Planning Board
January 17, 2012
Approved February 21, 2012
Members Present: Ron Williams, Vice-Chair; Bill Weiler, Bruce Healey, Travis Dezotell, Russell Smith, Members; Rachel Ruppel, Advisor.
Mr. Williams chaired the meeting in Mr. Vannatta’s absence.
Mr. Williams called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of December 20, 2011 and made corrections. Mr. Dezotell made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion. All in favor.
CASE: Case 2012-001: Conceptual- Site Plan Review- Department of Resources and
Economic Development (DRED)/Agent CNL Income Mount Sunapee LLC- attn:
Michelle Chadwick 763-3500. Map/Lot 13-386-092
Jay Gamble, vice president and general manger of Mt. Sunapee Resort, presented to the Board. He reviewed Mt. Sunapee’s Summer Recreational Plan in its conceptual stage. He described the plan’s seven components which include a Canopy Tour/Zip Line, a Treetop Adventure Park, Mountain Bike Trails, Disc Golf, Interpretive Hiking Trails, Segway Tours and a Miniature Golf course.
Mr. Gamble provided that Board with a letter from the NH Department of Resources and Economic Development (DRED) regarding the proposed plan. The letter contained DRED’s preliminary consent to the proposed plan pending site plan review and approval by the applicable town boards in Newbury and Goshen, along with the Mt. Sunapee Advisory Committee. Additionally, the letter states that all required state or local permits must be obtained by the applicant.
There was discussion concerning the various components of the proposed plan. Mr. Gamble emphasized the plan’s focus on family activities and its low-impact to the environment. He added that Best Management Practices would be used for the planning and implementation of the proposed plan.
There was discussion about Article XI (Mt. Sunapee Recreation District) of the zoning ordinance. Discussion centered on Sections 11.2.9 and 11.3.5 and the applicability of same to the proposed plan.
Mr. Weiler noted that Section 11.3.4 (Miniature Golf and Golf Driving Range) applied to Mr. Gamble’s proposed plan and a special exception was needed for the proposed miniature golf course.
Discussion followed regarding whether or not all the components of the proposed plan required a special exception.
Mr. Healey noted that Section 11.2.9 embraced all the components of Mr. Gamble’s proposed plan except the miniature golf course. Mr. Weiler disagreed saying the ordinance lists examples of uses that all disturb the soil but the intent was not to allow for unlimited uses. Paragraph 4.3 Uses permitted by Special Exception was reviewed.
Further discussion included items in the Site Plan Review regulations that Mr. Gamble raised as possible waivers including Paragraph 10.7.12 (utility plan). Mr. Weiler noted that there is a site plan on file for Mt. Sunapee and that items of the Site Plan regulations, such as utility plans, have already been reviewed and approved. He added that this application may be considered as an amendment to the existing site plan as long as the current proposed plan complies with specific paragraphs and items pertaining to it. The Board concurred.
There was discussion about Paragraph 10.7.10 (contours).
There was Board consensus that Mr. Gamble should seek a Special Exception from the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the miniature golf course component of his plan. The Board concurred that the remaining components of his proposed plan would require a Site Plan Review application with an amended site plan.
There was discussion about the proposed trails – novice mountain biking and interpretive walking – regarding the necessity of creating new trails/grading/disruption of soil. Mr. Gamble said Best Management practices will be utilized. He added that three-to-four advisors will be brought in to help with the layout and design for the hiking and walking paths.
Ms. Ruppel noted that any outdoor storage facilities would have to be included on the plan. Mr. Gamble agreed.
CASE: Case 2012-002: Preliminary Major Subdivision- Rheta Heller Revocable
Trust/agent: Allen Wilson. 863-1474. Map/Lot 030-666-376
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application for a Preliminary Hearing for a Major Subdivision from Rheta Heller Revocable Trust, for property located on Rollins Road, Newbury, NH, Tax Map 030-666-376 on Tuesday, January 17, 2012, at 7:30 pm 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. Dezotell recused himself because he is an abutter.
Mr. Williams and Ms. Ruppel reviewed the application for completeness.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to accept the application as complete. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. Mr. Williams called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Smith, Mr. Healey, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Williams
Opposed: None
Mr. Allen Wilson, ALW Surveys, agent, presented to the Board. He said the applicant has 59.83 acres that she is dividing into five lots for homes. Each lot is over five acres with more than 300 feet of road frontage. Three lots are on Rollins Road and two lots are on Route 103-A. No additional roads are needed because of the existing road frontage. Perk tests are not required by the state in lots over five acres. He described the acreage as containing a variety of slope, flat areas, old stone walls and mountain views. The wetland study completed in October 2011 is incorporated into the five home lots layout. He added that the applicant intends to sell Lots C, D, E, and F and keep the remaining lot of 26.84 acres.
Mr. Healey noted that Lot F should have 5-foot contours instead of the 20-foot contours on the plan. He said the other three lots for sale have 5-foot contours indicated. Mr. Wilson said it was a cost factor to the applicant. Discussion followed. Mr. Weiler questioned whether the 20-foot contours afforded enough information for the Board to decide if the lot is buildable. Discussion followed.
Mr. Wilson said over half of Lot F is in the protected zone regarding the 75-foot buffer regulation. There was discussion about the wetland areas on Lot F and whether or not a steep slope analysis has been done.
Mr. Wilson said it was his understanding that the regulations stated that 20-foot contours from USGS were acceptable. Ms. Ruppel read into the record Article 9.5 Topographic Map in the Land Subdivision Control Regulations as follows: Contours of existing grade shall be shown at intervals of: 5 feet when the slope of the topography is 15% or more; 2 feet when the slope of the topography is between 1% and 15%; and Spot elevations when the slope is less than 1%. She added that the Board may interpolate USGS contours but the regulations are for 5-foot contours. However, a waiver of the 5-foot contours may be requested by the applicant.
Discussion followed regarding steep slope requirements in general and a steep slope in particular to this application. Mr. Wilson contended that the presence of steep slope on Lot F is negligible, perhaps 3/10th of an acre.
Mr. Weiler said since the lots are going to be used for the eventual building of homes, the Board needs to know the buildable area on each lot, which necessitates knowing the presence of steep slopes.
Discussion followed regarding the possibility of steep slopes on the four lots in question. Mr. Healey noted that there is a significant (300 feet) drop in elevation from the northwest corner of Lot F to the southeast corner of Lot C.
Mr. Wilson asked for clarification regarding the term “buildable area”. Mr. Williams said the terms refers to the building envelope on each lot, or, in other words, the Board needs to know where future development would occur on each lot.
Mr. Weiler referred Mr. Wilson to Article 5.10 Building Envelopes of the zoning ordinance. He said the regulations ensures that a house is built in best possible place on each lot. General discussion followed regarding building envelopes.
Mr. Weiler noted that each of the four lots must show the building envelope and location of driveways (per paragraph 9.4.9 of the Land Subdivision Control Regulations).
The Board considered the requested waivers from the Land Subdivision Control Regulations as follows:
9.5 Topographical Map
Mr. Weiler made a motion to grant a waiver of the requirements of Paragraph 9.5 of the Land Subdivision Control Regulations because of specific circumstances relative to the land indicate that the waiver will properly carry out the spirit and intent of the regulations. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. Mr. Williams called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Smith, Mr. Healey, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Williams
Opposed: None
9.6 Soils Report and Map
Mr. Weiler made a motion to grant a waiver of the requirements of Paragraph 9.6 of the Land Subdivision Control Regulations for perk tests because the lots are five acres or more and those circumstances indicate that the waiver will properly carry out the spirit and intent of the regulations. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. Mr. Williams called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Smith, Mr. Healey, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Williams
Opposed: None
9.7 Utilities and Fire Protection Plan Map
9.8 Road Profiles, Cross Sections and Details
9.9 Erosion and Sediment Control Report and Plan
9.10 Drainage Plan Map
9.11 Drainage and Hydrology Report
9.12 Infrastructure Impact Report
9.13 Environmental Impact Report
Mr. Weiler made a motion to grant a waiver of the requirements of Paragraphs 9.7 through 9.13 of the Land Subdivision Control Regulations because the nature of the subdivision is a frontage subdivision and there are no infrastructures or drainage control structures as part of the application and these circumstances indicate that the waiver will properly carry out the spirit and intent of the regulations. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. Mr. Williams called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Smith, Mr. Healey, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Williams
Opposed: None
9.14 Subdivisions located within “Special Flood Hazard Areas”
9.15 Sign-off Sheet
9.16 Legal Documents Required
9.17 Other Legal Documents Required
Ms. Ruppel noted that Paragraphs 9.14 through 9.17 on the list of requested waivers were not applicable to this application. The Board agreed.
9.18 Agency or Permit Approvals
Ms. Ruppel noted that the regulations pertaining to driveway permits as stated in Paragraph 9.18.2 (1) call for such permits to be submitted prior to signing and recording the subdivision plat but the regulations do not require that driveway permits be submitted at the time of application. Discussion followed.
Mr. Weiler noted that often agency/permit approvals are included as conditions of approval. That means the plat is not signed and recorded until those conditions are met.
Mr. Wilson said the applicant will want to record the plan so she can put the lots up for sale. He was told that the Road Agent handles driveway permits for town roads. Mr. Williams noted that there are two lots fronting on route 103A which would fall under state jurisdiction.
There was discussion about where the driveways might be located on each of the lots.
Mr. Wilson asked if there was an expiration date for the driveway permits in Newbury if the lots are not developed within a certain timeframe. Mr. Weiler said the town has not established such timeframes.
There was further discussion about driveway locations and sight distances. The board instructed Mr. Wilson to use his best judgment regarding locating the driveways on each lot. Mr. Weiler noted that Mr. Wilson will have to come back to the board with the driveway locations. Mr. Wilson agreed.
The Board agreed that Paragraph 9.18.1 did not apply to this application because there were no state agency permits required. Additionally, the Board agreed that Paragraph 9.18.2 (2) did not apply to this application because each lot was at or over five acres.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to deny the request that driveway permits be waived. Mr. Healey seconded the motion.
Mr. Williams called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Smith, Mr. Healey, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Williams
Opposed: None
Section XI – Standards for Sediment and Erosion Control Design
Section XII – Standards for Drainage Design
Section XIII – Standards for Street Design
Ms. Ruppel noted that Sections XI, XII, and XIII on the list of requested waivers were not applicable to this project. The Board agreed.
6.1 Professional Review
6.2 Inspection Services
Ms. Ruppel noted that Paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 on the list of requested waivers were not applicable to this project. The Board agreed.
Mr. Weiler reviewed the Density Report, specifically the deer wintering areas. He noted that deer wintering areas are determined by someone who is a wildlife specialist and is qualified by the state. Mr. Wilson said he holds a degree in wildlife biology. Mr. Weiler reviewed the paragraph 2.34 Deer Wintering Areas in the zoning ordinance and suggested that the deer wintering areas must be indicated on the plan. Mr. Wilson noted there are no areas on the property that would qualify as deer wintering areas as defined in the town regulations. Mr. Weiler said the application must have a statement to that effect from Mr. Wilson with a statement referring to his qualifications.
Mr. Healey said the Planning Board accepted a letter submitted by the applicant in 2010 for a previous application regarding deer wintering areas on the property. He suggested that Mr. Wilson obtain a copy of that letter from the applicant for submission with this application. Mr. Wilson agreed.
There was further discussion about the Density Report, particularly the road classifications and the maximum dwelling unit calculation. Mr. Weiler noted that the calculation for maximum dwelling unit typically refers to a standard subdivision that includes roads, etc. In this case, since there are no homes being built in the subdivision, the number should be adjusted to zero.
Ms. Ruppel said setback lines and the 75-foot buffer zone around the wetlands must be shown on the plan and, if necessary, may be included in a notation on the plan.
There was further discussion regarding road frontage for the lots on Rollins Road and the correlation between the road frontage and lot size.
Mr. Weiler suggested that Mr. Wilson make the changes noted and return to the Board with a final application. The Board agreed.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Mylar
The Board signed the mylar for the Deschenes lot line adjustment (Case: 2011-015).
The Municipal Network
Mr. Williams noted that the Board has been invited to attend a presentation sponsored by The Municipal Network on January 19, 2012 titled “Adapting to New England’s Changing Climate”. Details of the presentation were discussed.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
