TOWN OF NEWTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEWTON PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING
July 12, 2005
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:12 PM, declaring a quorum of four members present. The meeting was posted in three town locations: Newton Post Office, Newton Town Hall, and Newton Junction Post Office.
2. ATTENDANCE
The following members were present:
Kim Pettit – Vice-Chairman
Elliott Estey – Vice Chairman
James Doggett
Norm Harding – BOS ex-officio member
Rich LeClair
Ann Miles
Also present:
Jill Robinson – RPC planner
Mike DiBartolomeo – Building Inspector
3. APPROVAL OF PAST MEETING MINUTES
The Board reviewed the minutes of May 10, May 19, May 24, June 14 and June 28, 2005.
Motion made by Mr. Doggett with a second by Mr. LeClair to approve the minutes of May 10, May 19, May 24, June 14 and June 28, 2005 as written. The motion passed 5-0-1 with Mr. Estey abstaining.
4. Fitz Realty Trust (04SU008)
Public Hearing
18 & 18A Smith Corner Road
43 Unit Elderly Cluster Development Application Review Continued
This was a continuation of a Public Hearing to consider the request of Fitz Realty Trust for a 43 Unit Elderly Cluster Development Application Review for property located at 18 & 18A Smith Corner Road, Newton, NH, Map 7, Block 4, Lot 5 and Map 7, Block 4, Lot 5-1. Fitz Realty Trust was represented by Dennis Quintal of Civil Construction. Mr. Quintal stated that at the previous meeting he had had a summary regarding the project and a list of waivers, two of which had been approved. He said that before continuing, further design work was needed and he would like for all of the waivers to be approved. He requested a continuation to the August meeting.
Motion made by Mr. Doggett, with a second by Mr. LeClair to continue this hearing until August 9, 2005. The motion passed unanimously.
5. SOLETTO BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT - APPROVAL
Ms. Pettit asked for the board’s administrative assistant to bring the board up to speed regarding the Soletto Boundary Line Adjustment. Ms. Cockerline stated that there had been a public hearing in 2002, which the board had denied because it was not within the board’s purview to make non-conforming lots more non-conforming. Mr. Soletto returned for public hearing in February 2005 following a variance from the ZBA. The hearing was continued to March and then to April. In April, the Chairman had announced that there was no need for a further continuation because this boundary line adjustment had been approved however; there was no documented approval in the past meeting minutes. Ms. Cockerline had the signed mylar at the meeting and requested that for purposes of documentation, the board move to
approve the boundary line adjustment. Mr. Estey asked if Mr. Soletto had purchased the property in question and Ms. Cockerline said that he had.
Motion made by Mr. Doggett, with a second from Ms. Miles to approve the Boundary Line Adjustment for Soletto. The motion passed 5-0-1, with Mr. Estey abstaining.)
6. Ron Pica re: Country Pond Fish & Game Site Walk & Discussion regarding site walk for Whispering Pines Campground due to removal of trees
Mr. Pica said that he had addressed the board at a previous meeting and had sent out packets
in June to the members. He said that a site walk was needed. It was stated that it was needed at both sites as the board had received information that trees had been removed at Whispering Pines. Mr. Pica said that one tree had been removed because it had been damaged during a thunder storm and he provided a receipt and offered to let the board contact the contractor who had removed it for verification. He said that he had been very selective and a total of six trees had been removed in two years. He said that the trees were trimmed back in the fall and the tops were cut to prevent damage. He had no objection to a site walk of his property adding that it was a pretty nice resort. There was some discussion about conducting a site walk on July 23, 2005 at 9 AM. Mr. Estey said that a site walk
would be a total waste of time. He said that tree cutting at a camp was routine maintenance. Ms. Miles asked why the site walk would be at 9 AM and suggested that it be done when it was the noisiest at the CPF&G. Mr. Pica said that the shooting took place seven days per week from 9:30 AM to dusk and then he spoke about the different types of guns used and the range of noise each made. He said that there was no one specific time when it was particularly noisy. Ms. Miles suggested asking the engineer about taking random samples.
Motion made by Ms. Miles to have the town engineer make two random visits with reports on each to the Board. (Withdrawn)
Mr. Estey suggested asking CPF&G for an end time because there had been no excavating done and the board could not keep granting extensions if the work wasn’t being done. Ms. Miles said that the noise levels needed to be monitored. Mr. Estey said that there were gaps in the sound mitigation and that CPF&G needed to be pinned down. Mr. Pica said that the engineer from Air & Noise Compliance was Frank Kuhn. He said that the extension had been for the excavation and not for the sound mitigation, which was needed on the west side.
Ms. Pettit said that the board would need to look for documentation regarding extensions and the board should send a letter to determine progress made. Mr. Estey said that the letter should be strongly worded. Mr. Pica said that the Planning Board had said that sound tests would be performed. Mr. Estey said that CPF&G did not have to purchase that property and the situation would be the same if the property had been purchased by an excavation company. Mr. Doggett suggested a site walk to see the existing conditions and compare them to any documentation received and perhaps it would light a burner under CPF&G and then a follow-up letter could be sent informing them that they were not compliant.
Motion made by Ms. Miles with a second by Mr. Doggett to write a letter to CPF&G apprising them of the conditions and informing them of the board’s desire to conduct a site walk. Mr. Estey suggested that the letter be sent certified and this was accepted as a friendly amendment by both. The motion passed unanimously.
The board said that it would visit Whispering Pines at the same time it conducted the site walk for CPF&G.
7. Discussion With Building Inspector regarding Certificates of Occupancy, Building Certificates and Foundation Certificates
The board welcomed Mike DiBartolomeo, the Town Building Inspector to the meeting. He said that it was traditional for the Planning Board to notify him of all subdivision approvals and that it was okay to issue building permits and Certificates of Occupancy (COs). He explained that the town required foundation certificates. This involves the surveyor sighting the foundations as they appear on the approved plan. He said that he began this process about three years ago and it was not required for small additions. He said that preferably the surveyor is the same as who worked on the plan. Mr. Estey suggested that notification could be sent once the mylar was signed and the bond was posted. He said that there needed to be a footnote on the CO such as: “The following signature is required in
the instance of ______. He suggested that this was a procedural measure that the Board of Selectmen could initiate. Mr. DiBartolomeo said that he had had good communication with the board and that he had to look at the financial situation as well. He said that if there was ever an issue he could be contacted either in his office or via his cell phone. The Chair thanked Mr. DiBartolomeo for coming in and speaking to the board.
8. Discussion with Dennis Quintal regarding Jacob’s Village
Mr. Quintal had contacted the Board to discuss a change at Jacob’s Village. Ms. Miles recused herself from this portion of the meeting. Mr. Quintal said that the base was in on the roadway and they were currently working on the crossings for the utilities. He said that the pond had been changed from a stormwater detention to a fire retention pond after excavating had revealed that it was deep enough not to need the stormwater run-off. He said that what was proposed was equal to or better than what was originally proposed although it didn’t meet full compliance (minimum size calculations). He said that it would be a positive element for the area. He said that it would be maintained by the association and there would be a perimeter fence. He said that he had spoken with James Kerivan of
Altus Engineering who voiced no problem with the change but that it was the policy of the board to discuss changes. He had found this change to be appealing and functional. Ms. Pettit expressed concern that this change should have been noticed for the benefit of the abutters.
Mr. Estey said that was not needed because it would have to be included on the “As-built” plan. Mr. Quintal offered that the pond could have a fountain. Mr. Doggett asked if this would be spring-fed and Mr. Quintal replied that it would be and it could not maintain water, he would return to the original design. Ms. Robinson asked how it would be graded and Mr. Quintal said that it would be tapered. Ms. Robinson asked what type of fencing would be used. Mr. Quintal said that it would be a chain-link and Ms. Miles interjected that she was thinking it could be a white board fence. Mr. Estey said that he would like to receive comments from the Fire Department as well as having an easement with a dry hydrant. Ms. Robinson said that this would be a supplemental fire protection source; not the
primary. Mr. Estey said that he would like a letter written to Mr. Kerivan and Ms. Miles that there would be a required “As-built” plan that would represent any impact changes including this pond.
9. David Storey – Bond Reduction on Off-site Improvements
Ms. Pettit explained that this was a part of the Development Agreement that had been signed in June and the reduction was for $200,000.00.
Motion made by Mr. Doggett with a second by Mr. Estey to issue the bond reduction for $200,000.00 on the off-site improvement bond for David Storey. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Storey asked if the Chair could sign nine COs that he had brought with him. Ms. Pettit advised that the board would need to speak to James Kerivan of Altus Engineering or to receive a report from him prior to signing. Mr. Harding said that the board needed to discuss the ownership of the cistern. He said that the road would become a town road and a letter would be needed for insurance purposes that the town owned the cistern as well. Ms. Miles said that if the plan was approved and recorded the COs could be signed. Mr. Estey agreed.
Motion made by Ms. Miles to have the chairman sign the COs pending verification from the town engineer. There was no second.
Mr. Storey asked if he was going to need updates from the town engineer every time he needed COs signed. Mr. Estey relayed an incident that once COs were signed with a letter from the town engineer and then the Road Agent had picked up on a few issues that the town engineer had missed.
Motion made by Mr. Doggett with a second from Mr. Estey that these COs could be signed by the appropriate party upon receipt of a clean letter from Altus Engineering. The motion passed unanimously.
Terry Trudel of SEC said that there was a situation on Storey Lane. He said that the grade had changed from 7% to 5.53% and the road would have less of a slope and there are changes to the curves. He said that there was now better sight distance and there would be no need for a retaining wall or guard rail. He said that previously rip-rap had been required and now there wouldn’t be. He stated that he had spoken with James Kerivan of Altus Engineering about the change to the drainage swales in order to substantiate the removal of the rip-rap. Culvert size calculations were done. He asked for the board’s permission to submit the changes to Altus for their review. Ms. Robinson asked if this was separate from the gravel path and Mr. Trudel said that it was.
The Planning Board agreed to let Mr. Trudel send the changes to Altus with copies to the board. Mr. Estey said that he wanted the exact package that was sent to Altus sent to the Planning Board.
10. Discussion regarding the conditional approval for Breeze Realty
Ms. Robinson said that the board had granted a conditional approval for Breeze Realty while awaiting comments from both Altus and her. She said that the board should never grant a conditional approval while awaiting comments. She said that the board could entertain site plans but it would be a good idea with the more complicated plans to have them sent to her office first. Mr. Estey said that he had spoken with Ms. Allen, who had relayed her conversation with counsel about this conditional approval. Mr. Quintal said that he received memos and had been addressing the comments. Mr. Estey said that conditions for approval should be housekeeping items. Ms. Robinson said that the conditions should not be substantive because if a conditional approval is granted and the public hearing is closed and then the
conditions are not met, a problem is created. Ms. Robinson said that in regard to #3 and #4 for Breeze, #3 is for after construction and #4 should be on all plans. Ms. Pettit said that the hydrogeologic study was a part of the litigation and she was unsure as to what could be done. Mr. Doggett said that there had been a threat of a lawsuit at the June 28th meeting if this had been approved.
Motion made by Mr. Doggett with a second by Mr. LeClair to have the mylar for Breeze Realty left with the board while it awaited written confirmation that the conditions of approval had been met. The motion passed 5-0-1 with Mr. Estey abstaining.
Motion made by Mr. Estey with a second by Mr. Harding to close the public hearing for Breeze Realty. The motion passed unanimously.
11. Ned Nichols – Mylars
Mr. Nichols said that he needed clarification on which mylars should be recorded. The following was agreed to at this time:
Ø Cover Sheet – All other sheets are referenced here
Ø Consolidation Plan (Sheets 2 & 3). Per Mr. Nichols these were the real “meat and potatoes” of the project. He said that he would remove the lot line via a boundary line adjustment, which was done. Mr. Estey suggested that the board verify these with counsel. Mr. Nichols said that she did not understand.
Ø Overall Plan
Ø Phasing Plans
Mr. Breault, project manager for Coleman McDonough asked that these be reviewed by Altus Engineering to check consistency. Ms. Pettit said that she was in absolute agreement with this, especially on the new sheets. Ms. Robinson said that the profiles were not necessary. She suggested that everything be signed because even if a signed sheet was not recorded, it would still be enforceable. It was suggested that the following be added:
This sheet has been prepared for recording at the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds (RCRD). All other sheets of this project shall be on file with the Town of Newton Planning Board.
It is the intent of the Planning Board that all notations on the mylar, as well as on any unrecorded plan sheets, are included into and are enforceable as a condition of approval.
11. Jill Robinson – Preliminary Review Procedure
Ms. Robinson spoke about the differences between Conceptual Consultation and Preliminary Design Review. She referenced the following statute:
TITLE LXIV
PLANNING AND ZONING
CHAPTER 676
ADMINISTRATIVE AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
Planning Board
Section 676:4II. A planning board may provide for pre-application review of applications and plats by specific regulations subject to the following:
~~~~~~ (a) Preliminary conceptual consultation phase. The regulations shall define the limits of preliminary conceptual consultation which shall be directed at review of the basic concept of the proposal and suggestions which might be of assistance in resolving problems with meeting requirements during final consideration. Such consultation shall not bind either the applicant or the board and statements made by planning board members shall not be the basis for disqualifying said members or invalidating any action taken. The board and the applicant may discuss proposals in conceptual form only and in general terms such as desirability of types of development and proposals under the master plan. Such discussion may occur without the necessity of giving formal public notice as required under subparagraph I (d), but such
discussions may occur only at formal meetings of the board.
~~~~~~ (b) Design review phase. The board or its designee may engage in nonbinding discussions with the applicant beyond conceptual and general discussions which involve more specific design and engineering details; provided, however, that the design review phase may proceed only after identification of and notice to abutters, holders of conservation, preservation, or agricultural preservation restrictions, and the general public as required by subparagraph I(d). Statements made by planning board members shall not be the basis for disqualifying said members or invalidating any action taken.
~~~~~~ (c) Pre-application review shall be separate and apart from formal consideration under paragraph I, and the time limits for acting under subparagraph I(c) shall not apply until formal application is submitted under subparagraph I (b).
She said that with regards to fees, the board could review fees that other towns charge for these types of hearings. She said that the fees should be reasonable and logical. She said that she still advocated having a technical review committee, who could provide comments, and it would be a rotating committee with the administrative assistant keeping the records but it would not be a quorum of the board. Mr. Estey said that he favored this. Ms. Robinson said that it was a great idea. She said that the application could be submitted, reviewed with action needed notated and then plan to her. She added that abutters should be re-noticed for an on-going process adding that it might not be statutorily mandated but needed anyway. There was further discussion regarding simple versus complex
projects and reviewing community build-out.
Ms. Miles spoke about large cluster projects and the need to include other town departments and community groups. Ms. Robinson cautioned the board about appearing arbitrary. Mr. Estey spoke again in favor of having a technical review committee. Mr. Doggett suggested that for the work session, Ms. Robinson be requested to provide the verbiage to add to the regulations and have the chairman establish a technical review committee.
12. NPREA Manifest
Ms. Cockerline presented a manifest of various engineering and planning invoices to be paid from the NPREA account. (attached).
Motion made by Mr. Doggett with a second from Mr. LeClair to have the manifest presented to the Treasurer for payment after confirmation with Altus regarding their invoices. The motion passed unanimously.
13. Grants
There was some discussion about the upcoming Targeted Block Grant through RPC. Ms. Robinson said that she recalled the board discussing the updating of the Master Plan and that there was a budget item or warrant article passed for that purpose. She said that she could work with Ms. Cockerline to write grants and consider some other long-term projects. She said that the board had been reactive but now the slate was being cleared and the board would have the time to proactively plan.
Motion made by Mr. Doggett with a second by Mr. Harding to adjourn at 9:50 PM. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Sally E. Cockerline
| 
