Planning Board
May 20, 2014
Approved June 17, 2014
Members Present: Bruce Healey, Chair; Tom Vannatta, Vice-Chair; Ron Williams, Bill Weiler, Russell Smith, Members; Rachel Ruppel, Advisor.
Mr. Healey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Presentation: Lake Sunapee Protective Association (LSPA)
June Fichter, LSPA executive director, and Nancy Marashio, LSPA watershed committee, presented a comparative compilation of the shoreland regulations of each town in the Lake Sunapee watershed – Newbury, New London, Sunapee and Springfield. There was also a listing of the state shoreland regulations for comparative purposes.
Ms. Fichter and Ms. Marashio asked the Board to confirm the information for Newbury and noted that they will be meeting with the Planning Boards in each of the towns requesting the same verification.
Ms. Marashio pointed out that there were three areas of information missing from the study, namely regulations governing the restoration of disturbed land, maintenance after a property owner has disturbed the land, and enforcement of the regulations.
She reviewed the differences among the towns’ regulations and invited the Planning Board to review the regs governing other towns.
The purpose of the study is to eventually synthesize an approach to shoreland regulation around the lake. Ms. Marashio said this is a two-step process: first, each town’s Planning Board will review the existing regs; and, second, to hold a joint meeting with all the town Boards and LSPA.
Mr. Vannatta asked if the goal was to have all the towns implementing the same shoreland regulations. Ms. Fichter said that would be ideal but in many areas, the towns already have similar regulations
Mr. Healey questioned what the other towns did with their shoreland regulations when the state changed the Shoreland Protection Act, adding Newbury did not alter their regulations. Ms. Fichter said the other towns made small changes but none were in reaction to the state law changes.
Ms. Marashio said the study is aimed at looking at what regulations protect the lake. Ms. Fichter discussed the various collaborative activities currently in place involving LSPA and the watershed towns.
Mr. Healey suggested that the Board review the materials and that a discussion of same is put on the agenda for the Planning Board meeting on July 15, 2014.
CASE: Case 2014-004: Conceptual – Site Plan Review – Tackle Shack/agent: Dale Sandy. Map/Lot 020-079-136. Addition for Archery service.
Dale Sandy discussed his plans for expanding The Tackle Shack to include an area for archery bow service. The bow service area would be attached to the left side of the existing building and extend 12-feet from the side and extend 100-feet from front to back. The area would be used to service and repair archery bows for customers and added that the 100-foot length of the addition would be needed to site in bows for up to 30-yards.
He said the construction would be a pole barn type of building, unfinished on the inside, and with a dirt floor. The existing roof pitch will be used in extending the addition out 12-feet from the existing building. He noted that the exterior will be sided to match the rest of the building.
Mr. Healey asked about the access to the proposed shed. Mr. Sandy said there will be an entrance door to the shed from the existing shop and two additional doors for egress.
Mr. Healey noted that if the addition is sited as presented, then Mr. Sandy will have to get a variance from the 30-foot ROW setback requirement and shared the tax assessor map of the lot. He suggested that Mr. Sandy talk with the DOT regarding the exact ROW location. He asked Mr. Sandy if he had considered placing the addition along the back of the building instead of the side.
Mr. Sandy said, yes. Discussion followed.
Mr. Weiler noted that this is the third time Mr. Sandy has appeared before the Planning Board and made a recommendation for a site plan.
Ms. Ruppel said the size of the addition requires a site plan under the current site plan review (SPR) regulations. She noted that the SPR regulations will be reviewed at a public hearing in June and Mr. Sandy’s application would fall under the new SPR regulations if they are approved. She added that the size of project will require a site plan.
Mr. Healey concurred.
Mr. Smith asked if this addition will be servicing guns. Mr. Sandy said no, just archery bows.
Ms. Ruppel said the site plan should show that there is sufficient parking for the existing U-Haul business, along with parking requirements for the added line of business servicing bows. She added that if exterior lighting is planned, there are regulations covering that and that information should be included in the site plan.
CASE: Case 2014-005: Conceptual – Lot Line Adjustment/Annexation? – Louis Marzelli. Map/Lot 044-337-290. Wants to know options for building a second house on his property for his son.
Louis Marzelli said he owns 9.3 acres on Emily Lane, Newbury, and that he has lived there for 35 years. He said his son and daughter-in-law just had a baby and he wants to take five acres in the back of his property to build a house for them. He said there is an existing access road to the five acre area.
There was discussion about the available alternatives for getting enough road frontage (200-feet) to allow the construction of a second house on the property.
Mr. Healey referred to Article 5.8 Frontage Requirements, noting that there must be 200-feet of frontage per dwelling on a town-maintained road or on a sub division road.
Discussion followed regarding the existing access “road” on Mr. Marzelli’s property and what must be done to make it an access road that meets the town requirements. Mr. Marzelli expressed the desire to put in a private road with the belief that it would satisfy the 200-foot frontage requirement needed for a second swelling on his property.
Mr. Healey said Mr. Marzelli’s suggestion does not meet the spirit of the ordinance and encouraged him to speak to his neighbor about the possibility of purchasing 200-feet of road frontage, adding that there is a substantial financial and construction difference between putting in a driveway to service a second house and putting in a private road.
Mr. Healey said if Mr. Marzelli acquired the 200-feet of road frontage from his neighbor, the next step includes submitting an application for a minor subdivision.
There was general discussion regarding a ROW easement. There was Board consensus that Mr. Marzelli would benefit from having his land surveyed by a land surveyor familiar with these kinds of issues.
Ms. Ruppel encouraged Mr. Marzelli to use a land surveyor who is familiar with designing a lot that meets the form factor of Newbury.
Mr. Seidel, who lives on Emily Lane, was in the audience and asked about the private covenant on the properties on Emily Lane regarding the restriction on subdividing properties. Mr. Marzelli said he looked into that and there is a 10-year limitation on that restriction.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Election of Officers
Mr. Healey turned the meeting over to the Recording Secretary. The Recording Secretary called for nominations for the Board Chair. Mr. Vannatta made a motion to nominate Bruce Healey to serve as Chair of the Newbury Planning Board. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. The Recording Secretary closed the nominations and called for a Roll Call Vote.
In Favor: Mr. Smith, Mr. Williams, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None
The Recording Secretary turned the meeting over to the newly elected Chair, Mr. Healey. Mr. Healey called for nominations for Vice-Chair. Mr. Williams made a motion to nominate Tom Vannatta to serve as Vice-Chair of the Newbury Planning Board. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion. Mr. Healey closed the nominations and called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Smith, Mr. Williams, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Healey
Opposed: None
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of January 28, 2014 and made corrections. Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. All in favor.
The Board reviewed the minutes of May 6, 2014 and made corrections. Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Vannatta seconded the motion. All in favor.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Zoning Ordinance-Article 17 (Personal Wireless Service Facilities)
Ms. Ruppel said she will review Newbury’s current regulations regarding personal wireless service facilities since the state and federal regulations governing the same have changed.
Mr. Healey noted that regulations were included in the Town regs but, to date, they have not been used.
Update: Lori Champagne Court Action
Mr. Healey shared with the Board a letter from town counsel regarding the case of Lori Champagne vs. Town of Newbury which stated that the matter has been placed on hold pending the outcome of Ms. Champagne’s petition to quiet title against the Lights. Additionally, the court dismissed the Town [of Newbury] from the petition to quiet title proceedings since the town has no interest in its outcome. The ownership of property is not a matter that the Planning Board can resolve and therefore it is a private matter for the two property owners.
Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
Mr. Healey reviewed the process involved in the development of the annual CIP. Ms. Ruppel noted that, in the past, the Planning Board has had two members on the CIP committee, Mr. Vannatta and Mr. Williams. She added that Mr. Healey may appoint willing members to the CIP committee.
Mr. Healey appointed Mr. Vannatta and Mr. Williams to serve on the CIP committee. It was noted that Bruce Barton is the at-large member on the committee. Ms. Ruppel said she will notify the Town Administrator of the appointments.
Ms. Ruppel noted that there is the potential for broadband expansion to the Chalk Pond area and, if the town is interested, it would be a capital expense and must be included in the CIP. She added that there are also some drainage issues in Blodgetts Landing emanating from Grace Hill – which should also be addressed by the CIP committee.
Candidate for Board of Selectmen Position
Mr. Healey noted that there are four candidates for the vacated position of Selectmen – Katheryn Holmes, Elizabeth Ashworth, Ed Thorson, and one other person.
Discussion Re Options for Driveway Location for Ken Brown Property
Harry Seidel, representing Ken Brown on Loch Lyndon Reservoir, asked the Board for an informal discussion about Mr. Brown’s plans to build a barn for boat storage and presented the preliminary survey of the property done by Doug Sweet. Of concern was part of the driveway that crosses the 75-foot wetland setback line. Mr. Seidel wanted to know if this required an application to one of the Land Use Boards.
Discussion followed regarding wetland setback, impact on the natural woodland buffer, zoning differences between shoreland and wetland setbacks, and wetland reference lines. The Board concluded that if Mr. Brown moves the driveway to avoid falling into the wetland setback area there is no need to make application to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Ms. Ruppel noted that If Mr. Brown does not move the road, then the Code Enforcement Officer will determine if he needs a variance or not.
The Recording of Site Plans
Mr. Weiler discussed the Board’s interest in recording site plans. He said the Registry of Deeds has strict rules on what is to be recorded and that a site plan would have to be “stripped down” to fall under the Registry’ requirements. Mr. Weiler said this would not be useful.
Discussion followed regarding the issues of document storage and security. Mr. Healey said further discussion will be scheduled for upcoming meetings.
Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
