Newton Planning Board
Public Hearing
May 8, 2007
1. Call to Order
Chairman Pettit called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM with the following members in attendance: Pettit, Doggett, Miles, LeClaire, and Gibbs.
2. Charles Blaisdell requested a public hearing to consider a 2-lot subdivision at 44 Bear Hill Road (Map 17/Block 4/Lot 5). Motion by Doggett with second by Miles to accept jurisdiction of the plan, passed 5-0. The Zoning Board granted a variance for parcel 5-B for 140.5 feet of frontage. Abutter Ed Gandolfo asked how the subdivision will affect his property and the wetlands, particularly the septic system. He also wanted to know why the proposed house was set so far back. Pettit said when the town engineer reviews the design he will also review the septic design and its relation to the wetlands. Cammett Engineering spoke for Mr. Blaisdell and said the location of the proposed house was the client’s prerogative and the septic design is approved. Cammett will send copies of the septic
& state subdivision approvals to the Board. Existing well in its current location because Town of Merrimac’s wells dried out their dug well, which is located in the 4K area and is used for grey water only. Applicant requested a conditional because the plan has been pending for so many months & felt it unfair that they be held up again waiting for consultant’s letters. Motion by Doggett with second by LeClaire to grant conditional approval predicated on a clean letter (no issues) from Town engineer and planner, and the addition of applicable permit numbers on the plans, passed with 4 in favor (Pettit, Doggett, Gibbs, LeClaire) and 1 (Miles) opposed.
Selectman Bob Donovan arrived 7:20 PM.
Motion by Doggett with second by LeClaire to close the public hearing passed 5-0, with Donovan abstaining.
3. Donald and Janet Gavin requested a public hearing for a 5-lot subdivision at 30 Maple Avenue (Map 10/Block 10/Lot 40). Engineer Dennis Quintel spoke on behalf of the Gavins. He explained that the proposal is to subdivide the existing lot into 5 lots. Each lot will have a minimum of 150 feet of frontage. Lots 40-4 and 40-3 share a common driveway. Quintel met with the Conservation Commission as Maple Avenue is a scenic road and the project will have some impact on the stone walls and has walked the project with Road Agent Gibbs. Quintal is waiting on state subdivision approval. Motion by Doggett with second by Miles to accept jurisdiction of the plan, passed unanimously.
Motion by Miles to continue until June, no second – motion failed.
LeClaire – Board is in the process of changing the regulations to prohibit shared driveways – has this taken effect yet? Pettit advised that Reuben is working on it and that we will have to adopt the change in an upcoming public hearing. LeClaire, Miles, Pettit all question the reasoning behind the shared driveway. Gibbs stated that it is preferable to have fewer driveways on Maple Avenue. Pettit suggested aligning the proposed driveways with those across the street and questioned overlapping well radii on lots 40-2 and 40.
Abutter Peter Desrosiers of 35 Maple Avenue expressed concern about drainage issues on this area of the roadway. Gibbs said the drainage issue is an ongoing, existing problem and the proposed subdivision will not make the problem worse. Mr. Desrosiers said that he would be willing for the town put a drainage pipe on his property. Gibbs said he would discuss this with Mr. Desrosiers. (Quintel suggested including the drainage pipe as a condition of approval)
Abutter Hockney said the road is in bad shape and is narrow (17’ wide) and the proposed subdivision will increase the amount of traffic in the area. Gibbs and Quintel said the road will be widened in the area of the “no ditch area only”. Pettit reminded the Board of similar discussion on a project on Heath St. when the Board considered asking the applicant to wide the road along the front property line and ended up with an easement to benefit the Town in the event of future road widening.
Miles said that drainage issues were not addressed on the Pond Street subdivision and now there is considerable flooding in that area. She also stated that a Scenic road is by definition supposed to be narrow and scenic. Widening the road will cause the traffic to move faster through that area.
The Gavins were asked if they intended to build on the proposed lots. The Gavins stated that their intention is to stay in their current home, subdivide the remaining land and sell the lots.
Gibbs confirmed that Maple Avenue was widened in the immediate vicinity of Patriot Drive.
Selectman McCarthy was in attendance and spoke on behalf of the Conservation Commission. She stated that the Conservation Commission will hear the case again at their May 17th meeting.
Gibbs said that the water is not coming from the lots, it its going across the lots.
Motion by Miles, seconded by Pettit, to continue the hearing to June 12, 2007 and to review the proposed subdivision at TRC meeting, passed unanimously.
4. 125 Development NH Corp./Coleman McDonough requested a public meeting for a preliminary review for a proposed major non-residential site plan at Puzzle Lane, Phase II (Map 14/Block 1/Lot 27-3). LeClaire recused himself.
Matt Peterson from Woodland Design prepared to present plans and mylars for 27-1. Chairman Pettit reminded Mr. McDonough and his representatives that the item that was noticed (preliminary review for proposed major non-residential site plan on 27-3) and was the only item that would be heard. The Planning Board has been advised by legal counsel not to hear the waiver requests.
Dennis Quintel spoke on behalf of Mr. McDonough on the Phase II site plan. Will use the existing wetlands crossing, showing 4K area under parking lot. Site specific is pending. Pettit asked Quintal to add the aquifer line to the plan and asked where this project stood in terms of last fall’s DES enforcement issue. McDonough stated that it is all set; Pettit stated that the Board would request written confirmation of same from the applicant and from Eben Lewis at DES.
Quintal stated that the proposed building is set back 180’ from the property line after the applicant received a variance upon application directly to the ZBA. He will finnish the drainage design, details, grading & test pits and would like to roll this into a full application and public hearing in June. Miles asked how many parking spaces would be provided, and reminded the applicant’ to review all of the questions and issues which arose during the previous construction on this lot – please give us all information up front this time. She also asked about tenants, protection of the wetlands, water supply & how to protect the aquifer and the Town’s water because of concerns about ownership of the Town water supply. Quintal stated that he & the applicant have discussed these issues, that
there are 164 acres on Lot 3, and that the town would need to buy up land to install future wells and well protective zones.
Doggett said that all the items on the RPC checklist and discussed at Technical Review meetings during the prior project should be incorporated in the plans.
Pettit questioned the “future access” notation – where does it go? Quintal stated that it goes to the residential property Mr. McDonough owns in the back, and that in its variance approval, the ZBA granted the applicant access to a future residential development on the landlocked property, over the private road to be built through the industrial zone. Pettit suggested that the Board review the variance approval and asked whether there is any other location for access to this future project – Quintal said that there was potential access through Sargent Woods.
Mr. Quintel requested that Mr. McDonough be allowed to begin site work. Miles wants stump removal monitored. Selectman McCarthy said that the Conservation Commission will want to do a site walk. Miles said the Planning Board should have an invitation to view the property. Pettit asked Quintal to clarify the limit of work – he stated that it would be the silt fence and the area inside of it. Pettit requested a plan showing the silt fence line and a notation indicating that it would comprise the limit of work area.
Motion by Miles with second by Doggett to allow Mr. McDonough to place erosion control and after inspection, allow stump removal, show certificate of stump removal, strip top soil and fill, all to be done under the supervision of the town engineer, passed with 4 in favor (Doggett, Miles, Donovan, Gibbs), and 1 (Pettit) opposed.
5. Acceptance of Minutes
Motion by Doggett with second by Miles to accept minutes from 4/24/07 work session meeting passed unanimously.
Kim Vaillant arrived 8:30 PM.
6. Leo LaRochelle request for reduction of the road bonds for George’s Way Phases 1 and 2. Mr. LaRochelle was not in attendance. Gibbs recused himself. Motion by Pettit with second by Miles to continue hearing to June 12th passed unanimously.
7. Sara Realty/Whispering Pines Campground continuation of public hearing for a major non-residential site plan review for the expansion by 38 additional camp sites of an existing campground at 8 Wenmarks Road (Map 5/Block 1/Lot 5). Atty. Ryan spoke on behalf of Whispering Pines owner, Mr. Pica. The applicant is requesting a decision on Article 19 of the Zoning Ordinance, natural expansion. They have given the planning board everything it has requested to date and asks the planning board to evaluate their request as to criteria 1, 2 & 3 under Article 19.
Atty. Ryan provided the following history: The settlement agreement of 11/00 allowed 70 existing sites and 10 transient sites. The site plan was approved by the planning board along with a residence, recreation building and swimming pool. The settlement agreement noted that the campground could accommodate more sites and set a moratorium on new sites until November 2005. Pica applied but was turned down for aquifer, ZBA granted variance.
The applicant has provided:
Hydro study – no adverse impact on aquifer.
Report from appraiser – no adverse impact on surrounding property values.
State site and septic approval.
Various letters from counsel.
Traffic study.
Atty. Ryan stated that the addition of 38 sites does not change the nature of the use - 80 to 118 sites, same nature and use as currently exists. Thirty eight additional sites will not make the site proportionally less adequate – all utility needs can be met on site. The traffic reports show no material increase in traffic. The effect on the neighborhood is not substantially different. The Picas have improved the campground over the years. The area for the new sites is 500 feet from the nearest abutter. Vaillant stated that “substantial” is a subjective term, we have no legal definition of what constitutes “substantial”. “Improved” is also subjective. The board must base its decision on objective criteria.
Miles asked if the proposed change arises naturally out of grandfathered use such as new technology (Civil Design letter dated 3/27/07 item a.) Atty. Ryan cited the Brust vs Hampton case which allowed for increased density in the number of arcade machines in a building. Miles stated that Brust spoke to technology change and density increase within an existing building footprint. Atty. Ryan said the footprint in this case is the property line. He cited the Loughlin example of expanding the number of lawyers in an office.
Miles asked if the expansion makes the existing use more available to the owner, or is it a new and different use? (Civil Design letter dated 3/27/07 item b.) Atty. Ryan said it is not a different use, the expansion makes the existing use more available to the owner.
Miles asked if the expansion will make the property proportionally less adequate. (Civil Design letter dated 3/27/07 item c.) Ryan said the 27 acre lot remains unchanged, there is adequate septic, water and electric for the proposed sites. Miles asked if the setback requirements are met. Pica has submitted revised plans to show the 27 acre lot area, and has noted setbacks in several locations on the plan.
Miles asked if the expansion will have a substantially different impact on the abutting property or neighborhood. (Civil Design letter dated 3/27/07 item d.) Atty. Ryan said aquifer & traffic studies indicate “no” substantially different impact, the expansion is in an isolated area, 500 feet from abutting properties. Gibbs asked for clarification on this point. The expansion area is much closer to Town-owned properties. Atty. Ryan clarified his statement by saying the expansion is 500 feet from abutting residential properties.
Pica stated that 6 of the 38 proposed sites are already constructed within the existing campsite area but are not used they were built prior to the settlement in 2000.
Doggett stated that the applicant is requesting a 48% increase in the number of sites, and that adding lawyers to a building (Loughlin) is not relevant. Doggett said the NH Supreme Court has never allowed natural expansion outside the footprint of an existing structure – it’s a stretch to ask the board to consider the property line as the equivalent of a building footprint. Ryan said he and his client are using Town ordinance (Article 19, criteria #1, 2, and 3).
Miles asked about the configuration of the original campground when Mr. Pica bought it, was it predominantly tent sites or permanent sites? Mr. Pica said that DES required that all sites be brought up to speed with hookups & sewer – the settlement agreement with the Town noted no expansion but to install all utilities.
Miles asked if it is a trailer park or a campground. Mr. Pica said it is a seasonal campground, they shut off the utilities off-season. Miles asked if the campground provides storage for vehicles year-round. Mr. Pica said yes, some seasonal campers store their vehicles on site. Miles asked what percentage of the RVs were left on-site over the winter. Mr. Pica said that 62 were stored last year. Gibbs asked how many of the RVs were registered and have plates. Mr. Pica said he thought all were registered and asked Selectman Donovan if it is a requirement. Donovan responded yes, all RVs must be registered. Mr. Pica said he will make sure that all RVs are registered through the town. Doggett pointed out that anything motorized/driveable must be inspected annually. Mr. Pica said there was
only one motor home, the rest are trailers. He also said that no motor homes will be allowed in the new area because of the aquifer.
Donovan asked if the new sites will be seasonal. Mr. Pica said that he would like all the sites to be seasonal. Seasonal sites can be used only 7 months out of the year as required by the State (4/1 – 11/1). Utilities are shut down after 11/1 except for the Pica residence.
Donovan stated that there are ongoing problems with campers using the Town Beach. Mr. Pica said that in the past, he met with the head of the Recreation Commission and Police and they all agreed at the time that, if no swim lessons were going on, it was OK for the campers to use the beach. Mr. Pica said he will be careful to see that this is not a problem; the campground has its own beach. Mr. Pica said that State law prevents limiting the use of the beach. He said that Town people use the campground’s beach and he allows it. Mr. Pica said people are more attracted to the Town Beach since the town puts sand on its own beach every year, probably without permits, but he is restricted to putting sand on his beach only every 6 years and it was done 2 years ago.
LeClaire said that the expansion will obviously bring more boats, more boats means more oil on the ground when the campers pull them out of the water and pull the drain plugs. Mr. Pica said he is only allowed 8 slips, 6 motor boats on site, canoes & paddle boats. He said he limits the number of boats, no visitors (non-campers) are allowed to bring boats and boats are parked on the last beach.
Vaillant asked exactly how many boats are allowed. Mr. Pica said we’ve never had a limit but we limit the number of boats. We look at them coming in, make sure that they look nice & don’t need repairs, some people need to do minor fixes & we allow that. We don’t allow people to wash their cars, but they are allowed to wash down their boats and their trailers. We park boats & trailers at the far beach and out back (proposed well location on plan). Campers do not launch their boats at the public launch and bring them to their site – this is not allowed. Also, Mr. Pica said he never said the boat owners were uneducated. He checks boat licenses and requires owners to read DES pamphlets.
Pica stated that Vaillant had verified that there were no complaints on file with the police and fire departments no complaints – only one back at the beginning, their first year for campers burning trash.
Abutter Rob Peterson of Wenmarks Road said that not all abutters could be present but many have signed letters sent the planning board. Mr. Peterson said that there were only 40 original sites at the campground and it has already nearly doubled to 70 sites. Abutters question the contention that the settlement said the campground could accommodate even more sites.
Mr. Peterson questioned whether the traffic report is valid and accurate; but suggested hiring an independent consultant to do a traffic study. He said abutters are concerned about people walking along the road with school busses having low visibility around the 90 degree corner. He also said there was traffic and trash. Mr. Peterson said the 6 sites that were already built (but are not yet in use) are not 500 feet from abutting homes.
Mr. Peterson said to look into the new technology requirement for natural expansion. Expansion should not be allowed just because “this is our business, this is what we do”. Volume/density is the problem. He also wanted to know whether the “footprint” should be construed as the area currently used for campsites or the whole area including open space. Mr. Peterson said he does not question whether the Picas have improved the original campground, but they did do a lot of clearing and now the campground is in full view, blocked only by a chain link fence.
Peterson said regarding the Town Beach, Mr. Pica has always said that the campers never use the beach, tonight he says he has deals with the police and Recreation Commission and that he goes to the Town Beach to monitor the campers. Also, although there are not a lot of boats now, more campers means more boats, more congestion, and more pollution. Jet skiers already use the Town Beach to pick people up and drop people off.
Miles asked Mr. Peterson what his vision for the pond would be – would it include motorized vehicles? Mr. Peterson said there is a neighborhood group making efforts to improve the water quality of the pond and is hoping for better technology in the future for cleaner boating. Miles asked if he envisioned more development around the pond, and Mr. Peterson responded that he did not think there was enough buildable land on the Newton side for more homes.
Abutter Jim Baker of Ridge Road said he is working with the Wilders Grove Association on improving water quality. He is concerned about the number of people swimming in the water, and pointed out that no one has addressed how the expansion might affect the quality of the lake water. He wants the number of boats limited.
Abutter Annie Collier of Ridge Road, also working with the water quality group, is looking into aerating the water, testing, etc. Cyanobacteria is a real problem and getting worse. Miles asked Ms. Collier about her vision for the pond. Ms. Collier said she has lived here for two years and sees more seasonal homes becoming year-round homes and it is becoming more of a residential community. Parking restrictions at the boat ramp for Newton residents only should help to limit the number of boats and jet skis. Ms. Collier wants to continue to monitor and protect the pond and keep it as a quiet country pond.
Pettit asked the board how it wanted to proceed. Vaillant said the board needs to remove the subjective opinions and base the decision on objective criteria; the increase in density is substantial. She questions whether the technical clause referenced in the Civil Design letter is being met. She also questions what constitutes the footprint.
Vaillant sees the similarity being presented by the applicant but does not agree with it and would like to get a legal opinion before making a decision.
Motion by Pettit, 2nd by Vaillant, to continue the hearing to June 12th to allow the Planning Board to parse testimony and develop thorough set of findings of fact with Town Counsel – motion carries 4-3 with Pettit, LeClaire, Vaillant and Donovan in favor, Miles, Doggett, and Gibbs opposed.
Doggett does not agree with the footprint argument, nor with technology argument (Civil Design letter, item a). Miles does not feel that this is a natural expansion and is very concerned about water quality the pond lake and would like to see it become a designated historic area. She encouraged the water quality group to get back to the board on all of this for the Master plan. Exponential growth of the campground does not meet the test.
Atty. Ryan asked if the Board wants him to submit anything else to the Board or Town Counsel. He doesn’t want water quality issues or anything else to turn up, if the Board wants his client to produce more information, the Board must request it. He stated that they have submitted everything the Board has asked for. Pettit said everything the Board has asked for to date has been submitted.
Miles was concerned that the Board should show solidarity in its approach, and considered changing her vote to continue. Vaillant said she doesn’t believe this is natural expansion and wants counsel to weigh in and advise the Board. Doggett doesn’t support this as a natural expansion, and believes that the Board will come to a consensus at the end of legal consultation. Miles declined to change her vote.
8. Engineering Interviews: One engineering group requested to have their interview re-scheduled for a second time. Motion by Doggett, second by Vaillant to drop this group from consideration for the position, passed unanimously.
9. Master Plan: will be discussed at the worksession and the public meeting in June.
10. Manifests: Motion by Doggett with second by LeClaire to move manifests to May 22 work session, passes unanimously.
11. Adjourn: Motion by Miles with second by Vaillant to adjourn at 10:00 PM passed unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa Babcock
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
