|
of the CityplaceNewton Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
November 28, 2006
In attendance:
Ann Miles, Mary Allen, Gary Nelson, Debbie Finnigan, Kim Vaillant, Kip Kaiser - NPB
Reuben Hull – RPC Circuit Rider
Mike DiBartolomeo - Building Inspector
Alternate Kaiser was appointed in place of Mr. LeClaire.
1. Acceptance of Past Meeting Minutes:
June 13, 2006 – tabled pending review of videotape;
June 27, 2006 – accepted by unanimous vote on a motion by Allen, second by Nelson, with the following corrections:
1) correct spelling is F-i-n-n-i-g-a-n
2) Page 3, para. 11, just below mid-page - strike last sentence beginning with “She said that the town needed to…”
place3) Para. 15, second sentence incorrect, add “in compliance with Master Plan.” after “town facilities.”
July 11, 2006 – accepted by unanimous vote on a motion by Allen, second by Finnigan.
July 25, 2006 – accepted by unanimous vote on a motion by Allen, second by Nelson.
August 8, 2006 – accepted by unanimous vote on a motion by Allen, second by Nelson, with the following corrections:
1) 2nd page, 6th paragraph, 7th line should read “Mr. Hull said it was the responsibility of the Planning Board to direct the applicant for a solution.”
2) add words “was shown” (easement was shown) to the end of the 2nd to last line on page 2 – “He said that a large construction and maintenance easement was shown…”
August 22, 2006 – accepted by unanimous vote on a motion by Allen, second by Nelson.
September 13, 2006 – tabled pending review of videotape.
September 26, 2006 – As there was not a quorum of the Board for this meeting, the minutes are for reference only.
October 10, 2006 – accepted by a vote of 4-0-2 with Kaiser, Vaillant abstaining, on a motion by Allen, second by Nelson.
October 24, 2006 – accepted by a vote of 4-0-2 with Finnigan, Nelson abstaining, on a motion by Allen, second by Kaiser, with the following correction(s):
1) Paragraph #5, NPREA – second sentence, after “bills were still being received” should read “…without the necessary details, ie. Map, lot, block etc.”
2) Paragraph #7, Kaiser’s comment is incomplete as shown. Insert “This would give the Town the right to distribute the work if one firm could not fill the time frame.” after “…was awarded the contract”.
The review of minutes ended at this point with the November minutes being tabled until the December meeting, because Mr. Nichols was scheduled for 7PM.
2. Nichols/Sargent Woods
Continuation of Board deliberation of Mr. Nichols’ request to modify a condition of approval. Nichols presented a summary of his request dated 11/28/06. placeCityHull requested clarification of the 11/28/06 request and Nichols confirmed that no reduction of the $39,352 restoration/reclamation bond is requested, but that Nichols is requesting the reduction of the Phase 1A bond from $416,392 to $38,553, representing the deletion of all Phase 1A bonding except for that covering site drainage. Vaillant questioned why he is comparing his multi-phase project to a single-phase project when the bonding is tied to the phases of the project – is Nichols arguing that the Board made a mistake in requiring these bonds? Nelson feels that the Board was inconsistent, Miles reiterated that each project was considered on its own merits and
that phasing is the issue here. Kaiser stated that it’s a large project and that he might be asking to take out too much. Finnigan questions the proposed deletion of engineering fees & contingency from proposal to change 1A. Board asked Nichols to outline the scope of each phase and the timing:
Phase 1 – 15 acres, 22 homes – 12-24 months;
Phase 2 – 7 acres, 14 homes – will start at 70% completion of Phase 1
Phase 3 – 7 acres, 18 homes
Phase 4 – remaining acreage, 26 homes
(Total for all four phases could be 10 years)
Miles stated that request to reduce bonding must consider how long before condominium association is self-sufficient and able to take responsibility for funding. Kaiser concerned with the concept of holding occupancy permits back until work is complete because there would be no mechanism for paying to complete work – work just wouldn’t get done and houses would not be approved for occupancy – if Nichols request succeeds, this could really hold him up. Board wants to insure that equipment is bonded. Boardmembers are agents for the Town and are obligated to act in the best interest of the residents. Board still has concerns about Pennichuck. Hull stated that, no matter which way the Board moves on this particular request, that it should adopt a more detailed formal policy on bonding at a public hearing to get this
resolved for projects going forward. Some towns only want to deal with restoration & reclamation bonding and stay away from bonding private work, other towns want everything bonded. Finnigan said that landscaping and erosion control are standard bond items on any project and should be added back in.
Motion by Kaiser, second by Allen, using language provided by Town Counsel, to reduce the Phase 1A and B bonds and incorporating modifications to the bonding schedule as follows (not including the add-backs in the grey list):
Phase 1A – “grey list” plus #1, #3, #19, #20, #23, for a total bond of $338,133, (reduced by $78,259);
Phase 1B – “grey list” plus #1, #11, #14, for a total bond of $143,949, (reduced by $71,965);
for a total reduction of $150,224. Motion failed on a tie vote of 3 in favor (Miles, Allen, Kaiser), 3 opposed (Finnigan, Vaillant, Nelson).
Further discussion of the Board’s initial intention to protect the Town and whether reconsidering that decision is appropriate. Developer will request reductions as each part of the work is completed. Motion by Allen, second by Nelson, to continue the deliberation to December 12, 2006– passed unanimously.
3. Public Hearing on Proposed Zoning Articles for the 2007 Warrant:
1) Accessory Apartments
Accepted with the following change(s):
Last sentence to read “The size of the accessory apartment shall be a minimum of 400 square feet and not to exceed a maximum of 720 square feet or 1/3 of the total gross floor area, whichever is smaller.”
2) Home Occupations
Accepted with the following change(s):
Revise III.B Home Based Business to read: “One home-based business may be permitted in each single family residential unit in Residential A and B zones, exclusive of duplexes or homes within cluster developments, subject to the following:”
Revise III.B.(3), replacing “1.5 ton” with “12,000 lbs.”
Revise the first and second sentences of “Application Procedure”, p. 3, to read:
“Town approval is required for Home Occupations.
Applications for conditional use permits for a Home Occupation and Home Based Business shall be made…”
3) Annual calculation of Elderly Housing Units
No changes.
4) Building Code References
Change XVII to XVIII, and add #1,2,3,4,5 from State Building Code (copy provided by DiBartolomeo) as follows:
1. The State Building Codes are RSA 155A (International Building Code) and Safc 6000, the State Fire Code. These codes are the state-wide minimum requirements.
2. Four feet is the minimum frost protection as measured from the bottom of the foundation footing to the finished grade.
3. Appendix G of the 2000 International Residential Code shall be the minimum requirements for all pool, spa, hot tub, and barrier or fencing for those installations.
4. Appendix F of the 2000 International Residential Code shall be the minimum requirements for the provision of radon systems.
5. All construction, demolition or work covered by the scope and purpose of these codes which is performed without permits shall be subject to a $100 stop-work order plus the permit fee. If the work is completed, then the $100 shall be a noncompliance penalty plus the fee.
5) Condominium Conversions
No changes.
6) Floodplain Development Ordinance
No changes.
7) Commercial architectural ordinance
No changes.
8) Access Management
No changes.
Adjourned.
Minutes transcribed by Kim Pettit, NPB from notes provided by Ms. Allen and augmented from the audiotapes.
| 
