Newton Planning Board
Public Hearing
August 8, 2006
1. Call to Order
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM, declaring a quorum of five members present. The meeting was posted in three town locations: Newton Post Office, Newton Junction Post Office and Newton Town Hall and was published in the July 25, 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 (late)
Deborah Finnigan
Richard LeClaire
Gary Nelson – Selectmen’s ex-officio member
James Doggett -Alternate
Also, present:
Reuben Hull – Circuit Rider/planner (late)
Mary Marshall – Conservation Commission
Frank Gibbs – Road Agent
3. Manifest
The operating expenses, totaling $141.72 was presented for payment.
Motion made by Ms. Pettit with a second by Mr. Doggett to authorize payment of the Operating Budget Manifest as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
The NPREA expenses totaling $5,888.50 was presented for payment. Ms. Pettit suggested reducing that amount by $900.00, which represented the amount that Mr. McDonough owed for the sound study.
Motion made by Ms. Pettit with a second by Mr. Doggett to authorize payment of the NPREA manifest in the amount of $4,988.50. The motion passed unanimously.
4. Coleman McDonough – Conditional Certificates of Occupancy and Tenant Approval
Attorney Greg Michaels, representing Mr. McDonough, said that he had spoken with
the Board’s counsel, Attorney Somers regarding the outstanding issues for Parcel 27-
3. He suggested bonding stating that he did not know what modifications
would be needed for a new site plan and perhaps an as-built plan could be submitted. He said that there were good people who wanted to locate at this site. He said that he had discussed conditional Certificates of Occupancy with Attorney Somers, who was not in agreement but understood the issues and thought that the board might consider bonding. He said that the problem appeared to be a “who’s on first” situation and said that without trying to sound disrespectful, there appeared to be confrontational issues between the board and his client. He said that they would work quickly to resolve all issues and maybe be able to receive conditional CO’s with the blessing of Attorney Somers. Ms. Pettit asked about having a compliance hearing, which had been suggested by Attorney Somers.
Attorney Michaels said that compliance hearings were interesting and usually related to substantial issues versus minor issues. He asked if something important had been left undone and thought most of the issues could be handled administratively. He said that he was a bit confused as to what the town was seeking. Ms. Pettit said that the board had asked Altus for a laundry list of issues. Ms. Miles said that the board had not been confrontational and had encouraged Mr. McDonough. She said that from the board’s point of view, they had been helpful. Attorney Michaels said that he retracted his statement; he had meant that there had been some friction with the town’s engineer. Ms. Pettit said that in response to the condominium language there was no issue because there was no dictated language for condominiums from the town regulations. Ms. Finnigan said that she thought there were site issues not as-built
issues.
McNabb Tenancy
Information was received from McNabb Inc. Ms. Pettit said that a Commercial Business Form must be completed and submitted and as the building was sold out, there would need to be ample parking. McNabb, a sheet metal fabrications company was proposing two employees, two deliveries per month and one part-time employee. No proposed hazardous waste will be used.
Motion made by Ms. Pettit with a second by Mr. Nelson to approve
McNabb at units #10 and #11, as a light manufacturing use in conformance with zoning with two parking spaces and the commercial business form must be submitted to the town. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Ned Nichols, an abutter, questioned the validity of a sheet metal fabrication company that did not use hazardous materials or oils. Ms. Pettit stated that MSDS sheets were required to be submitted and the Building Inspector would have to review this.
Mr. LeClaire stated that this situation had been going on for a long time and time was being wasted. He suggested that this project be permitted to go forward and the board could be done with it.
Ms. Pettit suggested that Mr. McDonough, Mr. Quintal and Mr. Weinreib arrange an on-site inspection when Mr. Weinreib returned from vacation next week to discuss the unresolved issues. Mr. McDonough said that the only issue involved 1200 square feet on lot #4 and Mr. Quintal could do an as-built. He said that gravel had been placed under the culvert pipe and there had been more rain this year than in the last fifty years and he had complied with everything asked for. Ms. Finnigan asked if the berm had been corrected. Mr. McDonough said that it had been built up and lifted 8”. Mr. Quintal said that the area around the detention base was almost corrected. Mr. Hull did not think that the Planning Board should be telling Mr. McDonough what to do and that his engineer should address the issues (or
not) and then the Planning Board and Altus could agree or not and issues could be identified. Mr. Quintal and Ms. Pettit will contact Mr. Weinreib.
Mr. DiBartolomeo said conditional CO’s would really not work at this but he would not be opposed to one general CO for the super structure before issuing those for the units. He said that they were very close to completion and he was hoping that the units could be inspected by the end of the week. He said that his ultimate concern, working with the Fire Department was life safety issues.
Mr. Nichols said that while Mr. DiBartolomeo’s concerns might be life-safety, his were environmental. Mr. DiBartolomeo said that hazardous materials were included as part of the form and it was protocol. Mr. McDonough said that Unit #12 had all signatures for a CO except for Fire, Building and Planning Board.
5. Saunders
This was a continuation of a public hearing in which the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for he purpose of establishing an accessory apartment, which is pre-existing but not approved. The property is owned by Randall C. Saunders, is located at 76 Peaslee Crossing Road and is referenced as Map 7-Block 3-Lot 28-17. Mr. Saunders was not present and when contacted by the AA, he requested a continuance until the September meeting.
6. Woodhouse
This is 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 and extended for 65 days at the request of the Board on July 11, 2006). Mr. Woodhouse was present and represented by James Lavelle of Lavelle Associates. Mr. Lavelle presented a revised fifty-scale drawing. He said that a large construction and maintenance easement along the wetlands. Cistern details were included with easements shown. Traffic study was submitted and it was very expensive. Lighting and sidewalks had not been included.
He said that they were not proposing lighting except for at the intersection and the abutters had been vocal that street lights were not wanted. Ms. Pettit said that she’d have to think about this. Mr. Hull said that lights would not be required and that individual home owners could have individual lights but from a safety standpoint there should be a streetlight at the intersection. There was a question about school buses using the new road. Per Mr. Doggett, school buses did not enter cul-de-sacs. Mr. Lavelle asked if the addition of a street light should be decided by a vote of the town because of the expense involved to operate it. Ms. Pettit said that this should be discussed with the Selectmen and Road Agent and a decision would be rendered at the next meeting.
Motion made by Mr. LeClaire with a second by Mr. Doggett to not require lighting or sidewalks in the Woodhouse subdivision. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Woodhouse stated that the trolley trail would still be deeded to the town. Ms. Miles said that part of the concerns of the TRC was the length of the road because per Mr. Hull, the longer the road, the faster the traffic.
There was also concern about the entrance of the road and the area at certain lots and angles. Mr. Woodhouse read from the regulations; in particular where road length was amended.
Mr. DiBartolomeo used Kenwood Drive extension as an example for an area that would permit emergency air-lift vehicles.
Mr. Lavelle said that clustering had been one member’s opinion. Ms. Pettit suggested that the board review the intersection and where the proposed road would be staked out. There was no issue with the applicant if the members wanted to do this. Mr. Lavelle said that the plans presented were the final set including the latest drainage calculations. Ms. Finnigan suggested that the applicant consider pavement reflectors and she could be contacted if he was interested. Ms. Miles advised against the planting of vegetation at the street; there would be improved visibility if there were no boxwood hedges.
Motion made by Ms. Pettit with a second by Mr. Doggett to continue this hearing until September 12, 2006. The motion passed unanimously.
7. Marra and Marley Builders
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). The applicants were represented by James Lavelle of Lavelle Associates. Revised plans were submitted as well. NHDOT had issued a driveway permit. The dredge and fill was approved. All of Mr. Weinreib’s comments had been addressed and the applicant’s would like to begin work and were requesting a conditional approval. Ms. Pettit stated that the board had voted against issuing conditional approvals in 2005. Ms. Miles said that she did not mind contributing to these comments. She said that it was not the Board’s issue that State permits were not issued sooner and it would behoove the developers to have a clock prior to conditional approval being issued. Mr. Lavelle stated that Mr. Weinreib had received the revisions one
week earlier but not the drainage calculations and Mr. Lavelle hadn’t realized that Mr. Weinreib needed everything. Mr. Marley asked why they should suffer.
Motion made by Ms. Pettit with a second by Mr. LeClaire for the Board to vote to grant a conditional approval until a clean letter had been received from Altus. The motion failed 0-4-2, with Mr. Doggett and Mr. LeClaire abstaining.
Ms. Pettit explained that the jurisdictional time clock was about to expire and that the applicant would need to grant an extension.
Motion made by Ms. Pettit with a second by Ms. Miles to extend the jurisdictional time clock for Marra for sixty-five days (or October 12, 2006) The motion passed unanimously.
Motion made by Ms. Finnigan with a second by Ms. Miles to continue the public hearing for Saunders to September 12, 2006. The motion passed unanimously.
8. Nichols
White Fence Development was requesting a public hearing for the purpose of amending a conditional approval received on October 12, 2004 for an eighty unit elderly cluster development at Smith Corner Road. The property is referenced as Map 8, Block 3, Lot 11 (Known as Sargent Woods). Mr. Nichols asked if Mr. Weinreib’s comments would be needed and it was the consensus of the board that they would be. Mr. Nichols requested a continuance.
Motion made by Ms. Pettit with a second by Ms. Miles to continue this public hearing until September 12, 2006. The motion passed unanimously.
9. Barbara and James White
Mr. and Mrs. White of 22 Bear Hill Road were requesting a public hearing for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a home occupation: an antiques and collectibles shop. The property is referenced as Map 17, Block 4, Lot 1. Mrs. White’s letter was read into the record. The business would be located in a portion of the existing garage and she would be the sole employee, with occasional assistance from her husband. There is a three-way shared driveway. Ms. Miles asked if any of the abutters were opposed to this and Mrs. White said that she had spoken to her neighbors and there were no objections to this business.
Motion made by Mr. LeClaire with a second by Mr. Nelson to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the White’s In-Home Occupation. The motion passed unanimously.
9. Olympiad Realty Trust
Arnold Pevna, Trustee, owner of Atlas Motor Express was requesting a Design Review for the purpose of receiving guidance with regards to potential development at the site. The property is located at 57 Kingston Road and is referenced as Map 8, Block 1, Lot 4. Mr. Hamlet, representative for the applicant said that there would be no change in the current business and the applicant would like to sell the Plaistow portion of the property. He said that this could be done via statute, and a copy of it was submitted to the members. He said that he had not gone before the Plaistow Planning Board but he had met with their planner. He said that he would like to submit a survey plan showing just the boundary lines. Mr. Doggett said that an engineered plan showing septic locations would be needed. This piece
is land-locked with no frontage in Newton. It was the opinion of town counsel that a formal application would need to be submitted along with fees. Ms. Pettit asked about possible litigation.
The abutters were upset about the on-going truck traffic and that the site approval was not being complied with. A letter from abutter Mr. Jones of 47 Kingston Road was read into the record.
Ron Richer of 41 Kingston Road said that Atlas was restricted from the south but the trucks entered and exited in both directions. Mr. Richer added that the current property was rented; run-down and having a home owner on-site could only be an improvement.
Mr. Hull said that there were two routes that the Board could take; they could seek a legal opinion and be able to determine if there’s a statute that trumps this situation or perhaps the subdivision would require a variance.
Motion made by Ms. Pettit with a second from Mr. Doggett to request that the applicant write a letter that the Planning Board seek an opinion from Town Counsel regarding this request and pay a deposit of $500 for this opinion. The motion passed unanimously.
10. Difeo and Brogna LLC
The applicants were requesting a public hearing for a three-lot subdivision at 31-41 Whittier Street. The property is referenced as Map 6, Block 11, Lot 2. Kevin Hatch of Cornerstone Survey Associates provided the presentation. He said that this was a three-lot subdivision with one parcel being deeded to the Town as conservation land/open space. He said that an application had been submitted to the State for subdivision approval and one building (house) would be located across from Bartlett Street.
Mr. Hull said that he believed this plan was ready for jurisdiction to be taken. There was some discussion about how the Planning Board would create a non-conforming lot (there is no frontage on the proposed conservation land) and it is intended to be non-buildable. A boundary line adjustment was suggested as a possible solution. He said that there were some other minor issues regarding septic, policy and no State permits had been received. He said that lot 2 needed a construction permit approval to permit building within the four-thousand square-feet receiving area. He said that Note #5 was incorrect; Newton did not participate in the Federal Flood Program.
Motion made by Ms. Pettit with a second from Mr. Doggett to invoke jurisdiction on the Difeo and Brogna subdivision plan. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Hull said that he needed to compile some comments and he did not think that an engineering review would be required.
Ms. Pettit said that because a non-conforming lot was being created, she would like to speak to counsel about proceeding.
Mr. Hatch said that he was concerned about filing a boundary line adjustment because of the abutting recreation land and trails. There was also some mention of Rails and Trails.
Ms. Marshall said that this did not involve Rails and Trails.
There was discussion that a boundary line adjustment was just one option and the applicant could always apply to the Board of Appeals for a variance. There was discussion that there was an advantage to the Conservation land being separate from the Peanut Trail and they would be handled differently. Mr. Hatch asked for the Board’s permission to speak with Attorney Somers. Ms. Pettit said that she would ask for a proposal to be submitted first.
Mr. Overhiser of 33 Whittier Street said that he was concerned with the right-of-way and thought that this might de-value his property. He said that the proposed residences were too close and there would be a great loss of trees.
Mr. Hatch showed the house placement and said that this would be the least obstructive position for it. Mr. Overhiser said that he was disappointed and had expressed interest in purchasing this property but were never responded to.
Ms. Miles said that she understood because the Board had had problems with long driveways. She said that she wanted the building and septic areas better defined and that no house or foundation was shown on the plan.
Ms. Hoffman of 36 Whittier Street asked who had done the wetland boundary verification and asked if it was flagged. She said that she was a wetlands scientist and requested permission to view this, which was granted by the property owner.
Motion made by Ms. Miles with a second by Mr. Doggett to continue this public hearing to September 12, 2006. The motion passed unanimously.
Motion made by Ms. Miles with a second by Mr. LeClaire to adjourn at 9:30 PM. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Sally E. Cockerline
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
