Planning Board
May 1, 2012
Approved June 5, 2012
Members Present: Bruce Healey, Chair; Tom Vannatta, Vice-Chair; Bill Weiler, Ron Williams, Russell Smith, Members; Rachel Ruppel, Advisor.
Mr. Healey called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
There were no minutes to review due to the cancellation of the work session meeting on April 3, 2012.
Zoning Ordinance – Steep Slope Definition
The Board discussed an amendment to the steep slopes definition as contained in Article II Definitions and Article IX Steep Slopes Conservation Overlay District. There was significant discussion regarding the steep slope definition. Mr. Weiler offered a draft amendment that expanded the current definition and the Board discussed the same. There was discussion concerning how to measure steep slope, whether plats should show two-foot contours or five-foot contours, and how to determine where the slope “breaks”. There was additional discussion concerning why a measured slope of 25% is used instead of 15%, the horizontal width within a steep slope and how to determine a steep slope.
Ms. Ruppel noted that the steep slope definition in Newbury carries two points: (1) factor in lot density calculation, and; (2) building on a steep slope is prohibited.
There was further discussion concerning the burden of hardship placed on the engineer in the field when measuring two-foot contours versus five-foot contours. Additional discussion centered on the identification of slope breaks.
Ms. Ruppel suggested taking a set of four contours at a 20-foot elevation change regardless of the contour lines on the plan, adding that this is a straightforward way to determine steep slope based on contours. Discussion followed.
There was discussion regarding using square foot measurements to determine steep slope.
Mr. Vannatta noted that if five-foot contours are used it may allow for more excavation within the building envelope. Discussion followed.
There was further discussion regarding the use of two-foot or five-foot contours.
Ms. Ruppel noted that the subdivision regulations require five-foot contours and that five-foot contours provide an accurate look at steep slope and reduces the cost burden to the applicant. The Board reached a consensus that five-foot contours are preferred to two-foot contours.
The Board agreed to revisit Mr. Weiler’s draft amendment at a future meeting.
Land Subdivision Control Regulations
The Board discussed an amendment to Section IV Administration – Signing the Subdivision Plan (6.4.2), specifically the requirements for security for improvements (9.16.5). The amendment modifies the existing regulation by a two-word addition referring to the form of the security to read, “An acceptable form of security is an irrevocable letter of credit from a bank.” The Board agreed to wait until further modifications to the subdivision regulations are proposed before holding a public hearing regarding the two-word change.
Policy for Submission of Written Public Comment
The Board discussed the procedure for acceptable submission of written public comment from the public for Board consideration. Mr. Vannatta raised the point about what constitutes a written notice. He noted that acceptable forms of submitted written public comment include signed letters with hand written signatures; faxed signed letters; and scanned signed letters. There was discussion whether email letters and photos were acceptable forms of public comment since the origin of the emails could not be verified.
Mr. Weiler noted that submission of photos by a member of the public should occur at the meeting in question and only upon the approval by the Board chair. He added that all submitted written letters should be read into the record at the public hearing. Ms. Ruppel agreed.
The Board discussed adding a statement at the end of the Public Notice to include the following: Interested citizens are encouraged to attend the public hearing and express their views. Signed written comments will be accepted until 5:00 p.m. on [day], [date], at the Land Use Coordinator’s office.”
Departmental Review Sign-Off Sheets
The Board discussed the policy concerning receipt of departmental review sign-off sheets as required for submission of an application to the Board. It was noted that the Conservation Commission is constrained by their meeting dates and may not always be able to submit a sign-off sheet in a timely manner.
There was discussion concerning how the sign-off sheets are distributed to the department heads. It was suggested that the Land Use Coordinator be responsible for sign-off sheet distribution.
The Board discussed modifications to the current procedures for Departmental Sign-off Sheets. Modifications include: (1) make the “Return to Applicant by Date” much larger and more prominent, and (2) Add a check box for “Request for Extension”.
The Board reached consensus to implement the above two modifications. Ms. Ruppel agreed to send the land Use Coordinator a memo regarding same and Mr. Healey agreed to meet with the Land Use Coordinator to review the changes.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
CAP Newbury Elderly Housing Project Cost Estimates
The Board reviewed two cost estimates submitted by Eckman Engineering, LLC for Newbury Heights Road improvements and for on-site construction (roadway construction, parking area construction and associated drainage).
There was significant discussion concerning the two submitted cost estimates. Eckman Engineering’s cost estimate for Newbury Heights Road improvements was $216,517.08. The cost estimate for On-site (road, parking, and drainage) was $735,920.80.
Mr. Healey noted that both estimates were sent to Lou Caron, engineer, for his review. Mr. Caron noted that he wanted to submit his own cost estimate for the sake of comparison.
There was discussion about the necessity of Mr. Caron’s independent estimate as well as the appropriate procedure if there are discrepancies between the submitted cost estimates and Mr. Caron’s findings.
Ms. Ruppel noted that, procedurally, because the amount of security for this project is something that requires consideration by the Board and not just an administrative approval, this may have to go to a public hearing. She added that her recommendation would be to seek Town counsel’s input concerning procedure.
The Board reached consensus regarding seeking input from Town counsel and Mr. Healey requested Ms. Ruppel to contact Bart Mayer regarding procedure. She added that she would also ask Mr. Mayer if a third party review of the cost estimates by Mr. Caron is needed.
UVLSRPC Joint Meeting with the Board of Selectmen (BOS)
Mr. Vannatta noted that Christine Walker, executive director of the Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission (UVLSRPC) will make a presentation to the BOS on May 21, 2012 to review the regional master plan and other issues facing Newbury and its neighboring towns. No action will be taken at the meeting and all interested parties are invited to attend.
Wild Goose Boat Launch Update
Mr. Vannatta noted that the appeal regarding the Wild Goose Boat Launch project is in front of the State Supreme Court on June 18 – 22, 2012 and that he has been asked by Town counsel to present testimony. Mr. Vannatta added that he needed permission from the Board to represent them at the appeal hearing. Mr. Healey requested that Mr. Vannatta represent the Board at the appeal hearing and the Board agreed. Mr. Vannatta added that Katheryn Holmes, ZBA chair, will also be at the hearing.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
