Newton Planning Board
Public Hearing
July 11, 2006
1. Call to Order
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:04 PM, declaring a quorum of six members present. The meeting was posted in four town locations: Rowe’s Market, Newton Post Office, Newton Junction Post Office and Newton Town Hall and was published in the June 27, 2006 edition of the Carriage Towne News. 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
Richard LeClaire
Kim Vaillant
Eugene Tolman -Alternate
Also, present:
Reuben Hull – Circuit Rider/planner
3. Manifest
There was no manifest to present.
4. Correspondence
Ms. Pettit announced that all pertinent correspondence had been included in the packets that she had delivered to the members and that new information had been received from Altus with regards to the Woodhouse and Marra applications.
5. Request for Proposals
Ms. Pettit said that Ms. Finnegan had dropped off some materials and would be working with the planner and the selectmen on firming up the RFP language especially in the areas of submittal requirements including:
a. Experience
b. Reference for three similar projects
c. Key personnel
d. Hourly rates
Ms. Pettit suggested that this could be finalized at the next work session and could be out to bid by August with signing in September. The selectmen could discuss this at their next meeting on July 17.
6. Approval of Past Meeting Minutes
Ms. Pettit suggested that the approval of the June 13th minutes be tabled so that she and the AA could review the videotape that was just received this evening. The minutes of May 9 and May 23 were reviewed.
Ms. Miles inquired about the Dealer Desk renewal application that had been approved and signed on May 9th. She asked about what types of vehicles were being inspected. Ms. Pettit said that she and the AA had reviewed the file prior to her signing the application and the site appeared to be in compliance with its approval but they would review it again if Ms. Miles had concerns. The zoning district is commercial.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Ms. Miles to approve the minutes of May 9, 2006 as written. Passed 5-0-1, with Mr. LeClaire abstaining.
Ms. Vaillant had some color-coded text changes for the May 23rd minutes with regards to the Master Plan discussion.
Motion made by Ms. Vaillant with a second from Ms. Pettit to modify the Master Plan section of the May 23, 2006 minutes and insert text as provided. Passed 4-0-2 with Mr. LeClaire and Mr. Tolman abstaining.
Motion made by Ms. Pettit with a second by Ms. Miles to table the June 13, 2006 minutes so that the videotape could be checked. Passed 5-0-1, with Mr. LeClaire abstaining.
7. Judith M. Harris and Steven T. Roberts
59A Amesbury Road
Map 16-Block 4-Lot 8-1
This was a public hearing in which the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of establishing an accessory apartment. (WITHDRAWN)
8. Randall C. Saunders
76 Peaslee Crossing Road
Map 7-Block 3-Lot 28-17
This was a continuation of 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 never arrived at the meeting.
9. Janice and Robert Woodhouse
Peaslee Crossing Road
Map 13-Block 3-Lots 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, & 12
This was a continuation of 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. Jurisdiction has been invoked on this plan. (Jurisdiction was invoked upon the plan on May 9, 2006) James Lavelle, principal for Lavelle Associates, provided the presentation. Ms. Vaillant, an abutter stepped down from this hearing.
Amended plans were provided to the Chairman to be given to Altus Engineering. Mr. Lavelle stated that the drainage plans and calculations had changed and there was now a revised plan since meeting with Mr. Weinreib. He said that the setbacks had been changed as well. Eight new test pits were dug and witnessed by Town Health Officer, Robert Leverone and the four-thousand square foot receiving areas had been relocated. He said that all that remained were some minor housekeeping issues such as sidewalks, right-of-way issues and lighting. He said that there was one drainage issue and it was stated that Mr. Weinreib would be fine with this if the Conservation Commission was all right with it. Comments were received from the Conservation Commission and added to the file. Mr. Lavelle said
that there was some question as to whether or not the Board would agree with Fire Chief Ingalls that a cistern would not be needed because the houses would be equipped with sprinklers. It was stated that the Conservation Commission supported the applicant regarding the sidewalk issue.
Ms. Pettit said that she had received an email from Mr. Weinreib and the jurisdictional clock would need to be extended. Mr. Weinreib had also written that significant progress had been made but there were several outstanding technical issues.
Mr. Woodhouse said that the minor issues could be resolved with Altus. He said that he would like direction on the discretionary items and he would be requesting a conditional approval at this meeting.
Ms. Pettit said that the Board was really trying to stay away from conditional approvals without first having full technical resolutions.
The extension for jurisdiction was discussed.
Mr. Woodhouse requested a sixty-five day extension on the jurisdictional time clock.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Mr. LeClaire to accept the applicant’s request for an extension on the jurisdictional time clock of sixty-five days. The motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Miles said that she thought Chief Ingalls preferred a cistern. There was a letter in the file, from Chief Ingalls that a cistern at this development would not be required. Ms. Pettit said that there had also been a conversation at the TRC meeting about the proposed road length. The Board requested that the AA check again with Chief Ingalls regarding the cistern.
Ms. Miles said that the problem with sprinklers was that if there was no electricity, they did not work. She was also concerned about response time. Ms. Allen said that she would give up the sidewalks for a cistern.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Ms. Pettit for the applicant to provide a cistern for the Woodhouse Subdivision development. Passed 3-1-1, with Mr. Tolman abstaining.
Mr. Lavelle stated that a cistern design and fire truck easement were on the revised plans. Ms. Pettit asked for the length of the road; she was told it was proposed to be 2,493 feet. Ms. Miles asked for Mr. Hull’s comments on the right-of-way. Mr. Hull said that he was opposed to the Board granting a waiver for this requirement and to reserve 400’ as a right-of-way for future development was incumbent on the developer. He said that having this was good planning. There was further discussion about other access points, future possibilities for a roadway. Mr. LeClaire said that the condition of the abutting land would need to be considered. Mr. Lavelle said that no one would want to build on that land and a plan showing a hypothetical subdivision on the adjacent land was shown. Mr. Woodhouse said that there was 1200’ of frontage on Route 108 and there was 24 acres. He said that it was not viable or feasible and no benefit to the owner of the adjacent property to show a future
connection.
Ms. Allen asked Mr. Hull how he felt about this being referred to as a poor connection.
Mr. Hull said that if it was done as a separate cluster development, a shorter cul-de-sac would be viable. He said that it was poor planning to not show a future potential connection and this was the only chance that the Board had to look at the area holistically and both views could be seen.
Motion made by Ms. Pettit with a second by Ms. Miles to deny the future connection waiver. The motion passed 4-1.
Ms. Miles addressed the applicant by saying that from the beginning of this process, the Board had encouraged a cluster development and a future connection and it was good planning that needed to be upheld.
Mr. Woodhouse asked the board to review the Conservation Commission recommendations for sidewalks and grading and he asked for the Board to accept these. Ms. Pettit asked about treatment swales recommended by the Conservation Commission and closed drainage, recommended by Mr. Weinreib. Mr. Woodhouse explained that the Conservation Commission supported treatment swales because vegetation such as blueberry and cranberry bushes would be retained and Mr. Weinreib supported closed drainage. This had not been added to the plan set.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Mr. Tolman to accept the recommendation of the Newton Conservation Commission regarding treatment swales pending input from Mr. Weinreib. The motion passed 4-1.
Ms. Miles said that she would like for Mr. Gibbs to provide input about the maintenance of the swale and would like more information about the swale. Mr. Lavelle said that there would be more retained vegetation there to filter the water adjacent to the wetlands. Ms. Miles said that she wanted to know if there were concerns from the Road Agent. Mr. Lavelle said that this would be outside of the 50’ right-of-way and there would be an easement for town maintenance. Mr. Hull said that this was the right way because there needed to be a mechanism for maintenance issues. He said that there should be an inclusion on the site specific permit for post construction maintenance and suggested that this be done. He recommended that this be accepted but specifics should be identified first.
Ms. Vaillant, speaking as an abutter, had concerns about drainage across the street from this development being affected. She said that there were seasonal wetlands on-site that were not going away but staying wet following all of the rain received this spring and now her neighbors had a pond with ducks that was not there previously. She wanted to know what assurance could be given that this situation would not worsen. Mr. Lavelle said that a new drainage report had been submitted.
Motion made by Ms. Miles with a second by Ms. Allen to continue this hearing until August 8, 2006. The motion passed 4-0-1, with Mr. LeClaire abstaining.
10. John & Constance Marra and Marley Builders
23 Whittier Street
Tax Map 6/Block 9/Lot 9
This was a continuation of a public hearing in which the applicants are requesting review and approval for a five-lot subdivision on 23 Whittier Street. The property is owned by John & Constance Marra and is referenced as Tax Map 6/Block 9/Lot 9. (Jurisdiction was invoked upon this plan on June 13, 2006) Mr. James Lavelle, principal for Lavelle Associates provided the presentation to the Board.
Ms. Pettit informed the members that there was a letter from Mr. Weinreib in their packets.
Mr. Lavelle stated that since the last meeting, a letter had been received from Altus and there were mostly just housekeeping issues. He said that the comments that needed to be addressed by Mr. Steve Cummings had not been yet. He said that the Dredge and Fill and the Subdivision application from the State had been approved. He said that a number of issues had been addressed on the revised plans. There would be a 30’ “no cut” area directly abutting the Peanut Trail and this coincided with the setback. Ms. Pettit said that it was shown on the plan as 25’; Mr. Lavelle said that this would be corrected. He said that they needed more protection from those utilizing the trail than the trail would need from them. Garage on-site will be removed. Test pit and lot
size calculations have been added and the test pits had been witnessed by Mr. Leverone. There is a proper legend and the soil scientist will stamp the final plan. He explained that the code 461BH meant excavated and re-graded and he also explained some other soil designations. He said that there was a possibility for sidewalks but they did not really meet the criteria.
Ms. Pettit inquired about the junk trailers on-site at #18. She was told that the owner was a former carnival worker and all of this would be removed. Ms. Pettit said that in other similar instances, 21E had been recommended. Mr. Lavelle said that the applicants would welcome a site walk by the Board.
Mr. Hull said that the sidewalk issue should be decided but there was no really great reason to require these and other issues had been addressed by Mr. Weinreib. Consensus of the Board was that neither sidewalks no future potential connection for the cul-de-sac would be required. The Board also wanted to be sure that the “no-cut” zone was corrected on the plan to read 30’.
Motion made by Ms. Miles with a second by Ms. Allen that sidewalks not be required for the Marra subdivision and that there is no direct access from the proposed Katherine Drive to the Peanut Trail. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Lavelle said that no lighting was proposed.
Ms. Pettit asked if there were abutter’s who wished to offer comments or ask questions.
Nancy Slombo, abutter and member of both the Conservation and Recreation Commissions asked about flooding issues and the Peanut Trail.
Dan Folding, abutter was present but offered no comments.
Mr. Lavelle explained the run-off although Ms. Slombo disagreed with his comments. He then explained the drainage. Ms. Pettit said that there seemed to still be work to be done.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Ms. Pettit that the Board concurred with the applicant that street lights would not be needed for the Marra project. The motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Miles stated that if there was not going to be a light at the entrance to Katherine Drive, she would like to see a deceleration lane because many drivers used Whittier Street as a shortcut and it was a busy street. Mr. Lavelle apologized for his lack of knowledge regarding Whittier Street. He did say that this was a State road and this would be at the discretion of the NHDOT and had not been filed yet.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Mr. Tolman to continue this public hearing until August 8, 2006. The motion passed unanimously.
11. Motion by Ms. Pettit with a second by Mr. Tolman to continue the Saunders hearing until August 8, 2006. The motion passed unanimously.
12. Ned Nichols
Mr. Nichols has requested an opportunity to speak to the Board regarding issues related to the approval of Sargent Woods. Ms. Pettit explained that this would need to be noticed and published and fees would need to be paid. Mr. Nichols said that he understood and he would meet with the AA. He added that he was concerned about the abutting property owned by Mr. McDonough and possible State wetlands violations.
13. Appointment of Fifth Alternate
Motion by Ms. Allen with a second by Ms. Pettit to appoint James Doggett as a Board alternate for a term of one year. The motion passed unanimously.
14. Board Business
Ms. Miles said that she wanted to be sure that at multi-tenant, commercial properties there would be proper monitoring of the tenants.
Mr. Hull said that he received a call from Danna Truslow regarding a hydrologic scope of work that she had submitted for the 125 Development site. This is currently in litigation and everything is at a stand still.
Ms. Vaillant has been working with the Town Treasurer regarding NPREA and she provided a sample statement that will be used. Ms. Pettit updated the Board regarding the current status of the audit.
There was a mention that there needed to be a formula developed for NPREA and this will be further explored at the July work session.
Ms. Vaillant said that she needed to contact Mr. Szot regarding the Master Plan, which had received some negative publicity because of signs that had been erected all over town and she said that if she could obtain the web-site address that was on those signs, they could find the responsible party.
15. Adjournment
Motion by Ms. Miles with a second by Mr. Tolman to adjourn at 9 PM. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Sally E. Cockerline
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
