Newton Planning Board
Minutes of Public Meeting
JUNE 12, 2007
1
Call to Order
Vice Chairman Ann Miles called the meeting to order at 7:10pm. In attendance were Vice Chairman Ann Miles; Robert S. Donovan, Jr., BOS ex-officio; Planning Board Members: Jim Doggett, Frank Gibbs, and Rich LeClaire; Gary Nelson, Alternate and Administrative Assistant Lisa Babcock. Minutes were transcribed and typed by Lisa Babcock.
2. David Brogana: Public hearing to consider the request for a 2-lot subdivision at the Pinkerton Land, Whittier Street. The property is referenced as Tax Map 5/Block 3/Lot 14. Gibbs recused himself. Kevin Hatch of Cornerstone Survey Associates, Inc. spoke on behalf of Mr. Brogna. Mr. Hatch stated that he made some minor technical revisions to the plans based on the Altus letter (dated 5/29/07 Re: Pinkerton Land/P-4057) and handed out copies to the board. Mr. Hatch then gave an overview of the project for the 14.73 acre parcel known as the Pinkerton Land. Hatch stated that Mr. Brogna is proposing to sell 10.32 acres to the Conservation Commission and create two road-front house lots from the remaining acreage which includes the existing house lot. A state driveway permit has been applied for
for the new house lot and they are waiting for state subdivision approval.
LeClaire asked about the well radius extending out into the old road. Hatch said this is allowed by state regulation. Hatch also addressed the issue of Old Lower Road saying that the applicant has a deed to Old Lower Road implying that the road had reverted back to the land owner. He could not find any record that the road had been closed and that more research was necessary. Hatch stated that the applicant would be granting any and all rights he has to Old Lower Road to the Conservation Commission as a way to access the back 10.32 acres.
Miles asked about comment # 12 on the Altus letter. Hatch said there was no lot 5-B and comments 12 and 13 on the Altus letter do not appear to pertain to this set of plans. Miles proceeded to address each of the comments on the Altus letter and Mr. Hatch explained how each comment had been resolved. Miles then asked if there were any questions or comments from the abutters that were present.
Abutters Christina and Bill Hoffman were present. Ms. Hoffman asked if a well radius was allowed to cross over a lot line. This had been corrected with the new plans. Ms. Hoffman then asked if there would be access to the Conservation property via Old Lower Road. Hatch said that if the applicant does have the rights to Old Lower Road, he will turn those rights over to the town. Trisha McCarthy of the Conservation Commission said the existing trail would be used for access to this land. It is not an easement, the trail will be given to Conservation as part of the purchase and sale agreement. The abutter asked who would be responsible for monitoring the building process to make sure the wetlands are protected. Doggett said that the various boards in town share responsibility for making sure that codes are met.
Motion by Doggett to continue the public hearing to July 10th. Second by LeClaire. Passed 5-0 with Gibbs recused and Alternate Nelson sitting in.
Kim Valliant arrived at 7:30 PM.
3. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless: Public hearing to consider the request for a minor non-residential site plan to co-locate antennas on an existing monopole located at 85 South Main Street. The property is referenced as Tax Map 13/Block 2/Lot 24. Atty. Rob Pearce spoke on behalf of Cellco Partnership. Atty. Pearce stated that the monopole is a 150 ft tower approved in 2003 and Verizon Wireless is proposing to add 12 panel antennas at 130 ft. The antennas sit about 3 ft out from the pole and are connected via coaxial cable to a proposed 12’ x 30’ equipment shelter within the fenced compound. No changes with respect to access or utilities are necessary. There will be about 1-2 maintenance visits per month. Pearce also stated that there was a condition of approval on the original
tower approval that specified flush mounted antennas, this is not what Verizon is proposing. This proposal addresses the coverage gap in the area for Verizon Wireless subscribers using the existing structure. A 500 gallon propane tank will also be added which runs the emergency generator.
LeClaire asked why the flush mounted antenna is not being used. Pearce explained that panel antennas pick up the signal better than flush mounted antennas in a rural setting. The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit because the antenna is not flush mounted.
Miles asked about appearance and safety issues. Pearce responded that Verizon has no current plan to extend the tower in height as they do not own the antenna but are merely tenants on the tower. Miles asked that Verizon provide a statement of compliance with RF emissions regulations.
Chairman Pettit Arrived at 7:50 pm.
LeClaire motioned to grant conditional approval to Verizon Wireless to install the full array antenna subject to Verizon providing the board with an RF emissions report prior to starting any construction. Second by Doggett. Passed 7-0.
3. Public hearing for review and adoption of proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations and Site Plan Review Regulations.
a. Common driveways-Subdivision Regulation SECTION 8.2.4 (A) (2). Circuit Rider Planner, Reuben Hull provided language for these proposed changes. Hull proposed to strike “Common driveways may be utilize; however, no more than 2 houses may share a common drive. To the maximum extent possible, the shared portion of the drive shall follow the shared lot line”; change (e) to read …to have more than one (1) house…; and add (iii) To the maximum extent possible, the shared portion of the drive shall follow the shared lot line. Miles explained the reason for the change was to avoid problems associated with driveways crossing lot lines and causing issues in regards to plowing, parties, etc. Pettit added that the change promotes “clarity of ownership”.
Motion by Doggett to adopt the amendment as written. Discussion: Pettit said that shared driveways would now require a waiver and if granted would have to follow the lot-line to the extent possible. Second by LeClaire. Passed 7-0.
b. Dead End roads-Subdivision Regulations Appendix B Section 2.8. Hull provided language for the proposed changes. He proposed amending the regulation to read “At the discretion and recommendation by the Planning Board, the construction of dead end roads in the Town of Newton are allowed to be built without length restriction, as long as said road serves no more than ten (10) homes, …” (proposed changes are bolded). Gibbs recommended changing “dead end roads” to “no outlet” and Pettit recommended “dead end (no outlet) roads…”
Hull arrived 8:05 pm.
Motion by Doggett to adopt the regulation with the addition of (no outlet). Second by Miles. Passed 6-0 with LeClaire abstaining.
c. Schedule of Fees-Non-Residential Site Plan Regulations Section VI 6.11(C) and Subdivision Appendix A. Hull recommended amending as follows: Delete the schedule of fees table and replace it with: 1. Fees shall be in accordance with the Town of Newton Planning Board Policies and Procedures manual, as amended. Pettit was reluctant to strike the fees table without the Policies and Procedures manual in place. Hull said that he would begin work on language for Policies and Procedures manual so that the Board could address fees and procedures at the next work session.
Motion by Doggett to work out the fee schedule and postpone the hearing to July 10th. Second by LeClaire. Passed 7-0.
4. Public hearing for review and adoption of Vision Chapter of the Master Plan. Master Plan Committee members, Christina and Bill Hoffman were present. Ms. Hoffman had the following recommendations: 1) Be consistent with bolding within tables and include a footnote explaining the use of bolding. 2) Add to Goal 4 language about phasing in energy efficient practices in municipal buildings. 3) Minor corrections to punctuation, etc.
Mr. Hoffman asked who would take the lead on implementation of the plan and suggested hosting periodic information sessions. Pettit said the RPC planner assigned to the project will address these issues.
Motion by Doggett to accept the recommendations of Ms. Hoffman and adopt the Vision Chapter of the Master Plan. Second by Vaillant? Passed 7-0.
5. Donald and Janet Gavin (JA 5/8/07): Continuation of public hearing to consider the request for a 5-lot subdivision at 30 Maple Ave. Map 10/Block 10/Lot 40. Engineer, Dennis Quintal spoke on behalf of the applicants. Quintal said he had met with the Conservation Commission (May 17th) to discuss the scenic road issues. Conservation did not want a lot of trees to be cut down and planned to do a site walk to take a look at the trees that are slated for removal. The existing stone wall will be moved.
Miles mentioned that abutters were concerned about water run-off that moves across Maple Street. Trisha McCarthy of the Conservation Commission said that the culvert is not currently working to control run-off. Quintal said the proposed project will correct the problem by directing run-off via a pipe under the abutting property owned by Desrosiers. Gibbs has spoken to Mr. Desrosiers who has agreed to allow the pipe. Quintal also said one of the reasons for having a common driveway (lots 40-4 & 40-3) is that there is somewhat of an existing opening in the stone wall and the common drive minimizes the impact on the stone wall.
Quintal proceeded to discuss each point of the Altus letter dated May 29, 2007, re Gavin Subdivision, P-4048; Quintal said he does not agree that a drainage study needs to be done as recommended by Altus. Miles pointed out that if a roadway was going in, a drainage study would be required. She felt the Gavins should be held to the same standard and perhaps should have proposed this as a cul-de-sac off Maple Avenue. Quintal said adding a road was cost prohibitive and adds a road for the town to maintain.
Miles was concerned that the proposed drainage design would carry salt and debris to the wetlands. Pettit proposed adding a catch basin. Quintal pointed out that catch basins work only if properly maintained. Vaillant asked if Conservation had concerns about road salts draining into the wetlands. McCarthy said this is already happening and if done properly, the project could improve the drainage situation in the area.
Miles suggested that the developer pay the costs associated with drainage including construction on town property. Quintal said that the town was already planning to work on drainage in that area, his client should not be required to pay. Hull had these comments: Quintal should include a note on the plan that says there are no offsite wetlands that have buffers, he also supports Altus’ request for a storm water management plan and erosion control plan. Miles suggested requiring a road bond to be released when the drainage construction is complete.
Motion by Doggett to grant conditional approval subject to 1) the applicant providing a storm-water management report, 2) construction cost estimate (for drainage construction) for bonding the section of roadway in the area of the proposed subdivision, 3) negotiating cost-sharing with the Town for construction associated with drainage on Town property. Second by Vaillant. Passed 7-0.
Motion by Pettit to close the public hearing. Second by Miles. Passed 7-0.
6. Sara Realty/Whispering Pines (JA 11/14/06): Continuation of public hearing for a major non-residential site plan review for the expansion by thirty-eight additional camp sites of an existing campground on property owned by Sara Realty LLC and located at 8 Wenmarks Road, Map 5/Block 1/Lot 5.
Pettit opened discussion by asking for any additional comments from the applicant and the abutters. Atty. Ryan speaking on behalf of the applicant, asked if the board would consider a plan with a reduced number of sites. Pettit said that the board would only consider the plan that had been submitted. Ryan, citing Supreme Court case, Severence vs the Town of Epsom, said the board must consider the Town of Newton ordinances when deciding the case. He said that Pica has a 27 acre parcel devoted to campground use since the 1960s and even though a portion of it has not been used for campsites, the ordinance does not prohibit the use of the remaining land.
Mr. Pica then spoke on his own behalf. He distributed copies of boat safety pamphlets and a report entitled “Response to Planning Boards Concerns About Country Pond Safety and Pollution” by Sara Realty LLC/Whispering Pines Campground and dated June 11, 2007. Pica explained that this report was his response to the board’s concerns about Country Pond safety and pollution. Pica then reviewed the highlights of his report: the campground conducts boat safety meetings at the start of every season, reminds boaters of the NH Boating Education course, and stresses environmentally friendly practices. The campground screens boats by appearance, allows only minor repairs onsite, and prohibits campers’ guests from bringing boats on site. Dock space is limited and cannot be increased.
Mr. Pica also spoke about pond pollution issues. He researched the subject and said that according to Jody Connors, Limnologist for NH DES, the major contributors to cyanobacteria bloom are: leaching fields too close to the shore line and within the water table, improper use of pesticides and fertilizers, and beach erosion. Pica also cited his own expertise as an engineer and experience in designing septic systems. Pica said that he was not trying to criticize beach front property owners. He also stated that his proposed leaching field would be over 900 ft away from the shoreline. Mr. Pica also said that the campground does not use pesticides and has been careful about the use of fertilizers. In addition, he has only placed 6 yards of sand on the beach, which is within regulations.
Abutter Rob Peterson of Wenmark Road spoke. He reminded the board that natural expansion is one of the criteria that must be met. The area is residential and the residents must be protected. The problems include more than the lake: they include the potential for more people in the neighborhood. Even if Mr. Pica keeps the numbers down, if he sells the property, there is no guarantee that the next owner will do so. Peterson said that it was good that the campground was educating boaters but he questioned whether that was really the case. He also said that even though the use is seasonal, the busy time for the campground coincides with a busy time for the neighborhood and a fragile time for the environment. More people in the area will not help the lake pollution problems. Peterson also pointed out that
the more people that use the beach; the more the town and life guards are exposed to liability. Peterson urged the board to consider the effect of the expansion on the neighborhood.
Motion by Pettit to close the public hearing. Second by Doggett. Passed unanimously.
Motion by Doggett - I move that the planning board find as fact that the proposed expansion of the whispering pines campground does not meet the criteria for natural expansion in that
a) the expansion makes the land proportionally less adequate by increasing the number of camp lots thereby increasing the density and intensity of use outside of the confines of existing buildings and facilities available in this residentially zoned area.
b) the expansion is anticipated to substantially impact the surrounding neighborhood, an increase in traffic, smoke, noise, boating , and amenities usage, increases the detrimental impact to the surrounding properties as well as increased potential for abuse of the town beach
c) – the board further finds that this expansion far exceeds the court supplied definition of natural expansion
Second by Gibbs.
No vote was taken at this time as the board then began to deliberate on the question of natural expansion. Pettit then polled the board on each separate point.
Vaillant asked for an explanation of how Doggett’s point (a) fit in with the condition for natural expansion that states “the extent to which the use in question reflects the nature and purpose of the prevailing nonconforming use?”
Doggett said point (a) of his motion refers to the fact that natural expansion has always been within the confines of a structure and not going outside anything that can be determined to be a footprint. The proposal in question goes beyond existing usage. Vaillant argued that the entire campground could be considered the footprint.
Referring to the part of the criteria that says “…the extent to which the use in question reflects the nature and purpose of the prevailing nonconforming use…” Pettit said, it’s a campground, it was a campground, it will still be a campground but one could argue that expanding the density creates a use that is different in nature from what’s there now.
Vaillant said that the campground was a family campground and would remain a family campground.
Pettit read criteria 2, “Whether the proposal is merely a different manner of utilizing the same use or constitutes a use different in character, nature and kind?” She stated that the use is the same, but enlarging the campground by approximately 50% creates a use that is substantially different in nature and character from what’s there now.
Pettit read criteria 3, “Whether the use will have a substantially different effect on the neighborhood.” She suggested adding “visual impact” to point (b) of Doggett’s motion since the equipment is visible to abutters in the winter and the abutters have mentioned this in their complaints. Pettit also mentioned that since there is no public parking for boaters, it could reasonably be concluded that the only increase in boating on the Newton side of the lake would come from the campground.
Doggett said that the increased number of campers would substantially increase the amount of traffic in the area. Pettit noted that the traffic report shows a 50
% increase in traffic which is no different from what common sense would dictate.
Doggett also said that the nature of the campground changes: there will be easily 70 more people impacting the amenities and 70 more people to be policed.
Pettit then began to poll the board on various parts of the criteria:
Can the board reasonable conclude that the use is the same? 6 agree, with Miles disagreeing and stating that the camp used to be for tenting; now it is a year-round storage facility for RVs.
How many believe that the proposal does not reflect the nature of the prevailing non-conforming use? 6 agree, with Vaillant disagreeing.
How many board members feel that the proposal is a different manner of utilizing the same use? (6 agree, with Doggett disagreeing) How many feel that it constitutes a use different in nature and kind? (7 agree)
Doggett made the additional points: logic tells us that increasing the size of the campground will increase use of the beach and also that the limited number of amenities at the campground will impact the neighborhood in that there may be overflow into the surrounding area as existing amenities cannot accommodate the additional people.
Pettit stated that with the increase in camp sites and the associated increase in the number of people at the campground, one could reasonably conclude there would be a proportional increase in noise, smoke, traffic and boating.
Hull pointed out that the board should base its final conclusions on what is written in the Zoning Ordinances, section XIX, paragraph 2.
On the statement…the expansion does not change the nature of the use…
Doggett moved that the expansion in question does not reflect the nature and purpose of the prevailing non-conforming use. Second by Pettit. Passed 6-1 with Vaillant opposed.
On the statement…does or does not the expansion make the property proportionally less adequate.
Doggett moved that the expansion makes the land proportionally less adequate by increasing the number of camp lots thereby increasing the density and intensity of usage outside the confines of existing buildings and of facilities available in this residentially zoned area. Second by Miles. Passed 6-1 with Vaillant opposed.
On the statement…does or does not the expansion have a substantially different impact on the neighborhood.
Doggett moved that the expansion will have a substantially different impact on the surrounding neighborhood and increase traffic, smoke, noise, boating, existing amenities use and visual appearance. Second by Miles.
Discussion: Vaillant asked that “visual appearance” be stricken since the proposed expansion is not in the area where abutters were complaining about the fence and visible equipment.
Doggett moved that – The expansion will have a substantially different impact on the surrounding residential properties and increase in traffic, smoke, noise and boating. Second by Miles. Passed 7-0.
Motion by Doggett – Therefore the board finds that the proposal does not meet the criteria for natural expansion. Second by Miles. Passed 7-0.
7. Rosewood Builders/Leo LaRochelle – request for road bond reduction, Georges Way Phases I and II.
Pettit stated that as of 12/31/06 the bond for Phase I and Phase II is $39,829.69. Payable to Virginia George per a handwritten note from her. The 10% hold back on Phase I and Phase II will be $6,664.01.
Motion by Pettit to release $33,165.68 plus accrued interest which is all but 10% of the bond for Phases I and II. Second by Vaillant. Passed 6-0 with Gibbs abstaining.
Motion by Pettit to recommend to the Selectmen to accept Phase I, II and III of Georges Way and for the engineer to sign off on the project. Second by Vaillant. Discussion – Engineers want an as-build of roadway. Applicant said he has provided it. Passed 6-0 with Gibbs abstaining.
8. Manifests
Motion by Pettit, second by Vaillant to accept the manifests dated 6/12/07. Passed 7-0.
9. Motion by Miles to adjourn at 11:15 pm. Passed 7-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa Babcock
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning board.
| 
