Town of Newton, New Hampshire
Newton Planning Board
Work Session
May 23, 2006
1. Call to Order
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:06 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. 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 Carl Malm (late)
Kim Vaillant Gary Nelson, Ex-officio member (late)
Also, present:
Reuben Hull – Circuit Rider/planner
Frank Gibbs – Road Agent
Sharon Cuddy-Somers – Town Counsel
Ron Lemere – Assistant Chief Building Inspector
Eric Weinreib – Town Engineer
Kris Emerson – Assistant Chief Building Inspector
Bob Donovan – Board of Selectmen
3. Puzzle Estates
Ms. Pettit said that she had received information regarding Puzzle Estates and packets were distributed to the members on the previous day. Included was a lengthy letter from Mr. Weinreib outlining outstanding issues at the site and there were also issues raised by the Building Department. There was some discussion with Attorney Somers as to whether this discussion should be conducted as non-public. Attorney Somers said that she did not think that was necessary and this could be a part of the work session.
Mr. Ron Lemere, at the request of the Chairman provided information relevant to the building issues.
Ø He said that the Planning Board on September 27, 2005, approved the site plan and permission had been granted to issue building permits.
Ø A Cease and Desist had been issued dealing with the road construction in November.
Ø On November 22, a foundation-only permit was issued for the 14-1-27-3 site. These permits were issued under the provisions of Section 106.3.3 - Phased Approvals, provided that adequate information and statements were provided to the Building Department and it was clearly indicated in that section that going forth would be at the applicant’s own risk.
Ø On January 21, 2006, the Building. Department considered the project to be moving forward. A building permit for a super structure was issued for the metal structure only but not for interior work. Attorney Somers asked if there was any information contained in the minutes permitting the building permits. Mr. Lemere said these were part of the minutes.
Ø On May 16, 2006 a permit application was received by Mr. McDonough to subdivide the interior structure for tenant fit-up. Mr. Lemere said that they had requested a letter from structural engineer and questioned as to whether or not the road would be bonded. They were also waiting for the fire alarm/life safety plan, which was not been received.
There was a question from Attorney Somers about the bond. Mr. Weinreib said that a bond had not been received but was required only for off-site improvements not for on-site construction. Mr. Lemere said that for light/industrial uses there must be evidence that the requirements had been met. Today there were seven stop-work orders issued because of interior work, not permitted, was being performed.
Mr. Weinreib, at the prompting of Ms. Somers, provided comments regarding the revised plan status. He said that many years ago, a puzzle factory with a private road was approved with a cul-de-sac. An approval for an extension was granted with many alterations. Last year, upon receiving site approvals (not known if there is a remaining bond). There is some bond money left for the cul-de-sac. Because the cul-de-sac was not constructed at the proper height for the gas line, the grade would need to be raised which would meet the town requirements. A bond was not posted but the developer said that it would done after the road was constructed. Mr. Weinreib referred to his letter of 5/16.
1. Construction vehicles have damaged the pavement in areas along the original front section of Puzzle Lane pavement. Alligator cracking and surface depression have become apparent during the past year. In recent months, the Developer has been trucking gravel off-site and creating heavy loads on the pavement, causing this distress. Altus does not believe the Developer has any bonding to cover repairs of this future Town road.
Mr. Weinreib said that this was related to the first approval granted and he was convinced that this was not caused by the puzzle factory access. There are heavy loads and the entrance is in fine condition. The exiting loads would be lighter. The road damage is due to excavation and a developer’s issue.
Mr. Weinreib said that comments #2 - #8 were related to the second approval and that there was some bonding left. He said that many of these issues had existed since June 2005, and they had not been addressed and in his opinion were easy issues that should have been dealt with. He said that this was the same as for #3 and #4.
2. In June of 2005, the Developer was notified of erosion control non-compliance along the final 600-feet of Puzzle Lane ending at the cul-de-sac. The following items have not been addressed:
a. Washout of slope below paved parking lot at the Puzzle factory.
b. Erosion is occurring along various slopes and swales.
c. Detention pond outlet structure not constructed per plan.
3. Earthwork operations have disturbed areas along the frontage of Lot 27-1 and had obliterated the roadway swale.
4. A gravel pit has been excavated along “Parcel B”, next to the road, creating the following issues:
a. The excavation has taken place in or adjacent to the wetland on an abutting parcel of land. Since the wetland is now at a higher elevation than the pit, the wetland will be seriously impacted.
b. Equipment has cracked the pavement edge of the roadway.
c. The road shoulder requires additional gravel.
d. The disturbed areas should be loamed and seeded.
5. Construction equipment, stored on the cul-de-sac, has leaked fluids and damaged the base
course of pavement (per Frank Gibbs, Road Agent).
6. The roadside swale along the northern edge of the cul-de-sac has not been constructed per
the approved plans.
7. The roadside shoulder along the south side of the cul-de-sac should be regraded lower
than the shoulder.
8. Pavement in the center of the cul-de-sac circle should be saw cut, removed, loamed, and
seeded per the approved plans.
Mr. Weinreib said that the remaining items were related to the development of 27-3.
9. Bond – The Town required a road bond for roadway work along the existing paved cul-de-
sac. The Developer has not provided one. After construction started, the Developer
revised the approved plans in order to delete the work in the cul-de-sac, thereby negating
the need for a bond. The revised plan has not been approved by the Planning Board.
10. Work stoppage – Altus understands that the Town of Newton issued a mid-November
2005 “Cease and Desist” order for roadway construction. We also understand that this
order has not been lifted. Altus has not observed any stoppage of site construction since
the order went into effect. Road construction and site work has continued since the Order
was put in effect.
Mr. Weinreib said that there was a poorly constructed subgrade. His observation was that the pavement was going to fail. He said that it was done in a rush and it was his understanding that everything would be dealt with in the spring and everything was still a mess.
11. Roadway subgrade – The construction of the gravel subgrade below the asphalt
pavement was poorly constructed. The following observations were made on 11/29/05
while the roadway was being paved:
a. The width of the gravel surface did not extend to the limits shown on the approved drawings. In some areas the gravel barely extended to the edge of pavement. Altus predicts that edge cracking of the pavement will occur in the near future.
b. Altus observed wet, sloppy areas of gravel just prior to laying asphalt.
c. The parking lot entryway was not compacted with a roller prior to paving. One (1”) inch deep ruts in the gravel were paved over.
d. The cross-sectioned slope of the base gravel in many areas was not constructed
per plan.
The Board should note that even if the revised plan of the road is approved, the driveway
still doesn’t meet the plan’s specifications.
Mr. Weinreib said that the Board should note that even if revised, the road did not meet specifications with subgrade, gravel, etc. and bonding should be considered for the driveway. The drainpipe, crushed stone bedding, as shown on the plans was not used.
The detention pond on site was always a cause for concern and it had been suggested that an inspection report be provided to show proper functioning. He said that there should be a sand berm and there were tree roots showing, not sure what was there and he had not been there since before the rain. He added that there should be an exfoltration drain and there was pooling.
12. Drain pipe – The crushed stone trench bedding for drainage pipe was not installed according to the approved plans.
13. Detention pond – Tree roots were observed protruding from the earth “leaching berm”
that creates the detention pond. Altus did not observe the construction of this berm and
questions its quality.
14. Erosion control – Temporary and permanent measures to control runoff and trap sedimentation are not in accordance with State and local requirements. The detention
pond is serving little, if any, use because of incomplete construction.
15. Drainage system is incomplete.
16. Grading around building and roadway is incomplete.
17. Development of lots north and west of the project has started. Altus is not aware of any
prior approval from the Town for the development.
18. Disturbed areas must be stabilized as specified on the plans.
19. Re-vegetation of the buffer along the Nichol’s parcel as well as other issues regarding the
Nichols and McDonough agreements.
20. Landscaping not completed.
21. Removal by hand of the siltation of the wetlands as a result of the Developer’s construction activities.
22. There has been significant work completed on the far side of the wetlands. The Developer should submit site plans for the on-going work.
23. In general, the Developer needs to examine the approved site plans and fully
construct the site as depicted on the plans and comply with all of the conditions of
the approvals.
Attorney Somers said that the she knew that the revised plan had not been approved asked if it had been received. Ms. Pettit said that an application for an amended plan had not been received. Until it is received and approved, bonding will be in place. There was some discussion about the “gravel pit” issue or excavated area. Mr. Weinreib referred to this under #3 and #4 and basically a trench remained, unstabilized but might not be subject to erosion. Ms. Allen asked if a bond could be required if a public hearing was held.
Ms. Vaillant asked about the wetlands crossing. Mr. Weinreib explained how this was done via Dredge and Fill applications submitted to the State and how they were distributed.
Mr. Weinreib said that in the lots to the north and west: development had begun and there was significant excavation between Nichols, Woodhouse and the gas main sites. He said that areas need to be stabilized and should have been through the winter.
Landscaping – re-vegetation of buffer is incomplete, landscaping not begun, siltation needed but there is no information about the activity on the far side of the wetland going south. The developer needs to review and construct per the approved plan.
Ms. Pettit had spoken with Attorney Somers about if everyone met and agreed to the re-build of the driveway, the Cease & Desist would be lifted.
She said that even if lifted, some of these other issues needed to be dealt with. She said that the Board might want to review this at the public hearing.
Ms. Miles thanked the building department and asked about a plan to be put in place and asked what would need to be done to move forward with the permitting process. Mr. Lemere said that in the zoning ordinance, all conditions must be fully complied. He read this section:
XII, 1, h.
Provided however, that before granting a permit for any of the fore-going uses permitted in a Light Industrial/Commercial Zone, the Plan-ning Board shall determine that all of the conditions and requirements of the Site Plan and all its pertaining ordinances are fully complied with.
Mr. Emerson said that because of the violations, not covered by the site plan, it would not make sense to pump money into the building without the other issues being resolved and the EPA would have a field day here. The last building permit was issued on 1/21/06.
Mr. Weinreib asked if the stop work order would prevent the developer from building. Ms. Allen said that the Cease & Desist had not stopped the work. Mr. Lemere said that it would have to be referred to district court if the “stop work” tags were removed and commenced work and they would be subject to arrest. He said that if it came to that, town counsel should consider it. He said that a serious approach was needed. Rough electrical, not permitted had been done but the underground plumbing had been permitted and Mr. Lemere said that they could not pull them but could order it. Ms. Miles asked if the work needed to be done by a licensed person and he replied that it had to be.
Ms. Pettit thanked all parties for coming to the meeting and providing information to the Board.
4. Board Business
Mr. Weinreib updated the board about the Peaslee Crossing Road and Smith Corner Road improvements. The contract with Busby has been signed; the work will proceed around the pole due to a delay with Verizon. Continental will be doing the State portion of the work. Ms. Pettit asked about the bills being received from Gibbs. The Preconstruction meeting with Busby is scheduled for 5/25.
Zoning Book Update
Ms. Pettit said that necessary revisions had been made to the 2006 Zoning Book and new copies had been made.
5. Approval of Past Meeting Minutes
April 25, 2006 Minutes – tabled until June.
6. Manifest
The manifest was reviewed. (add in) Carl in for KV.
Motion by Ms. Allen with a second by Ms. Finnigan to pay the Operating Budget. The motion passed unanimously.
Motion by Ms. Allen with a second by Ms. Finnigan to pay the NPREA manifest. The motion passed unanimously.
The Board decided to wait before authorizing payment to Gibbs for the Off-site Improvements to and receive input from Mr. Weinreib.
Motion by Ms. Pettit with a second by Ms. Allen to distribute budgetary information to all board members. The motion passed unanimously.
RFP
Ms. Pettit asked if the engineering contract should just go out to bid or solicitation. Ms. Pettit is developing an RFP to be sent out. Public bid versus pre-qualified bidders. She said that the RFP should be ready for the weekend.
The Administrative Assistant had developed a form for businesses located in approved commercial buildings as a result of the approval for 27-3 and it will need to be adopted. This had been discussed at the previous meeting. Mr. Kaiser said that typically, for a commercial building, a proposed tenant that takes over an approved site, the board would be informed of their activity and if not, a minor site plan review was required. Ms. Miles was concerned that the form should include dumpster location, alarm information in case in the middle of the night an alarm is sounded. She said that plowing information should be included and how many cars were permitted per the site plan.
Motion made by Ms. Pettit, with a second by Ms. Finnigan to circulate this form to all departments for comments. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Kaiser said that if this could be adopted tonight and then revised it later it could be used. Mr. Malm said that if adopted and revised, new completed forms would then be in circulation. There was discussion that the draft form should be sent out with a memo to return it at the TRC meeting.
Mr. Hull supplied a checklist for submittals to the board. Ms. Allen said that this was required by RSA.
Mr. Hull explained the verbiage that he derived for Design Review and Conceptual consultation. It will be added to the regulations for both site plan review and subdivision. This will be done at either the applicant’s request or by the Board. Recommendations will be provided by Mr. Hull. He said that there was a significant difference between a complete submittal and an accurate submittal. There was discussion about invoking jurisdiction versus continuation. Ms. Pettit said that she learned by law, the Board has no authority to review applications without invoking jurisdiction. Ms. Miles asked what happened if there was a really bad plan submitted. Ms. Allen said that you could invoke and then deny or invoke and ask the applicant to come back with a better plan. An extension could
be requested by the applicant. Waiver requests procedures were discussed. Mr. Hull said that the abutter list should contain the creator’s signature and date that it was created, which should be within five days typically of the submittal. Ms. Vaillant asked if the Board could sidetrack because two selectmen were now here and she wanted to re-discuss the Puzzle Lane issue.
Ms. Pettit said that no decisions were made but the Building Department was asked to come before the board to discuss the situation and Mr. Weinreib and Attorney Somers were here to provide information and for Attorney Somers to listen. It was basically fact-gathering information.
Mr. Nelson said that he was trying to get everyone together to discuss this two weeks ago and Mike D. had decided to stop issuing permits, and Mr. Nelson was upset. Ms. Pettit said that she wasn’t sure if Mike was using his 60-day window or was denying the issuance of permits outright. Mr. Nelson learned about the work stoppage issue today. Mr. Malm said that they had said that there were a lot of conflicts and site deviations from the approved plan. Ms. Allen said that the work was being done on the building, without permits. Ms. Vaillant said that if a joint meeting is requested and we were finding out we were all on the same page. Mr. Donovan (who switched with Mr. Nelson due to quorum issues) said that electrical permit was pulled by someone who no longer was working there and did not want electrical
work done under their name, so electrical work was being done without a permit. Ms. Miles said that everything that had been discussed was well documented. Ms. Vaillant asked if there could be a meeting with all parties to be on the same page. Discussion that the BOS had wanted a joint meeting and further discussion that this request had not been received in writing. Mr. Malm said that if the site infractions prevent the issuance of permits, he would like Attorney Somers to review this and discover who was responsible for compliance. Ms. Miles said that the Town Engineer was responsible for inspections and reporting their findings back to the Board and then compliance issues were handled by the Selectmen.
Mr. Hull will review the checklist and parallel it with the regulations.
The Conditions of Approval checklist; started by Ms. Robinson for consistency was discussed. One thing Mr. Hull said that was not spelled out was bonding of landscaping or erosion. He said that this should be done and cleaned up. Growing seasons were discussed. Bonding discussed.
Ms. Pettit asked the members to be thinking about legal fees because the applicant was provided with an estimate for the engineer only and there should be the inclusion of lawyer and planner fees as a part of the original bond because these reviews were happening without the benefit of a bond and it was detrimentally affecting the NPREA account.
Motion made by Ms. Vaillant, with a second by Ms. Allen, to have more detail for Planning Board charges from DTC. The motion passed unanimously.
Discussion to discuss wording changes to the regulations to include attorney fees. Ms. Miles said that these should all be done at the same time.
It was decided that there would be a full review of all regulations at the June work session.
Motion made by Ms. Allen, with a second by Ms. Finnegan that the June 27 work session will have no other work but a review of regulations and proposed changes. The motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Vaillant suggested that for the Master Plan committee that there are no more Sunday meetings because the committee started by bringing the meeting to the people but it did not work.~ Citizens are not showing up. They’ve started by bringing the meeting to the people but it did not work. There are surveys and they are trying to get them out via church gatherings, etc.
Ms. Miles said that regarding the Master Plan, the red rectangles, thought State was interested in her drainage, no they are showing up at new and proposed developments in town.
There are surveys and they are trying to get them out via church gatherings, etc.~ There was a miscommunication that there were surveys at the post office and someone from town hall called and complained that this was circumventing the postal service.~ The Postal Service called and complained not anyone from town hall.~ Ms. Lovecchio also said that town hall would not cooperate and that was also not true.~
At a Master Plan meeting, Ms. Lovecchio shared that a Town Hall employee had contacted the Newton Junction Post Office to complain about them allowing our surveys to be distributed without going through the postal delivery process.~ During the Selectmen’s meeting of 5/23/06, it was explained that the New Junction Post Office called and placed a complaint with Town Hall.~ The Town Hall employee was merely relaying the message to Ms. Lovecchio for her to pick up the surveys. Also, at the Master Plan meeting Ms. Lovecchio mentioned that the Town Hall employee was not allowing the surveys to be distributed nor dropped off in the collection box in Town Hall; however, during that same meeting the concern was determined to be invalid.~ Not only were the surveys available, but there were completed surveys in the collection box.
Motion by Ms. Miles with a second by Ms. Allen to adjourn at 9:55 PM. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Sally E. Cockerline
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
