Newton Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
January 8, 2007
In attendance:
Kim Pettit, Ann Miles, Mary Allen, Debbie Finnigan, Gary Nelson, Rich LeClaire, Kim Vaillant, Jim Doggett - NPB
Also in attendance: Peter J. Loughlin, Esq.
1. Non-meeting with Counsel:
Chairman Pettit called the meeting to order at 6:45PM and the Board promptly entered into a non-meeting with counsel to discuss a legal matter.
The public meeting reconvened at 7:20PM.
2. Rosewood Builders LLC (2007.001) At the request of the applicant, and by unanimous vote on a motion by Pettit and second by Doggett, this application was rescheduled to February 13, 2007.
3. Old Business, Sargent Woods project:
The Board reviewed correspondence dated 1/3/07 from Charles Grau, Esq., on behalf of Ned Nichols & White Fence Development, requesting that the Board reconsider its decision of December 12, 2006 to deny Nichols’ request to modify a condition of approval (by modifying the required bond posting). Pettit asked Atty. Grau to confirm that, although the Board had received and reviewed several requests from Nichols related to the project’s bonding, that the request before the Board to reconsider was related to the Board’s denial of Nichols 11/28/06 request to reduce bonding for Phase 1A to roughly $38,000 and for 1B to zero; Atty. Grau concurred. Planning Board members Miles and LeClaire recused themselves, and alternate member Doggett was appointed to sit for Miles. Motion to reconsider by Pettit, with a second by Allen, was
approved 5-1-0, with Vaillant opposed. Motion by Allen, second by Doggett, to reduce the on-site bonding required for the project, using figures submitted by Nichols on July 25, 2006, to $171,930 for Phase 1A and to $62,879 for Phase 1B, was approved unanimously. Pettit moved, with a second by Nelson, to issue a written decision confirming the approved figures and using the language drafted by Atty. Somers in a letter dated 11/28/06; motion passed unanimously.
4. Second Public Hearing on Proposed Zoning Articles for the 2007 Warrant:
These were taken out of order because of Atty. Grau’s wish to speak, on behalf of Nichols, about the proposed changes to the elderly housing ordinance.
3) Elderly Housing
There was discussion of the proposal to limit the number of approved units in any one elderly housing project to not more than 4% of the total number of housing units in town. Motion by Allen, second by Miles, to delete that language from the proposed amendment, passed unanimously.
Motion by Pettit, second by Nelson to add language “The Planning Board does recommend this article”, passed unanimously.
1) Accessory Apartments
Discussion of minimum and maximum square footage for accessory apartments. Accepted with the following change(s):
Last sentence to read “The size of the accessory apartment shall be a maximum of 800 square feet or 1/3 of the total gross floor area, whichever is smaller.”
Motion by Pettit, second by Nelson to add language “The Planning Board does recommend this article”, passed unanimously.
2) Home Occupations
Accepted with numerous changes – the approved language is appended to the end of these minutes.
Motion by Pettit, second by Nelson to add language “The Planning Board does recommend this article”, passed unanimously.
4) Building Code References
No changes.
Motion by Pettit, second by Nelson to add language “The Planning Board does recommend this article”, passed unanimously.
5) Condominium Conversions
No changes.
Motion by Pettit, second by Nelson to add language “The Planning Board does recommend this article”, passed unanimously.
6) Floodplain Development Ordinance
No changes.
Motion by Pettit, second by Nelson to add language “The Planning Board does recommend this article”, passed unanimously.
7) Commercial architectural ordinance
No changes.
Motion by Pettit, second by Nelson to add language “The Planning Board does recommend this article”, passed unanimously.
8) Access Management
No changes.
Motion by Pettit, second by Nelson to add language “The Planning Board does recommend this article”, passed unanimously.
9) Buffers
11) Capital Facilities Impact Fee
12) Open Space Requirements
These three articles deal with modifications to the subdivision & site plan regulations. Because regulations may be adopted and/or amended at a properly noticed public hearing of the Planning Board, they will be scheduled separately.
10) Junkyard Ordinance
Town Counsel suggested a few amendments to the definitions but the Board felt that, because this is the first time this article would be heard and because the text of the articles had not been made available to the public prior to this public hearing, the adoption of this ordinance could be challenged and so it should be carried over to next year’s warrant.
V. Sara Realty/Whispering Pines: The applicant requested that his hearing be continued; motion by Allen with a second by Finnigan to continue to March 13, 2007. In the interim, the applicant’s traffic study will be submitted to Laurie Rauseo for review, and also copied to member Finnigan, a traffic engineer for the city of Portsmouth.
VI. Correspondence & other Board business:
A. Manifests: Operating budget manifest approved by unanimous vote on a motion by Miles, second by Allen. NPREA manifest approved, pending verification by Pettit of credit balances on account for the applicants represented, by unanimous vote on a motion by Allen and second by Vaillant.
B. Past meeting minutes: Motion by Miles, second by Allen, to continue this item to the January 23, 2007 work session – passed unanimously.
C. Board reviewed Altus’ correspondence re: site walks at S&R site on Rte. 108.
D. Pettit updated the Board on the AA search – deadline for applications in January 18th, so review of resumes & applications will be scheduled for 1.23.07 work session.
E. Encumbered funds for desktop computer & printer/copier/fax/scanner – these items will be scheduled for discussion at 1.23.07 work session.
F. Town acceptance of roadways – Nelson & Pettit raised the issue of when the Town accepts ownership of & responsibility for roadways and whether these two issues should be tied together. Pettit made copies for Board members of email memo from Altus on the concept of “purgatory”, used by another Seacoast town for the development of roadways. Developer builds road and places binder; once this is complete, developer can request that the road enter “purgatory” – at which point it is maintained (plowed) by the Town, Any failures of the road and/or damage are the responsibility of the developer, and ownership is not accepted by the Town until the subdivision is
completely built out. Board agreed to discuss this concept at greater length during future meetings.
Motion by Miles to adjourn at 9:40 PM.
Minutes transcribed by Kim Pettit, NPB.
| 
