as being in a critical wildlife habitat and major wildlife corridors as designated in the Addendum to the Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) 2001 for the Town of Newbury and by research done by the NH Fish & Game.

Ms. Lawnicki referenced a comment made by Mr. Coleman at the Planning board meeting on June 21, 2011 regarding a Section 202 program. She said his quote at that meeting was, “It is only for 40 years. Then it can go to any housing.” She asked Mr. Coleman if that statement is correct. Mr. Coleman said his statement was not correct. Ms. Lawnicki said his statement was a direct quote from his comments at that meeting.

Mr. Coleman asked the Board Chair if Ms. Lawnicki’s question was an appropriate question. Mr. Vannatta said yes and requested that he answer her question. Mr. Coleman said the question that was raised was how long is the original contract in the regulatory agreement. He said that term is 40 years. He continued, saying, “however, there is a clause in the regulatory agreement requiring that should the owner corporation wish to dispose of the property after the original contract, they must enter into an agreement to maintain the housing for the purpose it was built in perpetuity.”  

The Recording Secretary noted that Mr. Coleman never stated the information regarding the “clause in the regulatory agreement” prior to this meeting and that he has just presented new information to the Board.

Ms. Lawnicki asked Mr. Coleman what did he mean by the “clause in the regulatory agreement”. Mr. Coleman said that means the project is going to be owned by a local non-profit corporation called Newbury Elderly Housing Inc. The contract with HUD will run for 40 years. After that 40 year period Newbury Elderly Housing Inc. can dispose of this project but they can only do so by the regulatory agreement dispose of it to another non-profit corporation who agrees to maintain this housing for the purpose that it was constructed in perpetuity. He added that the only thing that could change is the owner-entity but the purpose and operation of the project would continue.

        Mr. Rehor asked if an owner of a house wanted to supply housing for the elderly that HUD would also help the homeowner do that. Mr. Coleman said that has nothing to do with this development. However, he said there is a program called the Housing Choice Voucher Program in which a person obtains a voucher for a rent subsidy and is able to go into the private market. Mr. Coleman further explained the Voucher Program in detail. Mr. Vannatta said how CAP/HUD operates is not within the purview of the Board’s consideration and suggested that Mr. Rehor discuss this area further directly with HUD and/or CAP.

        Sue Ellen Stark, a Newbury resident, questioned the 40 year contract and Mr. Vannatta reminded her that the topic under consideration was the project’s site plan, the off site improvements to Newbury Heights Road and the new information presented to the Board by the applicant. He said the management topics of CAP/HUD are not within the Board’s purview or to use as a basis for decision. He added that he understood the rationale for these types of questions but reminded the public that such questions cannot be addressed by Board members.

        Rodney Zurkowski, 15 Newbury Heights Road, Newbury, followed up on Mr. Healey’s question regarding the ROW on Newbury Heights Road, asking if the ROW is 33 feet why is the proposed road only 18 feet.

Mr. Eckman said the ROW is the physical land that the road can be within and all the improvements have to be within the ROW. The pavement is just something that is inside that ROW. He added that all the infrastructure has to be within the 33 feet.

        Ms. Trudeau asked if the building inspector reviewed all the plans before issuing town permits for this project. Mr. Vannatta said the building inspector is the town Code Enforcement Officer and will be overseeing all the permit-driven parts to this construction. He added that the applicant will have to work through the Code Enforcement Officer throughout the construction phase. Additionally, the safety services departments and the Road Agent will also be involved on an ongoing basis with this project.

There being no further comments from the public, Mr. Vannatta closed the public portion of the hearing.

Mr. Vannatta asked if the Board had any questions before going into deliberation. The Board had none. Mr. Vannatta reviewed the process of deliberation and requested that everyone remain in the room during the deliberation, including the public if possible.

Mr. Vannatta began deliberations by reviewing the past 20 months regarding this application as follows:
  • On April 20, 2010, the issue came before the Board for a subdivision involving multi-buildings.
  • In May 2010 the Board made its first site visit.
  • On July 20, 2010 the applicant presented a conceptual to the Board.
  • The subdivision was subsequently removed and the site plan for one building was presented to the Board.
  • Several conceptual meetings followed.
  • On September 21, 2010 the noticed preliminary hearing for one building and one site plan commenced.
  • Preliminary hearings went into December 2010.
  • In January 2011 the Zoning Board of Adjustment granted two variances for frontage and density. The Planning Board had requested that the applicant go to the ZBA for those two variances prior to moving forward with the preliminary hearings.
  • From March 2011 to July 19, 2011 preliminary hearings continued. At the request of the applicant, the Board decided on July 19, 2011 that the applicant could move onto a final hearing.
  • Beginning on August 16, 2011 final hearing commenced.
  • There have been two extensions by mutual agreement. Tonight is the second extension.
  • The Planning Board has heard from all department heads and the Conservation Commission, through sign-off sheets and in person, at the Board meetings sharing their views. The Police Chief did not appear in person but he did supply a thorough sign-off sheet and written comments.
  • The Board has had thorough and ongoing review of engineering plans by Lou Caron Engineering and have all his reports in hand.
  • At the request of the Conservation Commission the Board had Dr. Rick Van de Poll, a certified wetland scientist and wildlife biologist, review the project and submit his findings to the Board.
  • The Board has granted seven (7) waivers under Article 10 and Article 12.
  • The Board has received many letters and heard many comments from the public during the course of the preliminary and final hearings.
  • The Planning Board has done its due diligence on this application.
Mr. Vannatta asked the Board to look at Article 12 Standards and Requirements for Proposed Developments for Site Plan Review. He reminded the Board that two waivers were granted: Section 12.6 Recreational Areas, and Section 12.8.8 regarding on-site parking regulations.

Mr. Vannatta reminded the Board that the seven (7) waivers were re-certified at the Board’s August 2011 meeting.

Mr. Vannatta asked the Board to review Article 12, specifically Section 12.1 through Section 12.14, excepting Section 12.6 and Section 12.8.8 which were waived. The Board reviewed Article 12 as requested.

Mr. Dezotell asked about Section 12.11 Consideration for Adjacent Land. He noted that what was not listed in that Section was consideration of traffic as a value factor. He invited the Board members to comment. Mr. Weiler questioned how the Board can discuss the topic if it isn’t listed in the regulations. Mr. Dezotell asked if the consideration of traffic should fall into this Section listing and questioned the definition of the term “loading”.

Ms. Ruppel referred to Section 12.8.7 which defines the term “loading” as dealing with deliveries and on-site loading and unloading.  

Mr. Vannatta asked the Board if they had any questions about any of the contents of Article 12 that had not been addressed or was in need of a response. The Board had none.

Mr. Vannatta moved to deliberations. He reviewed the process of Roll Call vote, the conditions precedent and subsequent, condition recommended and reviewed the guidance and recommendations provided by Town Counsel.

Mr. Vannatta called upon the Board to proceed with deliberation.

Mr. Williams said the applicant has addressed all the concerns brought up by the consultant engineer and all the concerns raised by the Board with respect to the site plan review regulations.

Ms. Ruppel said Mr. Williams had suggested that the cistern be relocated. Mr. Williams said he would defer to the decision from the Fire Chief and the Code Enforcement Officer regarding that suggestion.

Mr. Weiler concurred with Mr. Williams.

Mr. Dezotell said, that in terms of the factors that the Planning Board may consider, the applicant has come pretty close to meeting what he would need to see.

Mr. Healey cited the concerns and benefits of this application as follows:
Concerns
  • No sidewalks.
  • No reasonable walking access to the town center.
  • The tax exempt status of this property/a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes status.
  • Section 12.3 Harmonious and Aesthetic Development – this is a development that affects the Newbury Heights neighborhood and is not a particularly harmonious development for the neighborhood.
  • This project is a drain on volunteers in the community and a drain on volunteers to provide transportation to residents for medical services.
Benefits
  • Good use of the land.
  • Disturbs just eight acres out of 28 acres.
  • The report of the wetland scientist and wildlife biologist indicates minimum wetlands impact and adequate handling of stormwater runoff to the site.
  • Newbury Heights Road will be improved.
  • Confidence that CAP/HUD will complete the off-site improvements.
  • Potential for gaining access to the Newbury Cut via the RR bed.
  • Underscores that Newbury is a caring community that makes an effort to ensure that the needs of all its residents are met.
Mr. Smith agreed with Mr. Healey regarding the latter’s concern about no sidewalks. He added that he anticipates many of the elderly residents will be walking, not driving as a matter of choice or because of the limited number of parking spaces on the project site. He noted that there will be a lot of traffic on Newbury Heights Road. He said the applicant has attempted to go through all the applicable regulations.

Mr. Vannatta said some of the issues discussed early in the application review process included alternate access possibilities and sidewalks. He noted that there are few sidewalks throughout the town.

Mr. Smith referenced the Newbury Master Plan, Chapter VII – Housing, which states as a goal, “Ensure that Newbury’s elderly and disabled populations have access to appropriate housing to avoid displacement in these populations.” He added that there is a need for this kind of housing.

Mr. Vannatta noted that the Master Plan is a fluid evolving document and will change throughout the years depending on population shifts and other pressures. It should not, therefore, be considered a document cast in stone. There was further discussion about Master Plans. Mr. Vannatta noted that Master Plans throughout the state all strive to maintain a rural community. He added that this project does address Newbury’s Master Plan.

Mr. Dezotell said unfortunately much of this application’s discussion focused on social issues which the Board cannot consider or look at and that it is important for the public to understand the Planning Board’s role when considering any application. It must be a non-emotional consideration of the application and not be a I-like-it choice or I-don’t-like-it choice.

Mr. Vannatta thanked the Board for their unbiased and objective consideration and examination of this application during the past 20 months.

There was further general discussion about the Master Plan.

Ms. Ruppel referred to Article 15 Security for Construction of Improvements. There was significant discussion concerning the bond for this project. Mr. Weiler raised concerns about how the Board gets assurance that the town is protected.

At the Board’s consensus, Mr. Vannatta took the Board out of deliberations and re-opened the hearing to public. He asked Mr. Littlefield to respond. Mr. Littlefield suggested that the Board make a condition that the Town Counsel discuss with the HUD Counsel the issues regarding the bond and come up with a satisfactory agreement between the town and HUD as to how to proceed with that issue. He added that the generalities have been submitted on how the HUD bond works, namely it does not get released until the town has signed off that the project has been built according to the approved plans.

Mr. Vannatta closed the public portion of the hearing and the Board went back into deliberation.

Mr. Vannatta reviewed the conditions precedent, subsequent and recommendation.

Mr. Vannatta called for a motion to vote.

Mr. Weiler made a motion that the CAP/HUD application under discussion be approved subject to the following Conditions Precedent:
  • That the applicant secure all required permits, including but not limited to Alteration of Terrain and Wetlands, from the State of New Hampshire, within ninety (90) days of this motion;
  • That the applicant fulfills the obligation for payment of consultant fees under Article 6.5 of the Regulations for Site Plan Review with thirty (30) days of this motion;
Replacement of the stairs for the northeast entrance to the main building with an ADA-accessible ramp on the site plan within thirty (30) days of this approval.
  • Inclusion of the Historic Preservation easement with the application materials within thirty (30) days of this motion;
  • Requirement that the Town of Newbury’s legal counsel and the HUD legal counsel form an agreement regarding security to be posted for the development of the site in accordance with the Board’s approval within ninety (90) days of this motion; and,
the following Condition Subsequent:

  • That the applicant grants a right-of-way (ROW) for the cul-de-sac to the Town of Newbury prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; and,
the Recommendation:

  • That the applicant establish an ongoing liaison with the Town of Newbury (Code Enforcement Officer, Road Agent, Town Administrator, and all Safety Services) during preconstruction, construction, and completion of the work on the site and on Newbury Heights Road.
Mr. Williams suggested adding an amendment to the motion to include reference to the Town obtaining access to the RR bed ROW. Mr. Vannatta said the RR bed ROW is not part of this application and is a matter to be discussed between the applicant and the Town after the applicant takes ownership of the property.
 
Mr. Williams seconded the motion.

Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Weiler, Mr.Williams, Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Healey, Mr. Smith, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None
Mr. Vannatta informed the applicant that they, or any party directly affected by this decision, may appeal to the appropriate Court or Board within thirty (30) days of this decision under RSA 676:5 and/or RSA 677:15.

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