Town of Newton, New Hampshire
Newton Planning Board
Public Hearing
May 9, 2006
1. Call to Order
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:06 PM, declaring a quorum of nine members present. The meeting was posted in four town locations: Rowe’s Market, Newton Post Office, Newton Junction Post Office and Newton Town Hall. There was no challenge to the legality of the meeting.
2. Attendance
The following members were present:
Kim Pettit – Chairman
Ann Miles – Vice-Chairman
Mary Allen
Deborah Finnegan
Kip Kaiser
Rich LeClaire
Carl Malm
Leslieann Petz
Kim Vaillant
Also, present:
Reuben Hull – Circuit Rider/planner
Bob Donovan - Selectman
Frank Gibbs – Road Agent
Mike DiBartolomeo – Building Inspector
Manifest
The manifest for the Operating Budget was presented for payment.
Budget Item Balance Expense New
Balance
Facilities Expense
ChoiceOne Telephone $ 515.29 $ 96.53 $ 418.76
Other Expenses $5776.97 $1045.35 $4731.62
Legal Fees
(Non-applicant related)
Total Operating Expenses: $1,141.88
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Ms. Miles, to accept the fees as presented for the Operating Budget. The motion passed unanimously.
The manifest for the NPREA account was presented for payment.
Category Charge Amount Received
Legal Ads $149.38 Four applicants
Eagle-Tribune (Saunders, Woodhouse, Labelle and Richards)
DTC
Sargent Woods $540.00
Applicant Review
Fitzgerald Estates $345.00
Applicant Review
125 Development for 27-3 $ 0.00
Total NPREA Charges $1094.38
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Ms. Miles to accept the charges as presented to the NPREA account. The motion passed unanimously.
Dealer Desk Application
A Dealer Desk application was received from Bouchard for an Inspection Station at 78 South Main Street. Ms. Pettit said that there had been abutter complaints so the file was pulled and reviewed.
Elliot Estey, an abutter said that the only information needed for the Dealer Desk was that the business was located in the proper zone.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Mr. LeClaire to sign the application. The motion passed 5-0-1, with Ms. Miles abstaining.
A letter regarding the Fitzgerald subdivision site on Pond Street was received from Altus and all issues for the project have been addressed. Ms. Pettit read the recommendations into the record. Mr. Kaiser said that accuracy between approved plans and mylars was important.
Ms. Allen asked when the information was received from the engineer. Ms. Pettit said that the hard copies were received today and she would speak to Mr. Weinreib. She explained that last week, everyone was under the gun with the Offsite Improvement issues.
A punch list from Altus for Phillip’s Way (DC Development) was received. Ms. Pettit suggested taking this under advisement and invite DC in for a discussion about it. Ms. Vaillant asked that the tax map information being included in the Altus letters.
McDonough: CO’s for 27-3 were requested via letter at the last meeting. Ms. Pettit read the first letter aloud. Ms. Allen said that the board had decided at the last meeting that site plan review would be required for each business. Mr. Estey asked if these would be minor site plans.
Ms. Pettit said that under the current regulations, only one minor site review was permitted per site every three years. Mr. Hull said that per 6.1.8. A.5, the regulations could be waived by the board. Ms. Vaillant asked if the proposed businesses could be heard at this meeting. Ms. Allen said that there was no time at this meeting.
Ms. Pettit suggested that these businesses submit applications for the June public hearing.
Randall C. Saunders (SAU-CUP-040406)
76 Peaslee Crossing Road
Map 7-Block 3-Lot 28-17
This is a public hearing in which the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of establishing an accessory apartment, which is pre-existing but not approved.
Mr. Saunders stated that this was a small, pre-existing apartment that was conforming to all of the regulations. The house was built five years ago. Information will need to be provided to the Health Officer regarding the septic capabilities. The current tenant is Mr. Saunders father. Ms. Miles asked if the original plans were available. She said that this would be most helpful and would save a lot of time. Ms. Pettit suggested drafting a letter to Mr. Saunders for items he would need to provide.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Ms. Miles for a letter to be written to Mr. Saunders, outlining requirements needed from him. The motion passed unanimously.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Ms. Miles to continue this public hearing until June 13, 2006. The motion passed unanimously.
Janice and Robert Woodhouse (WOO-SBD-041806)
Peaslee Crossing Road
Map 13-Block 3-Lots 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, & 12
This is a public hearing to consider the request of Janice and Robert Woodhouse for a proposed 19-lot, residential subdivision on property located on Peaslee Crossing Road, Tax Map 13, Block 3, Lots 6,7,8,10,11, & 12.
Ms. Vaillant recused herself from this hearing, as she is an abutter. Mr. James Lavelle reviewed each of the sheets of the plan for the Board and public present. Test pit witnessing was provided by the Health Officer. Sublime did the drainage data. Copies submitted to NHDOT for the driveway entrance and a deceleration lane is shown on C3. Dredge and fills were kept at a minimum. At the TRC meeting, there were concerns from both the planner and the engineer about the dredge and fills.
Along with that, the new driveway at the existing home will be detailed later. Those details will be submitted. Mr. Lavelle said that Mr. Woodhouse had written two letters addressing TRC concerns. He then summarized those letters. The AA read aloud the abutter list. Mr. Woodhouse spoke about Newton remaining a rural community and that was one of the attractions of returning here and creating this development. He spoke about driving around and the lack of streetlights and sidewalks throughout the town. Ms. Allen remarked that the cost for each streetlight to the town was $900 per year.
Ms. Pettit said that she found the street survey fascinating and would like to share it with the Master Plan committee; Mr. Woodhouse said “absolutely”. Ms. Pettit spoke about walking paths as opposed to sidewalks and streetlights would be minimal. He thought that once the town took ownership of the road, the streetlights would be shut off. Mr. Kaiser spoke about how planning had evolved over the past 15 years and the need for lighting. Ms. Miles asked how issues would be addressed. Ms. Pettit said that the abutters should be able to comment on Mr. Woodhouse’s letters.
Motion made by Ms. Pettit with a second by Mr. LeClaire to invoke jurisdiction on the Woodhouse Subdivision plan. The motion passed unanimously.
Abutter Comments
Kim Vaillant said that it was nice to have lighting at night but she and her neighbors enjoyed the dark night.
Mr. Lavelle said that there had been discussion at TRC about sidewalks and possibly using the former trolley trail for the walking paths. He said that sidewalks end up becoming a burden for the town.
Sueann Bickem had serious concerns about litter and trails along the former trolley trail. She felt that people could walk along the road. She said that the road had not improved and asked how the trails would.
Mr. Malm asked who would assume the liability for these trails. Mr. Lavelle said that the trails would be deeded to the town. Ms. Allen suggested that a site walk be conducted. David Bickem asked for further information about the trail.
Ms. Finnigan said that she was a fan of lighting but it would not have to take away from the rural feel of the town.
Ms. Miles said that she had an issue with the length of the proposed road (2493’). She compared it to other recent developments. She said that this was a major concern.
Ms. Bickem asked about this. She said that Peaslee Crossing was a long road without sidewalks and this was acceptable and how was the proposed road different.
Ms. Pettit suggested a continuance, and the Board would need more departmental comments.
Robert Donovan said that he grew up here and always used the trails. Ms. Finnigan said that the edge of wetlands was shown and asked if the private owner needed to apply to the State for building the driveways. Mr. Lavelle said that dredge and fills had been applied for at the State level. Mr. Woodhouse said that he would be returning.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Ms. Finnigan to continue this hearing until June 13, 2006. The motion passed unanimously.
Raymond & Jane LaBelle (LAB-SBD-041806)
38 North Main Street
Map 10-Block 3 Lot 4
This is a public hearing for a two-lot subdivision. The property is located at 38 North Main Street, is owned by Raymond and Jane LaBelle.
Dennis Quintal, principle of Civil Construction showed that each lot had met the 60,000 s. f. requirement, there were no wetlands, test pits were shown, well protective radii completely on the lot, simple, rectangular lots. Comments from Altus were reviewed.
o He has applied for State subdivision approval; expected any day.
o Driveway permit received from State. Note reference change made.
o Soils identified.
o Septic approval number: recently replaced and extra test pits with data are shown.
o No significant trees on Pond Street, no plans for clear-cutting.
o Final mylars will be stamped.
o No drainage analysis is needed per Altus.
o Foundation drains not required and there will be a 25’setback and drains will be added.
o Well radius easement suggested for abutting property. Mr. Quintal said that this situation happens all over town. He disagreed that and suggested a well release form from the well owner. He said that the only outstanding issue would be the State approval. He asked that jurisdiction be invoked.
Motion made by Ms. Pettit with a second by Mr. LeClaire to invoke jurisdiction on this plan. The motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Miles asked what the zoning for each lot (existing and proposed) was because Mr. Labelle was running a business. He said that there was no signage. Ms. Miles said that this was one of those situations where this business would need to be reviewed. Mr. Labelle said that he planned on retiring.
Mr. Hull agreed with what Mr. Quintal said about the abutting well issue. He would like to speak to NHDES about the replacement system. Also non-conforming nature of the existing buildings. He said that the dimensions were not creating a more non-conforming situation.
Motion by Ms. Allen with a second by Mr. LeClaire to continue this until 6/13/06. The motion passed unanimously.
Donald Richards (RIC-SBD-041806)
47 Peaslee Crossing Road
Map 13-Block 2-Lot 12
This is a public hearing for a two-lot subdivision. The property is located at 47 Peaslee Crossing Road and is owned by Donald Richards.
Mr. Dennis Quintal provided the presentation for this two-lot subdivision also.
Altus comments were addressed:
o Setback requirements; lines and dimensions have been added.
o Proposed house and septic are shown on the revised plans.
o Stamps will be added.
o No visible signs of wells or septics within 200 feet of proposal.
o Waiting for State subdivision approval.
o DOT entrance permit provided for file and the number will be added to the plan; it will be a common driveway. Location was discussed with the State because of the grade.
o Trees were removed for this purpose.
o Existing septic information and number: Mr. Leverone did test pits and although not State approved septic, additional test pits were done.
o 4k areas shown on both lots.\
o Restricting vegetation to maintain scenic views.
o Believed requirements had been met by showing building and septic areas.
o There is a 50’ buffer existing to the wetlands. Mr. Quintal requested additional assistance from Mr. Hull in the future.
o The existing driveway will be abandoned in next few months and new one will be built; this had been decided by State.
o Bob Leverone witnessed all test pits in the past 10+ years. Does not go to meetings or write reports per Mr. Quintal.
o Need for a culvert near the 4k area. Did not think necessary; neither did the State.
o Shared lot line for common drive per regulations. Proposed location in the best interest for town and state. There are similar driveways on the same road.
o Shed will be removed and relocated.
There was some discussion as to whether the Board should conduct a site walk. The sight distance meets the State requirements. No restriction of water flow to go under the driveway. Culvert not needed. Mr. Quintal said that this final comment was a standard note.
Mr. Frank Gibbs asked if the existing driveway was done legally by today’s standards and Mr. Quintal said that it was not.
Ms. Finnigan asked who would follow through on the construction.
A site walk was discussed.
Mr. Quintal said that he believed all questions had been answered and he was just waiting for State permits.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Ms. Miles to invoke jurisdiction on this plan as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Hull was concerned about building envelope and drainage; said that he had never seen the building envelope located within the 4k area. He asked about what portion of the stonewall and vegetation would be removed. He said that it might become a moot point or it might become important. Mr. Gibbs asked if the driveway could be done as an as-built. Mr. Quintal suggested that it could be a condition of occupancy.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Ms. Miles to continue this public hearing until June 13, 2006.
Ms. Miles suggested that this year the Board look at common driveways more.
Ms. Pettit said that at the next few work sessions, the Board would be really working on regulations and ordinances.
Master plan committee information was provided and surveys were given to all members.
McDonough
A letter was received regarding ownership of a certain parcel that he and Mr. Nichols were disputing. The letter was taken under advisement because the Board had previously decided that this was a civil issue in which they had no jurisdiction. Mr. McDonough said that the regulations stated that all easements must be shown on the plan. Ms. Pettit said that she would speak to town counsel about this matter.
A waiver request was received from Mr. McDonough regarding the grading for the driveway. Altus had written a report and Ms. Pettit said that the Board needed to decide how to proceed. There would be no significant impact. Mr. Hull said that it would be reasonable to grant the waiver. Ms. Allen said that it was referred to as a road but in actuality, this was a driveway. Mr. Gibbs disagreed and if the road was raised it would solve all problems. He said that he would not sign the CO with the driveway in its current condition. Mr. McDonough said that he saw no line of sight issues. Ms. Vaillant asked why there was such resistance to just fixing it and Mr. McDonough said that it would cost him an extra $80,000.00 to correct this. He said that the grade was lowered, the asphalt was thicker. Mr. Gibbs disagreed. Mr. Kaiser said that the board was not concerned about cost. Ms. Allen said that Mr. McDonough chose to listen to the pipeline company instead of following the town
rules. Mr. Kaiser said that if he remembered correctly, this had been a phased project. Ms. Miles said that either there was a plan or there was not. She said that she was concerned that Mr. Gibbs would not sign the CO. Mr. Hull stated after reviewing previous comments and he still said that as an engineered system, if the roadside drainage and grading were done correctly there would be no issues at the cul-de-sac. He questioned how the water would be moved away from the driveway without an effect on the cul-de-sac. Ms. Finnigan said that she would prefer to have a more definitive number.
Mike DiBartolomeo, Building Inspector said that the Building Department was now at a standstill because of this. He spoke about previous joint meetings with the Planning Board and Board Of Selectmen. He said that many permits were issued for the building, sprinklers, etc. He said that he needed clarification and asked that a recommendation be written by the AA as to how far this project could go. He said that this had not been taken care of and his department needed direction. Ms. Vaillant suggested that the road be fixed. Mr. DiBartolomeo said that the Road Agent should be listened to. Ms. Pettit thought that Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Weinreib should speak about this. Bob Donovan said that at this same meeting, there was a discussion that what is built and what is approved is negated by an as-built.
He said that it should be done as approved, by code or why bother. Mr. Kaiser said that whatever was decided, there would have to be some remedy. Ms. Miles said that this had been very clearly explained, many times and there was no grey area. Ms. Pettit asked if Mr. DiBartolomeo would mind if the letter waited. Mr. Quintal spoke about the bonding issue and said that there was a bond in place.
Motion made by Ms. Pettit with a second by Mr. LeClaire to grant the waiver for McDonough’s driveway as requested. The motion failed with a vote of 1-3-2, with Ms. Vaillant and Ms. Finnigan abstaining.
Mr. McDonough spoke about a meeting he had with the Selectmen months ago when he was told that he would not be stopped. Ms. Miles said to fix it.
Motion made by Ms. Miles with a second by Ms. Pettit to adjourn at 10:25 PM. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Sally E. Cockerline
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
