Newton Planning Board
Public Hearing
October 10, 2006
1. Call to Order
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM, declaring a quorum of six 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 September 26, 2006 edition of the Carriage Towne News. There was no challenge to the legality of the meeting.
2. Attendance
The following members were present:
Ann Miles – Vice-Chairman
Mary Allen - Member
Richard LeClaire - Member
Gary Nelson – Selectmen’s ex-officio member
James Doggett –Alternate member
Kip Kaiser – Alternate member
Also, present:
Reuben Hull – Circuit rider/planner (late)
Jill Robinson – RPC
Frank Gibbs – Road Agent
Ms. Miles appointed Mr. Kaiser and Mr. Doggett to sit in place of Ms. Pettit and Ms. Vaillant.
3. Approval of Minutes
The Board decided to table approval of past minutes until the October work session.
4. Manifests
The Board reviewed the manifest for the Operating Budget. The total amount of expenditures was for $188.74, which was for the telephone and petty cash charges.
Motion made by Mr. Doggett with a second by Ms. Allen to approve the Operating Budget manifest as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
In the interest of time, it was recommended to table review of the NPREA manifest until the work session.
Administrative Assistant Cockerline suggested that some of the items listed on this manifest were time sensitive and should be addressed as they had previously been postponed. The Board reviewed the charges for the Rockingham Planning Commission, Air & Noise Compliance and the Eagle Tribune.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Mr. Doggett to pay the charges listed on the NPREA manifest for the Rockingham Planning Commission, Air & Noise Compliance and the Eagle Tribune. The motion passed unanimously.
5. Master Plan Update
Ms. Miles welcomed Dr. Jill Robinson saying that it was a pleasure to have her at the meeting and was hoping for an update on the Master Planning process. Dr. Robinson told the Board that she was a regional planner for RPC and was working with the Master Plan Committee. She said that she was a bit miffed at being left off of the agenda because she thought that she would be allotted an hour to discuss the Master Plan and the survey results. She said that she was working to give direction for overall planning and for the updating of the Master Plan chapters. She said that the State now required a Vision chapter and to do that effectively public input needed to be solicited. She said that the committee had met last spring and had distributed a survey at several different venues and a public input session followed that had a very low
turnout. She said that 64 surveys had been returned. She said that the committee had met to figure out why the turnout was so low. She explained that the Master Plan Committee was a sub-committee of the Planning Board and the Board would need to provide the MPC with some direction. Ms. Miles apologized on the Board’s behalf and suggested rescheduling this for one hour at the November meeting. Copies of the surveys were distributed to those in attendance at the meeting and those present knew nothing about the survey. Ms. Miles requested that the surveys be completed and turned in to the Board before the end of the meeting. Dr. Robinson was thanked.
6. White Fence Development
This was a continuation of 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. Ned Nichols, principal for White Fence Development said that the Board had said that they would research Mr. Nichols request and make a decision at this meeting.
(This recorder missed the next five minutes of this meeting because I was requested to make copies of the Master Plan surveys for the audience and I have not received a tape of the proceedings at the time of transcription.)
Ms. Miles requested that Mr. Hull read the letter from Jill Robinson that was submitted to the Board in August 2006. The letter submitted by Altus Engineering was also read by Mr. Hull.
Mr. Nichols stated that there were funds to restore the site but the road was not included. He said that underground piping and the construction of the water system and the septic would be included. Mr. Kaiser said that what Mr. Nichols was asking for was what he had agreed to. Mr. Doggett said that he agreed with Dr. Robinson’s opinion and that CO’s should not be used in place of bonds. He said that without a bond, the burden for completion would fall on the taxpayers. Ms. Miles referred to the situation at Audrey Lane. Mr. Kaiser asked if this was a phased project. Mr. Nichols said that the bond was based on Phase 1 only. Mr. Doggett said that he would not vote for a reduction because the town would be left with a mess. Mr. LeClaire said that only Phase 1 was being bonded and
he thought Mr. Nichols argument had merit.
Motion made by Mr. Kaiser to vote on Ned Nichols’ request for a bond reduction (No second).
Ms. Miles said that she would like to see numbers from Altus and Mr. Nichols said that Altus had agreed with his numbers.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Mr. Nelson to continue this public hearing until November 14, 2006. The motion passed unanimously.
7. Woodhouse
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 and extended for 65 days at the request of the Board on July 11,
2006) (7:45 – 8:00 has been allotted for this hearing) James Lavelle of Lavelle Associates, representing the applicant said that the revised plans were reviewed by the TRC and the calculations for the overflow pipe were reviewed by Eric Weinreib of Altus Engineering. He said that he felt that everything had been addressed and all issues were satisfied. He said that he had hoped that Mr. Weinreib would have been present at this meeting to confirm. Ms. Miles said that the Board was not comfortable with granting conditional approvals. There was some discussion and Mr. Lavelle said that he would ask for a continuance pending clearance from Mr. Weinreib and the receipt of State approvals.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Mr. Doggett to continue this hearing until November 14, 2006. The motion passed unanimously.
8. Difeo and Brogna LLC
This was a continuation of a public hearing for a three-lot subdivision at 31-41 Whittier Street. The property is referenced as Map 6, Block 11, Lot 2. (Jurisdiction was invoked on 8/8/06)(8:00 – 8:15 has been allotted for this hearing.) Kevin Hatch of Cornerstone Survey Associates provided the presentation for the applicant.
He said that the list of outstanding issues had been reviewed with Altus Engineering and the building code would be followed; he would leave this to the Board. He said that a waiver request had been submitted with regards to the narrow lot and asked the Board to refer to Sheet 3. He said that State approval had been received for the septic systems because they could fit into the building envelope. He said that the wetlands issues had been addressed.
Abutter Comments
Bill Hoffman, 36 Whittier Street stated that he was concerned about the building envelope and did not want to see a “double-wide” installed there. He said that he also understood that Bartlett Street was a scenic road and right now the land across from it was valuable open space. Ms. Miles asked how he’d like this handled. He said that he would like the quality of the home to be built considered. Ms. Miles asked what the square footage of the proposed home would be and was told it would be 2000+ square feet. Ms. Miles asked if there was a vegetative buffer. Mr. Hatch said that there were weeds in the right-of-way and larger trees behind the stone wall. Mr. Hull was asked about Bartlett Street. He said that there could either be a public hearing held about it or the Board could
request a landscaping plan.
The well waiver was discussed and Mr. Hatch said that the lot could support the well with the radius. A letter from Attorney Ratigan was read aloud with regards to the non-conforming lot being created as a result of this subdivision plan and being purchased by the Conservation Commission. It said that the lot could legally be created but would not be a buildable lot.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Mr. Nelson to grant the well waiver as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Mr. Doggett to continue this hearing until November 14, 2006. (Withdrawn)
Motion made by Mr. Kaiser with a second by Mr. LeClaire to conditionally approve this subdivision plan pending receipt of State driveway permits. The motion passed unanimously.
9. Charles & Brenda Blaisdell
This was a public hearing for a design review for the applicants to discuss subdivision possibilities on their parcel. The parcel is owned by Charles & Brenda Blaisdell, is located at 44 Bear Hill Road and is referenced as Map17/Block 4/Lot 5. (8:15 – 8:30 has been allotted for this hearing.) Dennis Hamel, representing the applicant provided the presentation. A scalloped edge was created to circumvent the fact that the property lacks 9’ for the frontage requirement. It was stated that the way this plan was designed would set a bad precedent.
Charles Melvin, a member of the Board of Appeals stated that this had been sent to the Planning Board for a denial.
Mr. Hull said that the Board would need to receive a formal submittal in order to deny it and send it forward to the Board of Appeals.
10. Sara Realty LLC
This was a public hearing for a major non-residential site plan review for the expansion of thirty-eight additional camp sites at an existing campground. The property is owned by Sara Realty LLC, is located at 8 Wenmarks Road and is referenced as Map 5/Block 1/Lot 5. (8:30 – 8:45 has been allotted for this hearing.) Ron Pica, a member of Sara Realty LLC, accompanied by Attorney John Ryan, provided the presentation. He said that the site was comprised of 27 acres and was located on Wenmarks Road. He said that there were currently 79 sites and he was proposing 38 more per an agreement he had with the town and they are to be located at the rear portion of the property. He said that there was 500’ between the closest site and a residence. He said that an additional recreational site would be created. The traffic study was discussed. Mr. Pica said that not much traffic was generated; these were seasonal sites and there was no reason for those using them to leave the campground.
Attorney Ryan said that there was no change in use proposed; this was a natural expansion with no substantially different impact. He asked that the Board find that no variance would be required.
Ms. Miles said that the TRC had discussed natural expansion.
Mr. Hull said that one test of natural expansion was through evolution or technology. He said that he would not debate Attorney Ryan because he was not a land use attorney but he didn’t feel it met the criteria and suggested sending the plan to counsel. He said that there was a fair amount of information missing from the plan, including the zoning district and he was expecting a fairly lengthy letter from Altus about this. Altus has not yet reviewed this plan. Attorney Ryan felt that there was enough information submitted for the Board to invoke jurisdiction.
Abutter Comments
Rob Peterson asked for an explanation of jurisdiction, which Mr. Hull provided. Mr. Peterson said that he would like to present the point of view from the neighborhood and most of the residents. He thanked the Board for the site walk in August and the campground appeared to be under control. He said that he was in agreement with the elements needed for natural expansion. He said that some of the issues that had been outlined in the January letter still remained such as campfire smoke, noise, foul language, and the recreation area could be more user friendly. He also cited issues with the town beach use, trash, traffic and campers walking up and down the road.
He said that these problems would increase if the campground was expanded. He said that the former owner had 30 sites and it had increased to 40, 65 and now 79. He said that the use was grandfathered and should not further obligate the town. He said that Mr. Pica had claimed that this was a part-time, post-retirement job and this could be passed to an unknown entity. He said that he has heard that problems will be resolved. He said that there were safety rules on Country Pond and wave runners were operating adjacent to the town beach. He said that this area should be restricted to swimming and boat launching. He said that there was year-round boat docking and repairs. He said that the topographical changes affected the drainage and there had been flooding. Fencing was promised but not delivered, the
campground website references the lake, pool will not handle a large amount of people, Wenmarks Road is poorly laid out both with a sharp corner and at the intersection of Pond Street.
Lois DeYoung, Country Pond Fish and Game Club said that this would bring Mr. Pica’s operation even closer to the club.
Mr. Hull said that the Board should seek an opinion about natural expansion from counsel and jurisdiction could be invoked at the next meeting.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Mr. LeClaire to continue this hearing until November 14, 2006. The motion passed unanimously.
11. Estate of Sara E. Cleary, Charles Marden
This was a public hearing for a six-lot residential subdivision on Heath Street. The property is owned by Estate of Sara E. Cleary, Charles Marden, is located on Heath Street and is referenced as Map 4/Block 6/Lot 3. (8:45 – 9:00 has been allotted for this hearing.) Mr. Kaiser recused himself as he was an abutter. Dennis Quintal of Civil Construction Management provided the presentation. He said that this was a six-lot residential subdivision comprised of 56 acres. He said that soils had been identified along with wetlands from the easterly end. Driveway accesses have two easements across the corner because of sight distance issues or these could be combined to create a common driveway. He said that he had spoken with the road agent and had given him a copy of the driveway plan. The
building areas are located at the front of the lots, the test pits were witnessed by Mr. Leverone and the overlapping well radii are permitted by the State with well release forms. He cited 8.2.10.B.2: waiver request based on physical characteristics. This is for lots 3-3-4 and 3-3-5. He said that easements would be provided, the land was flat, soil was sandy except one lot had gravel and State subdivision approval was needed.
Mr. Hull said that this had been reviewed at the TRC and the well waivers had been discussed. He said that the plan met the regulations physically but there was an issue with the three middle lots as to the shape of the lots and the validity of the waivers would need to be discussed because this was in the regulations for a reason. Mr. Nelson said that an easement for the town along the open space portion to the town land had been mentioned at the work session.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Mr. Doggett to invoke jurisdiction on this plan. The motion passed unanimously.
Abutter Comments
Kevin Surrette – stated that is seemed like they were trying to stretch the lot and he thought the seventh lot could be reduced in size.
Kathy Surrette – Said that in 1990, they were told this land was landlocked. It was explained that the town-owned land was land-locked but not the Marden property because it had frontage on Heath Street.
Kip Kaiser said that this was a large parcel located within two zones and asked if it would be phased. Mr. Quintal said that it was his understanding that the 6-lot subdivision would be the beginning and the remainder would depend on what happened here. He said that this was not like Kansas; land had different characteristics in New England and this could be revised accordingly.
Ms. Miles said that this was a parcel that should be planned and she encouraged the Selectmen to look at the open space as a conservation or recreation area. She said that she was concerned with the driveways and well radii regulations existed for a reason.
Mr. Hull said that during TRC they thought it looked like a cluster subdivision and asked if it had been considered. Mr. Quintal said that they had looked at this and it had not met the applicant’s wants. Ms. Miles said that it had been the consensus of the TRC that the current driveways were not liked and they would prefer one driveway per lot. Mr. Hull said that this was within the corridor of Scenic Roads.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Mr. Nelson to grant the well waivers with the stipulation that the well release forms were submitted. The motion passed 4-1.
Ms. Miles said that there was not enough information to address the driveway issues and they needed to be better addressed. She added that it was the American Dream to own a house with its own driveway leading to the garage.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Mr. Nelson to continue this hearing until November 14, 2006. The motion passed unanimously.
12. LaRochelle Bond Reduction Request
Leo LaRochelle said that he had taken over the George’s Way subdivision and had noticed a lot of road issues. He had posted the bond to build a house there and to complete the road. He proceeded to provide his history about this road and subdivision.
Mr. Gibbs said that the road was a very good road. Pole has been relocated. It was stated that an As-Built plan was required. Mr. Gibbs disagreed with the Altus review and mentioned errors he felt that Altus had made regarding other projects. Mr. LaRochelle said that he could submit an As-Built.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Mr. Doggett to return the bond to Leo LaRochelle, less 10% with the applicant to submit an as-built plan to the Board. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. LaRochelle said that Phases 1 & 2 had been 100% completed.
The Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 10:15 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Sally E. Cockerline
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
