Newton Planning Board
Minutes of public hearing
february 12, 2008
Page 1 of 9
Planning Board Minutes of February 12, 2008 Public Hearing
All minutes are in draft form until approved by the Planning Board. Please check subsequent minutes for approval of and/or amendments to these minutes.
1. Call to Order
Chairman Pettit called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM. In attendance were: Chairman, Kim Pettit; Vice Chairman, Ann Miles; Planning Board Members, Jim Doggett, and Frank Gibbs; and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Babcock. Minutes were transcribed and typed by Lisa Babcock.
Circuit Rider Planner, Eric Steltzer was also in attendance.
2. Marley Builders: Continuation of a public hearing to consider the request for a two-phase, 5-lot subdivision on Whittier Street. The property is referenced as Tax Map 6, Block 9, Lot 9. Steven Ciambelli was in attendance to discuss this project.
Vaillant arrived at 7:12 PM.
Mr. Ciambelli had submitted a letter to the Board, received on February 11th that stated that he wanted to withdraw the two-phase application and return to the original subdivision application that had been conditionally approved in September of 2006. Pettit explained that, since the original approval had lapsed, Mr. Ciambelli would have to resubmit that application.
Steltzer explained that the applicant had 6 months from the date of the approval to meet the conditions and record the plan. Since that had not been done, the original plan was void. He also recommended that if the applicant wished to proceed with the two-phase plan, the Board needed to consider taking jurisdiction of that plan as soon as possible.
Mr. Ciambelli stated that he had made several attempts to contact the Board and to request an extension on the application and that he had spent a lot of money on the project. Pettit stated that the Board had notified the applicant's partner last fall that the conditional approval had lapsed. Then an amended plan had been submitted, fees had been paid and abutter notices had been sent. The Board had urged the applicants to carefully consider their decision to withdraw the new plan, since returning to the old plan would require starting over again.
Mr. Ciambelli asked if the old plan could be reinstated. Steltzer explained that it is against state law for the Planning Board to take action on a lapsed plan. Pettit stated that the applicant had two options; he could proceed with the two-phase plan or re-submit the original plan. Mr. Ciambelli stated that he did not want to start over, he said that he had not been notified that the original plan was null and void. Steltzer said that, in his opinion, the Board had tried to grant extensions as requested by the applicant.
Miles asked if Mr. Ciambelli is the principal on the project with the authority to make decisions. Mr. Ciambelli confirmed that he has taken over the lead on the project.
LeClaire arrived at 7:22 PM.
Pettit asked the applicant if he wanted to revoke the request to withdraw the two-phase plan and instead keep the application before the Board. Mr. Ciambelli said, "Yes".
Steltzer recommended that the abutters be re-noticed. The Board then reviewed the two-phase plans. Pettit stated that the test pit data may be old.
Doggett moved to accept jurisdiction of the two-phase 5-lot subdivision plan for Marley Builders. Second by Pettit. Motion carried unanimously.
Pettit suggested holding a public hearing on Thursday, March 13th. (The Tuesday hearing had been cancelled due to Town voting.)
Pettit moved to continue the public hearing for Marley Builders to March 13th. Second by LeClaire. Motion carried unanimously.
3. 125 Development NH Corp. and Maplevale Builders, LLC: continuation of a Public Hearing for consideration of a lot line adjustment between two lots at Puzzle Lane and Walnut Farm Road referenced as 14/1/27-4 and 13/3/8-6.
LeClaire recused himself.
Charlie Zilch of SEC was present to represent Mr. McDonough. Pettit updated the Board on Attorney Ratigan's review of the plan per her conversation with him and an e-mail from him dated 2/11/08. (He was not present.) Atty. Ratigan had confirmed that the plan should be reviewed as a lot line adjustment and that a public hearing was appropriate.
Ratigan had also stated that the proposal does not rezone the Parcel "A" land (the residential portion remains residential and the commercial portion remains commercial). He also recommended that a note be added to the plan and suggested the wording: "The approval of this plan will result in a split zone lot, with a portion of the lot located in the Residential "A" district and a portion in the Light Industrial-Commercial district. Any use of land shall satisfy the requirements of the district in which the use is located, including all pertinent setbacks and buffers."
Further, Atty. Ratigan said that any variance that may have been granted to the 27-4 parcel would only apply to it as it was configured at the time the variance was granted not to anything that's added to the parcel later.
Pettit stated that Atty. Ratigan had agreed that the Planning Board has the authority (per ZO Section XIII, 1) to impose additional buffers as necessary where a parcel abuts another zone. The Board may consider this should a plan be presented for lot 27-4 in the future.
Mr. Zilch asked if the Board had any other questions. Doggett suggested that a copy of the correspondence from Atty. Ratigan be attached to a copy of the recorded plan.
Mr. Zilch then presented waiver requests. Originally, he had requested a waiver from Section 8.1.6.B (topographic information not shown for 14-1-27-4), but a sheet had been added to the plan for topographic information, so this waiver was no longer necessary. He requested a waiver from 8.1.5.F (existing structures not shown within 200' of the property). Pettit asked if there were any structures at this time. Mr. Zilch said there was not. Abutter Ned Nichols said there are no structures within 200' at this time on his property.
Miles asked what the future plans for the parcel are. Mr. Zilch said that he thought the developer may propose a site plan for a commercial building, but that he would not be the engineer for that project so he couldn't be certain.
Mr. Nichols asked what the term "increased lot loading" referred to. Mr. Zilch said the additional acreage meant that the parcel might handle increased sewage loading. Mr. Nichols also asked if the trees would be cut between his property and Mr. McDonough's. Vaillant pointed out that normal buffer zones would apply. Pettit stated that the applicant would have to maintain a natural vegetative buffer at the zone line; additionally the Board could impose additional buffers if necessary.
Mr. Nichols said the notice of decision should include language about the appeal process as he intended to appeal the decision if the Board granted an approval for the lot line adjustment.
Vaillant stated that the Board should note the concerns, but consider the matter at hand, the lot-line adjustment. Miles said the Board needs an overview for the plan for the entire area. Pettit said that 27-4 is a non-buildable lot, even with the lot-line adjustment; it just becomes a bigger non-buildable lot.
The other waiver requested is for Section 8.1.5.K, requiring a High Intensity Soil Survey (HISS) of the site. Pettit said that the HISS for 27-4 was done during the original subdivision. The applicant provided it for the Walnut Farm lot in order to prove that the remaining piece of land was still buildable.
Doggett moved to approve the waiver for Subdivision Regulations Section 8.1.5.K (HISS mapping) only for the purposes of the lot-line adjustment. Second by Miles. Motion carried 4-1-1 with Gibbs opposed and LeClaire recused.
Doggett moved to approve the waiver for Subdivision Regulations Section 8.1.5.F (show existing structures within 200' of the property). Second by Miles. Motion carried 4-1-1 with Gibbs opposed and LeClaire recused.
Doggett moved to approve the Lot-Line adjustment between lots at Puzzle Lane (14/1/27-4) and Walnut Farm Road (13/3/8-6). Second by Pettit. Motion carried 4-1-1 with Gibbs opposed and LeClaire recused.
Mr. Zilch stated that he would set monumentation and produce the mylars. Pettit suggested that monumentation be used to delineate the zone line within the parcel.
4. 125 Development NH Corp.: request of Coleman McDonough for the Board to review proposed tenants for the building at Puzzle Lane. The property is referenced as 14-1-27-1.
Pettit announced that the $19K bond had been squared away. Atty. Somers had been in contact with Mr. McDonough's bonding company and that the $48K bond was in force. Pettit also stated that Atty. Somers had said that when the bonds expire in November, the Planning Board can require that they be reposted in a form that conforms to the new regulations (LOC or passbook).
Pettit had requested some information concerning the property at 27-1 from the Building Department. She said that the building department is keeping strict control over issuing the permits for the project. She said that Atty. Ratigan confirmed that it was ok to add a note to the notice of decision that the tenancy approval was not a certificate of occupancy. She said the buildings are being occupied without certificates of occupancy.
The Board reviewed letters and commercial business forms for the following proposed tenants: HPG International, Inc., Precision Machine Technologies, R&D Site Development, and CP McDonough Construction Corp. Pettit stated that she wanted to review tenants that were close to getting occupancy permits.
The Board concluded that the information on the Commercial Business forms was incomplete and sometimes conflicted with the tenants' letters. A Business form was missing for CP McDonough. Pettit suggested sending a letter to Mr. McDonough requesting additional information and clarification.
Pettit moved to continue consideration of the tenants to March 13th. Second by Miles. Motion carried unanimously.
5. CBI: request for a non-binding preliminary consultation for a proposed site plan for 22 Whittier Street. The property is referenced as MBL 6-13-2.
Pettit informed the Board that this was a non-binding preliminary consultation.
Jeff Murray of CMA Engineers addressed the Board. Also in attendance were Danielle Ahern of CMA and Anders Ragnarsson of CBI. Mr. Murray gave an overview of CBI's plans. CBI is looking to expand their office space, providing additional amenities to their employees (cafeteria, conference room). The plan is to construct a 14,800 sq ft office building and eliminate an existing modular trailer that is now on site. They will also expand the existing manufacturing facility to add storage.
A second (future) phase may include expansion of the manufacturing facility to provide indoor storage for some heavy equipment that is now kept outside (3 or 4 years out).
They also have plans to improve traffic flow on site. Currently employees and others use the access road and have to cross an active staging area where equipment is kept.
For improved safety, they would like to create a new access road across from Chongor Drive. There is a substantial amount of wetlands in the area where the proposed road would go. (DOT suggested making the access road an intersection with Chongor Drive despite the location of the wetlands.)
The parking lot will also be expanded and centralized to enhance safety.
Mr. Murray asked about a zoning ordinance that allows only 1 access point per site, whereas site-plan regulations allow 2 on properties with 300 feet of frontage. Steltzer will research to determine if zoning supersedes the regulations. A variance may be required to add a second access way.
CBI also owns an adjacent parcel (6-12-3), a non-conforming lot that has no frontage on Whittier Street. They are also considering a lot line adjustment to get the frontage required and an access way to that parcel for future development. The lot line adjustment would transfer the existing driveway to 6-12-3, leaving 6-13-2 with a single access point, the new driveway.
CBI's preference is to maintain the existing entrance for truck access. There will not be an increase in traffic.
Pettit expressed concern about the new entrance way being across from Chongor Drive which is a school bus stop. Steltzer wanted to know how CBI would restrict use of the original driveway. Gibbs suggested creating a one way traffic flow using the new driveway and the old one.
Vaillant said that the proposal offers a safer traffic flow for employees; will not increase traffic and could bring a non-conforming lot into compliance. Miles pointed out that there are regulations regarding the appearance of commercial buildings that the applicant will need to adhere to.
Mr. Murray then described the proposed drainage plan associated with the new access way. All runoff will be collected and treated, but the plan is still being developed. Doggett noted that the access way appeared to be very close to the cemetery and setbacks should be double checked. He also advised the applicant to maintain a vegetative buffer between CBI and the cemetery. Mr. Murray said the intent is to maintain the existing trees.
Mr. Murray said that his client wanted to begin construction in April. Mr. Ragnarsson said there are 75 employees and they are tight for space, the septic is failing so they would like the expansion to happen quickly.
A technical review meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 19th at 3:30. Pettit asked the secretary to contact the building, police and fire departments to see if they could attend.
6. Letter from Marshall Law Office, dated 1/25/08 re: Walnut Farm Subdivision.
Atty. Marshall was in attendance. He informed the Board that Maplevale Builders has applied to the NH Attorney General's office for exemption from registration of the subdivision. He also stated that, as part of this application, Maplevale must provide documentation that the Town of Newton will accept Walnut Farm Road as a town road and the conditions precedent to that acceptance.
Miles said the Town was reluctant to accept road with a lot of empty house lots. Doggett stated that the Planning Board could not guarantee that the Town would accept a road.
Pettit stated that the Planning Board would provide a letter outlining the Town's standard procedures and submit it to the Board of Selectmen for approval.
Atty. Marshall also mentioned that he would draft language to deed Old Trolley Way to the Town and forward it to the Board of Selectmen and Conservation. Gibbs said there is also an easement or deeded strip for walking trails between the lot-lines. Atty. Marshall said he would draft that as well. LeClaire said the deeds should have been taken care of by the previous owner of the subdivision, before the sale.
7. Newton Planning Board: Public hearing for the review and adoption of the Land Use Chapter of the Master Plan.
Steltzer said that the Land Use chapter was complete and that the only change he had made since the last meeting was to add the number of acres of Conservation land the Town owns. Information on Conservation easements is incomplete so those figures were not included.
Miles said she would like the line "Newton is predominantly a rural community…" changed. She does not consider the town to be rural. Vaillant feels the Town is rural and has several farms. She suggested that the Board develop a definition for the term "farm". Doggett suggested using the term "rural-residential". Steltzer said he would change the line.
Doggett moved to adopt the Land Use chapter as written with the above change. Second by LeClaire. Motion carried unanimously.
Steltzer recommended that the Board begin work on the CIP chapter at the March 13th meeting. He also suggested that the departments that submitted CIP forms be invited to attend to work on prioritizing the capital project proposals.
Pettit suggested that the Board also review the 1998 master plan to determine which chapters to work on next. The Historical/Cultural chapter was one that several people were interested in updating.
Steltzer mentioned two grant opportunities: TGB and HCCP. He suggested checking the OEP website and PlanLink for more information.
8. Non Public session under RSA 91-A:3,II (e) litigation
Pettit moved to go into non-public session at 9:15 pm under RSA 91-A:3,II (e) litigation. Second by LeClaire. Roll call vote: LeClaire – yes, Doggett – yes, Miles – yes, Pettit – yes, Vaillant – yes, and Gibbs – yes.
Doggett moved to close the non-public session at 9:30 pm. Second by Pettit. Per unanimous roll call vote, the minutes of the meeting will remain confidential until in the opinion of the majority of the members the circumstances no longer apply.
9. Manifests
Doggett moved to authorize Chairman Pettit to sign the NPREA expense and Operation Budget manifest dated 2/12/08 in the amounts $247.20 and $174.00 respectively. Second by Miles. Motion carried unanimously.
10. Arubacat Certificate of Occupancy (6 Puzzle Lane, Unit 3): A CO was presented for the Chair's signature for Arubacat Cat Furniture located at 6 Puzzle Lane, Unit 3. Vaillant said the CO was incomplete, the "issued to" and "address" lines were blank. Pettit stated that she would not sign it until the Board received Mr. McDonough's bond paperwork. She said that follow-up would be done to get the missing information.
11. Approval of Minutes:
Doggett moved to approve the minutes of 1/29/08 as written. Second by LeClaire. Motion carried unanimously.
12. Computer Services Bill from Sylvania Maddock dated 10/26/07: The Planning Board had agreed to pay $580 of the $800 invoice but declined to pay the remaining $220 which included researching and placing the order, and packing the defective computer. Pettit explained that the Board of Selectmen had asked the Planning Board to re-review the bill. Vaillant and Doggett had attended the Selectmen's meeting.
Vaillant stated that she disputed the charge for research for a new computer because she had been told that the Planning Board was simply tacking on to an existing order. She said that at the Selectmen's meeting, she was told that was not the case.
Pettit stated that the Board had been advised to purchase a new computer after the software was lost on the old computer. Since original software disks could not be found, all of the software would have to have been re-purchased. It seemed more cost-effective to purchase a new computer pre-loaded with software. She said that the Planning Board, at the time had approved a computer, but that Ms. Maddock had to review the order to be sure the specifications were compatible with the Town's computer systems.
The Board was unhappy with the choice of a computer running Vista as the software is widely known to be problematic. Vaillant said that a computer running XP should have been purchased and that it was inaccurate to infer that XP was not available at the time or that Vista was required to connect to the Town's server.
Vaillant expressed concern over the amount of time that was spent on the defective computer (packing, testing, conversations with tech support). She was concerned that the time had not been used efficiently.
Vaillant also stated that e-mail corruption and driver issues were common, well-known problems with Vista. If the computer had not been running Vista, these problems would not have occurred.
Vaillant said that computer services should be put out to bid. There are a number of companies that provide part-time support that employ certified technicians. She said that any computer technician working on Town computers should have proper certification.
The Board decided to draft a letter to the Board of Selectmen outlining the concerns and needs of the department including: complications, efficient use of time, the choice of Vista, soft cost over and above the use of equipment, and the secretary is capable of handling the day-to-day operations.
13. Adjorn:
Motion to adjourn at 10:00 PM by Miles, second by Vaillant, passed unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa Babcock
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
