 |
Newton Planning Board
Public Hearing
November 12, 2006
1. Call to Order
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:10 PM, with six members and two alternates present. The meeting was posted in three town locations: Newton Post Office, Newton Junction Post Office and Newton Town Hall.
2. Attendance
The following members were present:
Kim Pettit, Chairman; Ann Miles, Vice-Chairman; Gary Nelson, BOS ex-officio; Rich LeClaire; Kim Vaillant; Mary Allen; Jim Doggett; Kip Kaiser
Ms. Pettit appointed alternate Doggett in place of Deborah Finnegan.
Also, present:
Jill Robinson, RPC Senior Planner; Reuben Hull, RPC Circuit Rider/planner; Frank Gibbs, Road Agent, Mike DiBartolomeo, Building Commissioner; Bill Ingalls, Fire Chief
3. Master Plan
Dr. Robinson distributed a handout requesting public input on items to be included in the Vision chapter of the Master Plan. She noted that surveys are still available on the Town website and can be returned to the Town Hall or to RPC through the end of November for inclusion in the vision chapter. The Board and members of the public discussed the following:
1) Types of development:
a) Would like to see more: clustered housing, larger lot sizes/frontage, conventional single-family, controlled development, special zone/zoning for small businesses – village district?
b) Would like to see less: clustered housing, less development overall – stop and take stock of the recent growth rate and its impact on infrastructure, scattered commercial development, re-subdivision of over-sized lots within existing subdivisions – how to limit this?
2) Natural Resources, Conservation, Recreation – encourage purchase of conservation land, more rec facilities for teenagers, community center, promote conservation easements & purchase of development rights, Town should aim to own 1/3 of the total acreage in town, prioritize protection of water rights, preserve rural feel, protect open space, woodland & scenic views
3) Transportation (bike trails, sidewalks) – bike trails/paths on and off-road, sidewalks in certain areas of town where walking is more prevalent, ie. near schools, on narrow main roads, prepare shoulders properly as projects are developed so can construct sidewalks in the future, synergies – more conservation & rec land means more places to walk & bike
4) Cultural & Historic Resources – Historic District? Town has adopted scenic roads but no designated historic district, plenty of historic properties in town, adoption of a historic district brings with it the imposition of certain types of regulations & requirements, Heritage Commission would be an alternate means of planning to protect historic properties through an advisory commission or committee “keepers of the flame”, could review projects town-wide, discussion of historic properties in town such as the Chase Farm on Smith Corner Rd.
5) Town services – satisfied with what Newton has? What does Newton need? Surveys indicate high level of satisfaction with current Town services, discussed need for a safety complex – current facilities do not meet codes nor the needs of the FD & PD, playing fields, rec space, relocate skate park to a more visible (supervised) central location, need for a central gathering place – town common or community center, no real playground – Greenie Park facilities are old and are not configured correctly to serve all of the age groups, really doesn’t work for young children, school playground belongs to the school district not the town, Kingston Plains is a great common space, somewhere to hold concerts and community gatherings, facilities for the elderly, what if an emergency
arises & need to evacuate people to a central location, community center/civic space, could try to partner with developers to bring some of these things to fruition
6) Other – senior housing, single family residential, owner-occupied condominiums, increase required buffer btw. zones and setbacks from property lines to promote privacy, look at vegetation types for good screening, public utilities, lighting – turn the streetlights back on, locate streetlights in appropriate locations to promote safety for walkers, kids at bus stops
Dr. Robinson encouraged more volunteerism and thanked everyone for their input.
4. Non-meeting with Counsel: The Chairman announced that the Board would be entering into a non-meeting under the provisions of NH RSA 91: a, 2, (c) with counsel.The Chairman announced that the Board would be entering into a non-meeting under the provisions of NH RSA 91: a, 2, (c) with counsel.
The meeting was called back to order at 8:30.
5. Nichols/Sargent Woods
This is the continuation of Board deliberation on Mr. Nichols’ request to modify 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). Motion made by Pettit, seconded by Allen, to continue the deliberation to November 28, 2006 at 7PM; motion carried unanimously.
6. Woodhouse Project
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. As she is an abutter, Ms. Vaillant stepped down and MS. Pettit appointed alternate Kaiser to sit in her place. Jim Lavelle presented the revised overflow structure in the trolley berm as had been requested at the TRC meeting as the only change to the plans. Chief Ingalls has approved the cistern location. Lavelle requested a decision from the Board on off-site improvements – traffic study showed +10% in car trips, split between the Peaslee/Smith Corner and Peaslee/Rte. 108 intersections. Discussion of off-site improvements - applicant has provided a decel lane, a pull-off for cars waiting for the
school bus, and a right-of-way for potential future connection through to 108, has agreed to deed the trolley line walking trail to the Town, and is willing to provide a street light if the Board requires it. After some discussion regarding traffic on Peaslee, abutters’ concerns about light pollution, Town having shut off street lights to save money, Ms. Miles made a motion, seconded by Mr. Doggett, to require the installation of a single street light at the intersection of Walnut Farm and Peaslee; a note should be added to the plan. The fixture shall be shielded and cutoff, selected from those available through the local utility, with a cut sheet to be submitted to the Town engineer for approval prior to the preconstruction meeting. Motion passed with a unanimous vote in favor. Pettit made a motion, seconded by Miles, not to require any additional off-site improvements other than those noted above; vote was 6-1-0 in favor of the motion, with Kaiser opposed. Discussion of no
future subdivision of lot 8-6; Lavelle noted that the lot is only 1.07 times the minimum required lot size by soils. Motion made by Pettit, seconded by Miles, that the trolley line walking trail including the berm and bridge be deeded to the Town and that the Town will be responsible for its maintenance upon completion of the project; motion passed with a unanimous vote in favor. Motion made by Pettit, with second by Nelson, to grant conditional approval based on the following conditions: 1) acceptance by Town engineer of bond calculation dated 10/26/06; 2) state approvals received and noted in the plan set; 3) note indicating the requirement for a street light at the intersection. Miles asked whether applicant’s NPREA account is current; Pettit noted that the Board requires of every project that NPREA fees are current before mylar will be signed and recorded. Hull asked Lavelle to review status of state approvals – project has verbal approval of dredge & fill and
wetlands, site specific has been received, state subdivision is behind wetlands. Motion passed with a unanimous vote in favor.
Ms. Vaillant stepped back in.
7. Sara Realty/Whispering Pines
Attorney John Ryan, representing the applicant, requested that the Board take jurisdiction. Hull recommended either of two courses of action, the first that the Board accept the application as complete and then decide on the question of natural expansion, or the second, that if the Board determines that the proposal is not a natural expansion, it can find the application is not complete. In either case, if the Board finds that the proposal is not a natural expansion, the applicant would be entitled to go to the ZBA either to request a variance (if #1) or to appeal the decision of the Board (if #2). Attorney Ryan stated that the application package is complete and that the cleanest way to deal with this issue is to proceed under #1. Pettit noted that the public hearing had been opened on October 10, 2006 so the Board really needed to
accept jurisdiction, and reiterated that Town Counsel had, in recent letters, directed the Board to evaluate three specific criteria for determination of natural expansion. Hull stated that, for the purposes of accepting jurisdiction, the application has to be complete but that “complete” does not necessarily mean “accurate”. Ryan requests that the Board accept jurisdiction so that the application can be reviewed by the planner & engineer, and abutters, can be scheduled for TRC, and that there will be substantial amounts of testimony. Pettit made a motion, seconded by Doggett, to accept jurisdiction; motion carried unanimously. There was a discussion of studies to submitted by applicant, and concerns that studies performed at this time of year, namely the off-season for a seasonal camping establishment, may be of limited use. Application to be scheduled for review at TRC meeting on December 4, 2006 at 3:30PM. Motion by Pettit, second by Doggett, to
continue this matter to December 12, 2006 – motion carried unanimously.
8. Marden Meadows, Heath Street
Kaiser stepped down, as he is an abutter. Dennis Quintal presented for the applicant. State subdivision approval is in, new plan shows a 10’ easement along the easterly property line to access the Town land behind this property. Board granted waiver of well radii at October 10, 2006 meeting, and the shared driveways have been revised per the Board’s comments at that meeting. Extensive discussion of shared driveways ensued; ordinance allows them but what is the reason for the applicant’s request - is there a problem with site distance, or is it just to get more lots? Motion by Pettit to deny waiver for shared driveways, second by Vaillant. Several Board members had concerns about shared driveways not promoting clarity of ownership, causing ambiguity for property owners in terms of who maintains what. Heath St. is a
scenic road and is narrow, ordinance is intended to allow Board discretion while minimizing access points on existing roadways. Road agent was asked for his opinion but didn’t feel strongly one way or the other. Hull stated that the concept of shared driveways is consistent with access management principles and that limiting access points can be safer; this plan is an improvement over the first one. Ordinance allows shared driveways, no waiver required for two houses served by one driveway. Pettit rescinded motion, Vaillant rescinded second. Miles asked Kaiser, as an abutter knowledgable of Heath St., to weigh in. Kaiser asked about site distance – can each lot have its own driveway and meet site distance? If all the lots do not have adequate site distance, is this a good plan? Vaillant asks Board to clarify its objective – is it to promote clarity of ownership and have one driveway per residence, or is it to minimize access points? There are some bad shared
driveways in town. Hull – are we assuming that six lots fit and shared driveways are desirable or are we saying that six lots don’t fit without a waiver of the well radii and approval of shared driveways? Engineer can provide some clarity here. No opinion from Altus in the file – why is this? Altus looked at application at October TRC meeting but no in-depth review of plans. Hull reiterated TRC’s comments, that the necessity of shared driveways and a waiver for well radii made the six lots marginal, but TRC only advisory, and noted that well waivers already granted. Pettit asked whether we could request any master planning overview of the whole property at this point. Quintal stated that the applicant has a great deal of flexibility for developing the 36 acre parcel down the line, will work with the Town, and that this piece is perfect for single-family homes. Miles asked applicant whether he would increase width of access easement from 10’ to
20’; Quintal commented on the need to cross 200’+ wetlands, snowmobile or 4-wheeler can get to town land with 10’ width – what does the Board want? Miles felt that 20’ gave some breathing room to abutting properties on both sides. Discussion of conditional approval, with or without Altus comments. Discussion of bonding for Heath Street, which is in bad shape, property was extensively logged, road took a beating. Board may require applicant to repair the road as part of a later project. Road Agent recommended prohibition of trucks accessing the sites via Overlook Drive during construction. Applicant questioned why Overlook is in such bad shape and can’t be used for trucking but Board wants him to repair Heath St. Miles stated that no materials to be mined and hauled off-site, no heavy trucking to further damage the road. This has been a problem in other parts of town. LeClaire raised the issue of developers paying for improvements to Smith Corner
and Peaslee Crossing Roads as part of their project approvals. Motion made by Pettit, seconded by Nelson, to grant conditional approval based on the following conditions: 1) state approvals; 2) increase access easement to 20’ wide, deeded to Town; 3) no trucks on Overlook Rd. Further discussion – Kaiser states that Town wanted connection of Pond and Heath St. via Overlook specifically to provide additional access, but Overlook Rd. is not suitable because of poor engineering, and Board is proposing to approve this project without engineering. Pettit rescinded motion to conditionally approve, stating that the Board got itself into trouble on another project by not getting the Town engineer involved & blowing off engineer’s recommendation once we had one from him. Nelson rescinded second. Motion made by Pettit, second by LeClaire, to continue this matter to December 12, 2006 to allow time for Town engineer to review the application and submit written comments.
Quintal to submit paperwork directly to Altus with a copy of the transmittal to the PB office. Motion carried unanimously.
9. Correspondence
McDonough request for tenant approval
Mr. McDonough sent a letter in October requesting to be put on tonight’s agenda to review a tenant occupancy request. Tenant letter and Business registration form not submitted in advance; they were handed to a Board member tonight just prior to the meeting. Tenant approvals were granted in June 2006 for the entire building, Board would need to revoke the approval for the unit in question prior to reviewing the new tenant proposal. Tenant approvals are the subject of current litigation. Motion made by Pettit with second by LeClaire to continue this request to December 12, 2006.
Ferrandi/Patriot Drive
Mr. Ferrandi has written asking the Board to approve several amendments to the approved site plan for Patriot Drive and wants permission to place the wearing course within the next two weeks. One copy of an amended site plan was submitted to the PB office and was not available for review at the meeting. Comment made that here is another project not built according to the plan with the developer coming back in after the fact to request acceptance by the Board of unapproved modifications to the plan. Pettit advised applicant to submit the whole package directly to the Town Engineer for review, with a copy to the Planning Board. Developer can pave at his own risk, understanding that the Board is already chasing several projects which were built in violation of the approved plan and that the Board needs to take action on
the request to amend the approved site plan. Ferrandi stated that the 4 items which were modifications of the site plan are not related in any way to the paving. Pettit reiterated that he is proceeding at his own risk and that if the engineer or Board finds a problem(s), developer will be on the hook to fix it. Kaiser recommended that the applicant be sure to send all worksheets & project history to Altus, as the Town had a different engineer when this project started.
DeShaies request to waive fees -
LeClaire recused himself, Kaiser appointed in his place. Mr. DeShaies’ subdivision was conditionally approved in 2004; however, because the conditions of approval were not met within six months and no extension was requested, the approval lapsed and is now void. DeShaies has filed a new application and is requesting that the Board waive the engineering review, application and per-lot fees because the re-application is redundant. Miles stated that either we have rules or we don’t. Motion by Pettit, second by Miles, to deny Mr. DeShaies’ request to waive fees; motion carried unanimously. He will stop in on Thursday night to pay $5000 engineering bond to NPREA and $500 application fee + 2*$35/lot fee to Town of Newton Planning Board.
Lacroix state driveway permit application – reviewed. Board is aware that a previous application was denied by the state and will wait to see what this one is all about.
Lovecchio letter – the Lovecchios’ engineer is preparing an amended site plan in response to the Board’s recent correspondence regarding construction of a driveway in violation of the approved site plan. This prompted discussion of the other two violation letters sent out, one to S&R for its project on South Main St. and the other to Todd & Dennis Fitzgerald for their 2-lot project on Pond St. Neither has responded in writing, Pettit to send the letters again requesting a written response. One of the two homes at the Fitzgerald site on Pond St. has received a certificate of occupancy, Allen recommended that Pettit clarify the situation with the Building Inspector that no additional COs be issued until the amended site plan has been reviewed and approved.
Cell tower on South Main St. backland – correspondence noting that the cell tower has been sold and that the purchaser wishes to receive bond statements from the Town Treasurer. Kaiser reminded the Board to look at the plan if and when the new owner comes back to the Board to do work there.
Mason & Rich letter re: NPREA account reconciliation - Outlines the work M&R was requested to do, what they found, and what they recommend going forward. Discussion of gross budgeting, policies and procedures, possibility of having the Town Bookkeeper involved from here forward as well. The increase in initial review bonding from $500 to $5000 should take care of the small overruns, the large projects never should have gotten to where they are now. Board members agreed to familiarize themselves with the contents of the letter and to discuss this at a worksession in January.
FEMA Resolution – Adopted by Selectmen. Adoption of Flood Plain ordinance would follow next, it is scheduled for discussion at public hearings on proposed ordinances for 2007 warrant.
DC Development re: Town acceptance of Philip Way – Planning Board is still waiting on the submission of amended site plans with easements per Town engineer’s recommendations.
ZBA Agenda – reviewed.
Internet Policy – reviewed.
Storey Estates walking paths – PB and BOS have received numerous complaints from residents about the gravel walking paths. Residents would like developer to tear them out, they will take them over after that. Several Board members stated that the developer should make them work. Vaillant asked why Town should be required to maintain bad construction – developer should have to make it right. Road Agent commented that, because of driveway grades, this will be a very difficult situation to resolve.
Engineering RFP – The Selectmen have accepted it & will solicit proposals through the end of January 2007. Time required to interview firms and negotiate/award contract will push time frames out through end of February or into March, so Planning Board needs to extend its agreement with Altus through the end of February.
Operating budget manifest (handwritten):
East Coast Office Equipment – toner for copier $120.00
Choice One Telephone $ 72.91
Total Approved operating expense: $192.71
Motion made by Allen, second by Doggett, to approve the operating budget manifest for payment as submitted – motion carried unanimously.
NPREA manifest (October) is still a mess, needs more work. Motion made by Pettit and seconded by Doggett, to continue to the December 12, 2006 meeting – motion carried unanimously.
Approval of past meeting minutes – 6/13/06 and 9/13/06 need to be reviewed against videotapes, esp. as the actions taken at both meetings are the subject of litigation. Pettit has the tapes and will try to get through both of them by worksession. Others (7/11, 7/25, 8/8, 8/22, 9/26, 10/10, 10/24, 11/1) to be reviewed & approved. Pettit to email and/or distribute paper copies of all prior to worksession. Vaillant proposes meeting on November 28, 2006 at 6PM, prior to the ordinance hearings, to review & approve all of these back minutes.
Motion made by Ms. Miles to adjourn at 10:45PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Kimberly D. Pettit
Chairman
Newton Planning Board
| |
