TOWN OF NEWTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEWTON PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING
September 13, 2005
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:06 PM, declaring a full board seated. The meeting was posted in four town locations: Newton Post Office, Newton Town Hall, Newton Junction Post Office and Rowe’s Corner Market. There was no challenge to the legality of the meeting. Ms. Allen announced that a sign-in sheet was being circulated and she requested that everyone in attendance sign in.
2. ATTENDANCE
The following members were present:
Mary M. Allen – Chairman Elliott Estey – Vice Chairman
Kim Pettit – Vice-Chairman (late) James Doggett
Norm Harding – BOS ex-officio member Kip Kaiser
Rich LeClair Ann Miles
Kim Vaillant
Also present:
Jill Robinson – RPC planner
Sharon Cuddy Somers – Board Counsel
Frank Gibbs – Road Agent
Public Present:
Ned Nichols, New Ipswich, NH Ann Byers, 5 Bartlett Street,
Robert Breault, Plaistow, NH Joseph Amidio, 6 Pheasant Crossing
Joerg Starke, 1 Puzzle Lane Leo LaRochelle, 18 Brenner Drive
Matthew Peterson, Woodland Group Coleman McDonough, Plaistow, NH
3. APPROVAL OF PAST MEETING MINUTES – August 9 & August 23, 2005
The Board reviewed the minutes of August 9 & August 23, 2005.
Motion made by Mr. Doggett with a second by Mr. Harding to approve the minutes of August 9 & August 23, 2005 as written. The motion passed unanimously.
4. MANIFEST
The September 13, 2005 expense manifest was presented for approval and signing. The total expenses to be charged to NPREA are $327.25.
A motion was assumed by the Chair to approve and sign the manifest as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
5. Bond Reduction Request for Felicia Drive
A bond reduction request was received in the amount of $109,022.04. There was some discussion that the original amount and the 10% had been calculated incorrectly.
Motion made by Mr. Doggett with a second by Ms. Miles to approve the reduction of the bond of $109,022.04 for Felicia Drive. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Estey said that the 10% figure was incorrect and it should be $14,697.00. (There is a 10% retainage held for 2 years after the acceptance of the road.) He said that the figures needed to be recalculated.
Motion made by Mr. Doggett with a second by Ms. Miles to modify the reduction amount once the numbers were corrected. The motion passed unanimously.
6. Bond Reduction Request for Overlook Road
A request was received from David Kolias for a bond reduction per the Restoration Bond Agreement for the Board to release $6,900.00 per Certificate of Occupancy issued. The board requested that Altus provide an engineering report.
Motion made by Mr. Doggett with a second by Ms. Miles to grant approval of the bond reduction for Overlook Road upon receipt of an engineering report. The motion passed unanimously.
7. Public Hearing for 125 Development Corporation
This was a public hearing for a Non-Residential Site Plan Application Review for property located on Puzzle Lane, Newton, NH, Map 14, Block 1, Lot 27-1. Mr. Matt Peterson of Woodland Design Group provided the presentation. Mr. Doggett summarized the Technical Review Committee (TRC) meeting that reviewed the original submittal on September 12, 2005. He said that revised plans had been delivered at the beginning of the TRC meeting but they had not reviewed these. There was discussion about the hole that had been dug beside the road at Puzzle Lane, which had been a major life safety issue concern for Fire Chief Ingalls. Mr. Robert Breault, Project Manager for 125 Development said that it had been 75% filled. Mr. Estey wanted to know about the fill used to ascertain that it was the same type of clean fill that had been excavated from it. Mr. Doggett said that both Ms. Pettit and he had agreed with Mr. Harding that the road should not be de-stabilized. Ms. Allen agreed with Mr.
Estey about soil typing of the fill because the original calculations had been based on the soil that had been on-site previously and that could now be different. Mr. Doggett said that the test pits were dug on September 12th and the results were unknown. It was stated that all of the comments from Ms. Robinson and Altus had been based on the original submittals and not on the revised plans. Ms. Robinson asked how to proceed. She said that the TRC required a compliance hearing regarding the use of the site. She said that because of the partial excavation she was wondering if a HISS study had been completed. She asked if reclamation would be required. She said that floor plans, septic plans, building renderings were needed; three studies (noise w/baseline and occupant baseline, traffic study and hydrogeologic study) were
needed.
Mr. Peterson assured the board that all of the existing conditions were accurate. He said that he had been told that the dug hole was off property. He said that the proposed building would be 13,625 square feet with multiple users but no tenants at this time. He said that 37 parking spaces were required but 50 were shown. He said that test pits had been done for the original subdivision. He explained that the drainage was comprised of a closed system and would be located underground, under the parking area. He said that a treatment swale would need to be constructed and stabilized. He said that there were extremely well-draining soils on-site. He briefly addressed lighting and landscaping issues. Mr. Peterson said that they were working on the rendering; the septic location had been
corrected. He said that regarding the requested studies, he would like for there to be a scoping meeting for the traffic study. Mr. Harding said that the parking area and the front buffer were located within the 25’ drainage easement. Mr. Peterson said that it didn’t exist. Mr. Harding asked about the manholes and standing water because of the recent problems with Triple E and West Nile virus. Mr. Peterson said that there would be two manholes with sump pumps with two swales and that there would be no standing water.
Abutter Comments
Joseph Amidio, 6 Pheasant Crossing said that when he purchased his parcel he had been assured that there would not be any future development. There were further complaints about noise from excavation and concern about that noise increasing as well as fumes. Attorney Somers said that the board’s sole job at this meeting was to accept the plan as complete. She suggested that the board take comments at a later date.
Ned Nichols asked if there would be floor drains and he was told that there would not be any floor drains. He said that this should be considered for commercial or industrial use to separate waste. He also asked about the treatment of run-off or an impact study.
Ms. Miles said that she was very pleased at the progress made and would like to be the applicant’s cheerleader. She said that she hoped that the board would support expediency with this application.
Ms. Robinson said that she would suggest that the board direct the applicant to proceed with the studies. She summarized Ms. Truslow’s review and the associated cost. Mr. Peterson asked why Ms. Truslow should be paid to do the hydrogeologic study when monitoring wells could be added instead.
Attorney Somers reminded the board that acceptance of the plan not be predicated on the completion of the studies. She suggested that they give clear direction to the applicant.
Mr. Doggett said that the TRC had requested a baseline for the studies be done prior to any work.
Ms. Robinson said that was the purpose of having experts; there would be no appearance of bias and there was a need to protect the town. She said that the board should vote on the scope of work and the studies. Mr. Harding said that he thought this was done. It was stated that this was the first public hearing for this application.
There was discussion that there should not be any excavating done at the site. Ms. Robinson said that Altus had reviewed the site in June and the site did not reflect the plan.
Motion made by Mr. Estey with a second by Mr. Harding for the applicant to pursue studies as indicated. The motion passed unanimously.
Attorney Somers said that one issue would be if the plan was an accurate reflection and the second issue would be if there was any inappropriate activity on-site and then this would be an enforcement action. She said that an inspection was needed.
Ms. Miles said that this was a period of goodwill and it was important that this be maintained. She said that the concerns had been articulated loud and clear. She suggested that the board wait and see what information was returned to them with a casual look and table this conversation until the next hearing.
Mr. Estey said that the existing conditions plan should match the site and this was the second instance where a hole was dug and no one knew what it had been filled with. Mr. Doggett said that it needed to be checked.
Mr. Breault said that the same holes had been on-site since April and only some of the top soils had been removed and there had been no crushing. Mr. Estey asked where the fill had gone and Mr. Breault answered that this was before his time.
Mr. Breault said that he had a package for each member for lot 27-3 and that the non-compliance issues had been addressed and the lawsuit had been settled. He suggested that they be permitted to move forward. Ms. Miles suggested that the board accept the documents and to let the TRC review them. Mr. Breault said that if the seven conditions of approval were satisfied, the mylars should be signed. Attorney Somers said that this was not an agenda item. Ms. Allen said that the mylars would be signed on October 11, 2005. Mr. Breault asked for a special hearing because this had been done for other applicants and therefore should be done for Mr. McDonough as well. Ms. Allen said that this would not be done until October 11th. Mr. Kaiser asked if a public hearing was needed and he was told
that the public hearing had been closed. He suggested that this could be done at the next work session. Ms. Allen said that they had agreed to not sign anything at a work session. Mr. Estey said that this had been conditionally approved and he had no problem with having the mylars signed at the work session. Attorney Somers said that no other town waited for public hearings to sign mylars.
Motion made by Mr. Doggett with a no second to send a letter to the applicant that if reviews were done in a timely manner, the mylar would be signed at the work session on September 27th, with copies to all and to ask Altus to perform an expeditious review.
Ms. Robinson said that final paper plans were needed for future reference. She said that in the past the board had authorized the Chair to sign mylars. She suggested that a small committee review mylars.
8. Status: Zoë Lane, Altus Review
There was some discussion about the procedure for CO’s. Ms. Miles said that the only time the Planning Board should be the final signers was in the event of no bond. Ms. Allen said that the other departments needed to sign off first. Mr. Harding said that a clean procedure was needed, in writing, including a final inspection by Altus. Ms. Miles asked if the board needed Attorney Somers for any other business. They determined that they did not and Attorney Somers left the meeting.
9. Planning Board Office Hours
Ms. Allen explained that the Administrative Assistant had been denied qualifying for pro-rated holiday and vacation time because the selectmen had felt that her hours were inconsistent from what was required by policy. She is not permitted to exceed twenty-five hours per week and she has tried to offset non-meeting weeks versus meeting weeks when her hourly limit is exceeded. Ms. Cockerline presented the Chairman with a schedule of proposed hours that would show good faith in her trying to meet policy. Mr. Estey asked if these hours benefited the Selectmen’s office or the Planning Board office because the
assistant was the Planning Board’s employee. Ms. Miles said that she was sure that the board had the utmost confidence in Ms. Cockerline’s abilities and she should not be expected to micro-manage her time nor should anyone else be doing it. Ms. Cockerline said that the schedule would have to be presented to the Selectmen for approval. Ms. Allen said that this would be further discussed at the work session.
10. LaRochelle Bond Reduction
A letter was received from Terry Trudel on behalf of Leo LaRochelle requesting a bond reduction for Phase III of George’s Way. Mr. Estey asked Mr. LaRochelle to speak.
He said that he had only posted funds for Phase III and would like to have this bond reduced. Mr. Estey said that the hot top coat needed to be done this year and then the two-year clock would start.
Motion made by Mr. Doggett with a second by Ms. Miles to approve the bond reduction, as requested for Leo LaRochelle for Phase III only. The motion passed unanimously.
Motion made by Ms. Miles with a second by Mr. Doggett to adjourn at 9:35 PM. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Sally E. Cockerline
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
