Planning Board Work Session
May 6, 2014
Approved May 20, 2014
Members Present: Bruce Healey, Chair; Tom Vannatta, Vice-Chair; Ron Williams, Bill Weiler, Russell Smith, Members; Richard Wright, ex-officio member.
Mr. Healey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Healey introduced Mr. Wright to the Board as the new ex-officio member, replacing Jim Powell. Mr. Healey asked Mr. Wright if he wished to say anything to the Board before the meeting commenced. Mr. Wright indicated that he did not have anything to say to the Board and suggested that the meeting commence.
Site Plan Review Proposed Amendments
Mr. Healey noted that the Board held a duly noticed public hearing on March 18, 2014 on the proposed amendments to the Site Plan Review regulations. At that hearing, the Board concurred that the materials presented to the public were difficult to follow and read. The hearing was closed and the Board agreed that more “user-friendly” materials should be prepared and another hearing scheduled using the newer materials.
Mr. Healey stated that a fresh set of materials have been prepared that clearly describe and show the proposed amendments to the Site Plan Review regulations. All Board members received these new materials for review. Mr. Healey requested that the Board decide if these materials are “user-friendly” and, if so, to set a date of June 17, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing on the proposed amendments.
Additionally, Mr. Healey proposed adding an introductory paragraph to the new materials that describes the reasons why the Planning Board is proposing the amendments to the Site Plan Review regulations. There was Board consensus that the introductory summary paragraph should be added to the submitted materials.
Mr. Healey noted that the new set of proposed amendments will be posted on the town website.
Paul LaCasse, code enforcement officer, was present in the audience and asked if the content of the proposed amendments could be changed. Mr. Vannatta stated that the document content has been moved on by the Board and it will go to a public hearing.
Mr. LaCasse referenced 5.11.4.1 which reads, “Upon determination that a proposed development has a potential regional impact, the Newbury Planning board shall afford the regional planning commission and the affected municipalities the status of abutters as defined in RSA 672:3 for the limited purpose of providing notice and giving testimony.” Mr. LaCasse stated that this would open the town to potential lawsuits.
Mr. Weiler reminded him that 5.11.4.1 invites comment from other municipalities but it does not require that the Board accept those comments.
Mr. Wright said 5.11.4.1 gives away the sovereignty of the town and opens the town to an increased risk of lawsuits. He added that the town should remain autonomous and request information from the regional commission if needed.
Mr. Weiler noted that this issue surfaces only after an application clearly presents potential impact on neighboring municipalities or the region. Mr. Weiler referred Mr. Wright to RSA 36:55 which defines developments of regional impact.
Mr. LaCasse stated that he was bothered by the above RSA’s inclusion of “Proximity to aquifers or surface waters which transcend municipal boundaries.” adding that Newbury includes multiple examples of streams, lakes, and other water bodies.
Mr. Healey said the Board requested that town counsel review all proposed amendments to the Site Plan Review regulations and that 5.11.4.1 was inserted into the document at the recommendation of town counsel.
Mr. LaCasse indicated that the proposed fee structure in 5.6 seemed high. Mr. Vannatta noted that the fees were increased to avoid the necessity of requesting multiple deposits from the applicant, which was what transpired with the CAP/HUD/Newbury Elderly Housing project.
There was discussion regarding 9.8.2 pertaining to driveways. Mr. Wright said it was too restrictive, given the prevailing topography of the town. Mr. Vannatta noted that the applicant has the option to ask for a waiver from this regulation if he/she so chooses.
Mr. Wright questioned the necessity of 6.3.4 which requires a “full-size copy” of the site plan. He asked what if a full-size copy measures 24-inches by 36-inches. Discussion followed. There was consensus that 6.3.4 is self-explanatory.
Mr. Wright questioned the requirement for a survey as stated in 7.6. He suggested adding a sentence that an existing survey could be used or a reference to the deed page. Mr. Weiler said it is at the Board’s discretion to grant a waiver to this regulation if the applicant has an existing survey.
There was discussion regarding the use of the word “shall” or “may”. Mr. Healey said town counsel insisted on using the word “shall” and that the Board respects his recommendation.
There was general discussion regarding 9.4.3.1, the minimum landscaped open space for site plans for the development of commercial or industrial type uses.
The board discussed exterior lighting, the maximum wattage used per fixture, the purpose of the regulation, and the issue of existing bright lights shining on private property. Mr. Weiler noted that the proposed amendment to the exterior lighting regulation is the least restrictive language available.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Healey called for a motion to vote.
Mr. Vannatta made a motion to accept the proposed changes to the Site Plan Review regulations as presented and to set the date for a public hearing on June 17, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Healey called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Williams, Mr. Smith, Mr. Wright, Mr. Vannatta, Mr. Healey, Mr. Weiler
Opposed: None
Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Vannatta seconded the motion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
