Newton Planning Board
Work Session
June 27, 2006
1. Call to Order
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM, declaring a quorum of four 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:
Ann Miles – Vice-Chairman
Deborah Finnegan
Kip Kaiser
Gary Nelson – Selectmen’s ex-officio member (late)
Eugene Tolman
Kim Vaillant
Also, present:
Reuben Hull – Circuit Rider/planner
Dr. Jill Robinson – RPC representative for Master Plan
3. Master Plan Update
Dr. Robinson said that the Master Plan committee had been busy distributing and collecting surveys at community events. She said that they expected to complete compiling the results this week. She said that she wanted to provide the Board with an update because the first phase was almost completed and the second phase would soon be beginning. She said that the updating of the Master Plan was a function overseen by the Board and they should be involved to be moving the process along. She said that there had been one public input session that was conducted with the assistance of the Grange but there had been a very poor turnout. She said that the committee would like to be placed on the Planning Board’s agenda for a public hearing to discuss the survey results. She said that the committee would
appreciate the involvement and would like to receive direction from the Board. Dr. Robinson said that surveys were still available and could be returned to either the town hall or to her personally at the RPC.
Motion made by Mr. Kaiser with a second from Ms. Finnigan to place the Master Plan committee on a public hearing agenda, early in the evening. The motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Miles suggested that because of vacations and other summertime activities, this could be scheduled for the September hearing, which is scheduled for September 12th. Mr. Kaiser suggested that information about the Master Plan Committee be published in a local newspaper. Ms. Miles suggested that the information could be published in the school newsletters.
Ms. Cockerline said that she would be happy to assist Dr. Robinson in getting this information into the Middle and High School newsletters. Dr. Robinson said that the more Planning Board members that were involved, the better it would be. It was agreed that timing done at the end of the school year did not get the desired results and Mr. Nelson said that the communications needed to be increased.
4. Manifest
The June 27th manifest was presented for approval.
Operating Budget
Budget Item Balance Expense New
Balance
Facility Expense $ 444.30 $ 76.53 $367.77
Choice One Telephone
Equipment Expense $1,000.00 $375.00 $625.00
East Coast Office Machines – Maintenance Agreement for Copier
Total Expenditures from Operating Budget $451.53
NPREA
Category Charge Amount Received
RCRD $13.83
Copies of Recorded Plans for Richards and LaBelle plus postage
Total NPREA $13.83
Motion made by Mr. Kaiser with a second from Ms. Finnigan to pay the bills as presented in the manifest from both the operating budget and NPREA. The motion passed unanimously.
5. Correspondence
An e-mail was received from Judith Harris withdrawing her application for a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Apartment that was scheduled for the July 11th public hearing.
A notice of a public hearing in Merrimac, MA for a site review for a gas station on Broad Street was received. There was some discussion that because this might be of regional impact, a member of the Board should attend. The meeting is scheduled for July 18th.
A letter was received from the owner of Atlas Motor Express in which a consultation with the Board concerning a potential subdivision would be discussed.
Ms. Cockerline said that because this was parcel-specific, a design review would be warranted to include publication and abutter notification.
Motion made by Ms. Vaillant with a second by Ms. Finnigan to have Ms. Cockerline send a letter to the owner of Atlas Motor Express with information of the first available date to apply for a design review. The motion passed unanimously.
6. Request for Proposal Discussion – Town Engineering Services
Copies of the RFP prepared by Ms. Pettit were distributed to the members along with comments from Attorney Somers. Ms. Cockerline said that the Selectmen had thought that this should be given at least 45 days from the time of notice to received information back from potential firms. She said that the deadline would need to be extended because it would expire on June 30, 2006. She said that she had been told that the Selectmen had suggested a deadline date of September 30th. Mr. Kaiser said that the Board needed to think about having more than one firm for “back up” as needed. Mr. Hull said that the town of Alton had multiple engineering firms and the work was divided according to expertise and appropriateness. Ms. Miles said that she thought a deadline date of September 1, 2006 would be
adequate if a response was expected within 45 days. There was some discussion about charging applicants appropriately, which would include the cost for both legal and planner review. Mr. Hull said that the planner’s review was covered under Section D of the proposal requirements.
1. As authorized under RSA 676:4, I(g), a minimum engineering and professional review fee deposit of $500.00 is required. Any subdivision plan which shows a new or upgraded roadway shall require a minimum engineering and professional review fee deposit of $1.00/ft of proposed roadway ($100.00 min.). This fee will be used to cover required professional and engineering fees, to review erosion and drainage plans, soils information, and any other review required by the Board (including any plan or exhibit required under 8.2). This fee shall also be used to reimburse the expenses incurred for technical review of plans by the Rockingham Planning Commission Circuit Rider Planner at the rate which reflects the current rate charged to the Town for this service. The amount of this fee which
is used will vary according to the particular aspects of any application. Any unused portion of this fee shall be returned to the applicant, along with the bills accounting for any expenses deducted. Moneys shall only be deducted from this amount in accordance with submitted expense accounting.
It was suggested that Mr. Hull and Ms. Finnigan work with the Selectmen to establish the appropriate criteria for the RFP including references, resumes, fee structure and a list of projects. The discussion returned to NPREA fees and Ms. Miles said that she did not want to go down the NPREA road now. Mr. Tolman said that the RFP was not ready to be sent because the criteria were not included. Ms. Miles asked Ms. Finnigan to review the submitted RFP’s with the Selectmen because she had the expertise. It was decided that Mr. Hull and Ms. Finnigan would bring the revised RFP to the July 11th meeting for a review by the Board.
*****ACTION ITEM******for Ms. Finnigan and Mr. Hull to add the criteria to the draft RFP and present it to the Board for review on July 11, 2006.
7. Review of Regulations and Ordinances; Discussion and Pre-planning for the March warrant.
There was some initial discussion initiated by Mr. Hull as to whether the Board should
be reviewing subdivision and non-residential site plan review regulations or ordinances. He said that with regard to the regulations, there should be one document with one set of definitions and procedure so to eliminate separation. Then there would be specific regulation for subdivision requirements and site review requirements. He referred to a document that was used by Newfields. He said that the title for Non-Residential Site Plan Review should be cleared up and there should be a threshold such as it being applicable to anything greater than a duplex as cited in 4.6. He said that there should be a residential component to the site plan review regulations. Ms. Miles asked Mr. Hull about the Howard situation; Mary Howard is planning to purchase 43 South Main Street, which is comprised of more than eight acres and
Ms. Howard would like to build a horse barn. Mr. Hull said that the area used for a home occupation could not exceed 25% of the total of the residential building and this sounded like it would be a non-residential use. A list compiled from the January 24th meeting was reviewed and topics to be revised are, in no particular order:
Ø Elderly Housing
Ø Flood zone/FEMA flood insurance program
Ø Home Occupation
Ø Growth/traffic/commercial
Ø Conservation subdivision, innovative zoning, cluster, village district, mixed use
Ø Access management – plans & controls, access along corridor/thoroughfare – refer to Kingston and Plaistow
Ø Affordable housing
Ø Planning for town land, plan for acquisition of appropriate parcels
Ø Accessory apartments
Ø Water district/water utility
Mr. Tolman expressed concern about high density zoning and thought the Board should be looking at more appropriate densities. There was discussion about seasonal campgrounds, multi-family units and non-conforming parcels. Mr. Hull asked if there was anything in the Master Plan for this. Ms. Cockerline provided him with a CD copy of the existing Master Plan.
Ms. Miles said that the town should protect its water; it should be the highest priority. There was discussion about the conversion of seasonal cottages to year-round homes and those other communities such as Salem, had provisions for prohibiting this. Mr. Kaiser said that anything that could be done to protect the town’s water sources would be an improvement; this needed to be tightened up.
Mr. Hull said that there was a table of soil types listed within the regulations.
Mr. Kaiser suggested that the frontage requirement of 150’ be increased.
Ms. Miles said that cluster zoning should be done and that developers should have that option available. She said that it was her personal opinion that subdivisions such as the current Woodhouse application were terrible plans.
Innovative Zoning was discussed and it was suggested that the Yield Plan Development be eliminated. Open space requirements and density bonuses were discussed as possible incentives to encouraging Innovative or Cluster Developments.
Ms. Vaillant asked who controlled the type and number of roads in town. She was told that this was usually determined by the Selectmen, but there were a number of factors involved.
Ms. Miles said that it would be much better for the town to have larger subdivisions that to have everyone parceling out smaller lots; she cited the recently approved Labelle subdivision. She said that the smaller subdivisions would create a lot of problems in the future when the town was looking to add town sewage.
There was discussion that there were a lot of problems with the current infrastructure.
Mr. Tolman said that not holding the builders for ripping up the roads during construction was a big problem.
Ms. Miles said that the impact fee structure needed to be looked at because if all new homes were going to be required to have sprinklers, how were the impact fees applied to the Fire Department. She said that during the master planning process ten years ago, there had been discussion about having the dump as a community meeting place but that would not have worked out at the rate the town was growing. She said that the town needed to tighten-up to eliminate the smaller subdivisions.
Mr. Hull said that the problems were in the zoning aspects. It was decided that at the July work session, the zoning priorities would be put into place and in the meantime, the town could get the Impact Fees started without a current municipal CIP and numbers in place. Ms. Miles said that the town would be moving forward towards having both a water and sewerage system. Mr. Hull said that the Board should have 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months priorities.
There was discussion about what the theories were regarding affordable housing.
Ms. Miles said that the town was losing historic homes because there wasn’t a historic district. There is however a historical society. Mr. Hull said that a heritage commission would be more beneficial.
There was discussion that there should be planning for town land and a target list should be developed. Ms. Miles said that the town should offer incentives to developers in exchange for what and where the Board wanted to place town facilities.
It was stated that members were needed for a Water District Commission and Mr. Nelson will get water district maps.
Mr. Hull said that he would begin creating drafts for the items on the list. He said that he could get a copy of a map from RPC to look at the zoning for density discussions.
The intersection of South Main, Pond, Maple and Amesbury Road was depicted as terrible and this should have been corrected, per the Master Plan years ago.
There was some discussion that the Board of Appeals had granted a variance to Ron Pica and Whispering Pines campground to permit expansion in the Aquifer Protection District.
There was discussion about the appeal process. Ms. Vaillant said that there had been discussion about there being a joint meeting but it had never happened because there had been too much red tape. Ms. Cockerline said that typically a request for a joint meeting must be initiated by the applicant and must be in writing and this had never happened.
Motion made by Mr. Kaiser with a second by Ms. Finnigan to have the AA research and gather information about Whispering Pines and then to send a request to the ZBA for a rehearing. The motion passed unanimously.
The Vice-Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Sally E. Cockerline
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
