Planning Board
Work Session
November 6, 2013
Approved December 17, 2013
Members Present: Bruce Healey, Chair; Tom Vannatta, Vice-Chair; Bill Weiler, Russell Smith, Members; Rachel Ruppel, Advisor; Jim Powell, ex-officio member.
Mr. Healey called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
CIP Signing
The Board signed the final draft of the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) 2014 - 2019.
Tackle Shack Exterior Lighting
Mr. Weiler reported that he met with the Board of Selectmen regarding the exterior lighting of The Tackle Shack on Route 103, relaying his concerns with the glare and intensity of the lighting at night.
Mr. Powell said the Selectmen have started to look into the matter, noting that one of the tall lights on the property was already there when the new owners purchased the same. He added that the Selectmen will continue to look into the issues of nighttime glare and intensity.
Setbacks and Septic Systems
Mr. Healey reported that he was contacted by a resident who questioned the regulation governing property setbacks as they related to the installation of new septic systems and raised mound leach fields. The Code Enforcement Officer was consulted and he indicated that no setback requirements applied, per Paragraph 5.9 Setback Requirements of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance.
There was general discussion regarding septic systems, construction of same, and the applicable setback requirements in the town ordinance.
Mr. Healey said he will contact the interested resident and share this information.
Proposed Amendments to Site Plan Review Regulations
Mr. Weiler reviewed the proposed changes to Article XVI Period for Construction, specifically the five-year exemption which protects the developer from changes in the regulations while the property is being developed.
Mr. Powell noted that building permits allow two years for construction. Mr. Weiler noted that he felt it wasn’t good for the town to have an open-ended approach to the time frame for construction and suggested that the Board negotiate with the applicant regarding the anticipated time frame of the construction.
Discussion followed.
Mr. Weiler said it is important to balance the requirements of the municipality with the rights of the individual.
Discussion commenced regarding the definition of “substantial completion” and “active and substantial development or building….” (Paragraph 4.8.4)
Ms. Ruppel noted that the Board has the authority to modify the definitions contained in Paragraph 4.8.4. Discussion followed.
The Board engaged in substantial discussion regarding the meaning of “substantial completion” and “active and substantial development or building….”.
Mr. Powell noted that this proposed change is comprehensive and is prompted by case law. Mr. Weiler agreed, adding the proposed changes to the current site plan regulations have been drawn from cases dealing with municipal control versus individual rights.
Mr. Powell expressed concern that the regulations may prohibit the Board from being able to work with the developer regarding needed time extensions should unforeseen circumstances arise that would prohibit the developer from meeting the deadlines outlined in the regulations.
Mr. Weiler said the Board will be able to work with the developer should that kind of situation present itself.
Ms. Ruppel suggested adding the phrase “both on-site and off-site” to Paragraph 4.8.6.
Mr. Weiler reviewed the proposed changes to Article VI Procedure for Site Plan Review.
Discussion followed regarding the differences between the following:
- A public meeting and a public hearing
- A preliminary review and a design review
- What information should be included in a preliminary review and a final review
- At what stage in the application review process should waivers be granted
Ms. Ruppel noted that the Board can set standards of what can be included in the design review phase of the application hearing.
Ms. Ruppel outlined the application review process as follows:
- Phase 1 – Conceptual: This is the idea phase and the project is discussed in general terms.
- Phase 2 – Design Review: The project is presented with more details and a discussion on how the project can meet the town’s regulations.
- Conceptual and Design Review are both encouraged but not required.
Mr. Healey suggested including a requirement that a Conceptual be submitted five business days prior to the Board meeting.
Discussion followed regarding requiring anyone with financial interests should be noticed along with the abutters.
Mr. Healey noted that the two proposed amendments to the Site Plan Regulation will be sent to town counsel for review.
Planning Board Rules of Procedure Amendments
Mr. Healey reviewed the proposed amendments to the Planning Board’s Rules of procedure.
Mr. Healey called for a motion to vote on adopting said amendments.
Mr. Powell made a motion to adopt the Proposed Amendments to Newbury Planning Board Rules of Procedure. Mr. Vannatta seconded the motion.
Mr. Healey called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Smith, Mr. Powell, Mr. Vannatta, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Healey
Opposed: None
Mr. Vannatta made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Powell seconded the motion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
