Newton Planning Board
Minutes of public meeting
April 8, 2008
Page 1 of 13
Planning Board Minutes of April 8, 2008 Public Meeting
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 Miles called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. In attendance were: Chairman, Ann Miles; Vice Chairman Jim Doggett; Planning Board Members, Frank Gibbs, Kim Vaillant, Kim Pettit and Barbara White; Ray Thayer, BOS ex officio, and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Babcock. Minutes were transcribed and typed by Lisa Babcock.
Also in attendance were: Circuit Rider Planner, Eric Steltzer, Town Attorney Sumner Kalman and Planning Board Alternate, Mary Sousa.
2. Hampstead Area Water Company: Public meeting to discuss HAWC's proposed water franchise around the Sargent Woods development. Atty. Kalman briefed the Board: HAWC filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to provide water for the 80 unit Sargent Woods development.
Kalman explained that it is common practice for a condo association that does not want to maintain its own water system to sell the water rights to a major company that would then provide water to the homeowners. Kalman stated that the franchise area proposed by HAWC was 742 acres which far exceeds the Sargent Woods area. The franchise area also abuts Plaistow.
Kalman brought to the Board's attention a letter from Lewis Builders to the Town of Atkinson Planning Board dated March 19, 2008. The letter referred to a HAWC franchise for a condo project in Atkinson. Kalman pointed out that in the letter, Lewis Builders stated that the town had been notified of the franchise application and had not exercised its right to intervene in the process therefore, there was little the town could do to stop HAWC from proceeding with its plans.
Kalman asked if HAWC had filed a petition with the PUC for a franchise at Sargent Woods.
Steltzer referred to a letter from HAWC to the Newton Board of Selectmen dated January 25, 2008 informing the BOS of its application to franchise the Sargent Woods area and requesting a confirmation from the BOS that the notice had been received. He also stated that he believed that the BOS had returned the confirmation letter to the PUC.
Pettit stated that the Town had received an identical letter dated October 18, 2007. Thayer stated the Town had not received any information from the PUC or HAWC other than those two identical letters.
Kalman stated that the next step the Town could take would be to file a motion to intervene with the application process at the PUC. That action would trigger a hearing process where the Town would have the opportunity to present its side of the story. The burden would then be on HAWC to show that it would be in the public interest for the PUC to grant the franchise.
Miles asked which board would be responsible for filing such a motion. Kalman stated that he thought it was an issue for the BOS. He also expressed concern that responding to the letter may have triggered some time frame within which a motion to intervene would have to have been filed.
Atty. Kalman cited a case in the town of Barrington where a water company was pumping water from the town and bottling it for sale. The case went to the Supreme Court where it was decided that the state had regulatory control over the pumping of water, not the town. He stated that if a HAWC customer in Plaistow needed water, HAWC could pump water from Newton to Plaistow. If the amount exceeded 100,000 gallons per day, a permit from the state, not the town, would be needed. He also noted that it is a very costly thing to object to, the water company can afford the scientific studies and legal fees, many towns cannot.
Kalman stated that if Newton were to develop a municipal water supply, it would be bumping up against that existing franchise which would have the right to sell water anywhere within those 742 acres. He speculated that the water system for Sargent Woods has excess capacity, so if an adjoining property owner wants to buy water within that franchise all HAWC would have to do is pipe water from Sargent Woods to the new customer. Again he expressed concern that the franchise area boarders Plaistow.
Miles asked if it is possible to tax water leaving town. Could it be a possible source of revenue for the town? Kalman said he did not know of any taxation authority to do that.
Atty. Kalman stated that another concern is what affect pumping out water may have on the existing wells in the area.
Miles asked if the town could exercise eminent domain, seizing the water that is needed for the town as a whole. Kalman said you could exercise eminent domain but it would be costly. The town would have to pay fair compensation for the value of the property, there is likely to be litigation over what fair compensation is. This also points to another problem that could arise should the town try to create a municipal water system in an area controlled by a private company.
Vaillant stated that questions like these came up when the Sargent Woods project was before the Board. She said that at the time the Board was told that a water company was going to come in to simply manage the water for the development and they were specifically told that the water was not going to be sold off site.
Pettit stated that the original water company, Pennichuck, stated that they did intend to sell water off site and the Board motioned to not allow it. She also stated that town council (DTC) had said water was under the state's jurisdiction.
Atty. Robert Levine and Charles Lanza (from the engineering department) of HAWC arrived at approximately 7:25 pm.
Atty. Levine addressed the Board. He stated that HAWC had been asked to appear before the Board to explain why it is requesting a franchise area of 742 acres in its application to the PUC. He gave the Board some background information: HAWC is the 3rd largest private water utility in NH with franchises throughout Rockingham County. They have major systems in Hampstead and Atkinson and a number of stand-alone systems. HAWC operates these systems under the direction of the PUC. Both the PUC and the DES oversee HAWC both in terms of business operations and water quality. The PUC and DES are fairly stringent in their oversight.
Atty. Levine stated that the PUC has asked utility companies to be forward thinking when applying for franchises. The PUC does not want to see a piece-meal approach to franchise applications because that increases costs to the customer. He stated that the PUC asks that they delineate franchise areas using major roads, town lines, state lines and natural boundaries such as rivers.
Mr. Lanza stated that approximately 9 months ago Sargent Woods approached HAWC to establish the water system for the development. Vaillant asked him to explain how the boundaries for the franchise were determined. Mr. Lanza stated: we went with the Newton/Plaistow boundary to the south, to the east we were approximately 200' off set of South Main Street which extends northerly to Peaslee Crossing Road, similarly we went with a 200' buffer coming west to Smith Corner Road running back down to the Plaistow boarder.
Atty. Levine said that the larger franchise area allows HAWC to provide service in those areas without having to go back to the PUC. Vaillant pointed out that it also prevents people within the franchise from going with another water company. Levine confirmed that.
Thayer asked how the franchise would benefit the town. Atty. Levine said that a franchise keeps costs down. A homeowner can have a well he but must bear the cost of drilling and maintaining water quality. With a water company, the company bears the cost of building the distribution system and maintaining water quality. Other than the cost of water, the homeowner only pays for the pipe that goes from the curb to his home.
Thayer asked what happens if a well in the franchise area goes dry. Vaillant said that the homeowner must prove that the water company caused the well to go dry which can be very costly. She said this forces people to hook into the utility and contend with variable costs as the water company changes its rates.
Atty. Levine said that HAWC has a mandate from the DES to manage the water resources so that people's wells are not impacted. By state regulation, monitoring wells are established to monitor the water table. HAWC must prove that it will not affect the wells in the area through stringent monitoring. If a well is impacted HAWC must "make that person whole as far as the water system goes we have to drill them a new well or otherwise mitigate the impact".
Thayer stated that a large portion of HAWC's plan is on the aquifer. Atty. Levine said that HAWC doesn't have water rights to any area outside of Sargent Woods. The franchise area is different from where the water company has rights to drill.
Gibbs asked what would happen if the Town tried to establish a municipal water supply in the same area. Atty. Levine said a municipal system is a separate entity that is wholly outside HAWC's jurisdiction. The franchise granted by the PUC does not affect municipal water, only privately owned water companies.
White asked if it is stated in writing that HAWC has to "make someone whole" if their well goes dry. Levine said it is a state law.
Doggett stated that Pennichuck had had plans to take water from Sargent Woods to service developments in Plaistow. Atty. Levine said HAWC has no plans to use this water for anything other than Sargent Woods at this time.
Miles asked when all this transpired, what point are we at in this process? She expressed concern over the size of the franchise area. Levine stated that the Town is welcome to go to the PUC and request to intervene in the process and ask the PUC to explain the rationale behind the franchise system.
Atty. Levine said the water company will reduce the franchise area to the Sargent Woods property. He said when Sargent Woods asked HAWC to operate the water system, HAWC asked for the water rights in exchange. HAWC's water rights are limited to Sargent Woods.
Miles asked if they are currently supplying water in Sargent Woods. Mr. Lanza said, not currently, but there are 3 wells permitted by DES.
Thayer asked which board was responsible for requesting a hearing with the PUC. Atty. Levine said the Board of Selectmen. He added that water rights is a state issue, not a local issue. You can't determine the boundaries where water comes from, water extracted in one location may have originated miles away.
Doggett said that the Planning Board is elected by the Town and are here to protect the Town from anything it feels might not be in the Town's best interest.
Doggett moved to send a letter to the Board of Selectmen recommending that they file a motion with the PUC to intervene with HAWC's Sargent Woods franchise application and that the franchise area be restricted to the size of Sargent Woods and that any other enlargement of the franchise area be discouraged. Second by Pettit. Discussion followed:
Atty. Levine said HAWC would voluntarily limit the size of the franchise area to Sargent Woods. He said they didn't know this was an issue with the town. Miles suggested that Atty. Levine forward to the Planning Board letters of recommendation that he may have from area towns that HAWC currently services. Atty. Levine offered to provide a letter stating that they will revise their application with the PUC.
Doggett said it was still necessary to file a motion to intervene with the PUC. He also stated that the Sargent Woods condo-docs needed to be reviewed as well.
Miles said the board needed to discuss franchising the town's water in general, that the motion on the table sounded like the Planning Board was OK with franchising the town's water rights. Doggett said the motion refers only to this particular area and that the Master Plan should include a section on town water and water use.
Pettit said a water board had been approved in the '70s but had never been formed. She also stated that in '05 a warrant article authorizing the selectmen to establish the entire town as a water district failed by a small margin. She suggested that the town revive those discussions.
Miles stated that all HAWC offered to do was shrink the size of the franchise area but made no statement about not selling off the water. Mr. Lanza said in the case of Sargent Woods, the wells are permitted for a particular volume of water to service the 80 units. The state monitors how much water is pumped out of the wells. The water company is not permitted to pump more water than the well can safely supply. Levine added that they would need approval from DES to pump more water and the town would have plenty of opportunity to intervene in the process if that were going to happen.
Doggett asked if the letter from HAWC to the BOS informing them of the franchise application constitutes legal notice. He said the letter only mentions Sargent Woods, not the 742 acres. Atty. Levine said that had been an oversight on HAWC's part which is why a second, identical letter had been sent in January along with a plan of the franchise area. Pettit said in that case, the second letter constitutes the operational letter; that should be the one that triggers any time clocks.
The motion proposed by Doggett carried unanimously.
3. Marley Builders: Continuation of 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.
Steve Ciambelli was in attendance to represent Marley Builders. He explained that the engineer on the project had confused the date of the hearing and as such they were not ready to proceed. He requested that the hearing be postponed to the April 22nd work session.
Steltzer advised the board to check on the jurisdictional time clock. If it is over the 65 days, he would need to ask for an extension. Jurisdiction was taken on February 12th. Miles asked Mr. Ciambelli to request an extension in writing.
Doggett moved to continue the public hearing for Marley Builders' Katherine Drive subdivision to May 13th. Second by Pettit. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Continental Biomass Industries, Inc.: Public hearing to consider the request for a major non-residential site plan and lot-line adjustment at 22 Whittier Street. The properties referenced are: Tax Map 6, Block 13, Lot 2, Tax Map 6, Block 13, Lot 3 and Tax Map 6, Block 12, Lot 3. This is a 2 Phase plan.
Jeff Murray of CMA Engineers and Anders Ragnarsson of CBI were in attendance. Mr. Murray addressed the Board on behalf of CBI. He described the lot-line adjustment plan. The parcels are marked area A – 26 acre back lot, B – 23.4 acre existing facility, and C – which is part of the area B lot and contains the current driveway. The plan is to make area A, which is currently owned by Continental Real Estate, LLC, the same owner as CBI, a conforming lot. The plan will provide approximately 204' of frontage on Whittier Street for the area A back lot.
Mr. Murray addressed Steltzer's comments, referring to a letter from RPC dated 4/2/08. A licensed land surveyor seal is required. Mr. Murray said the final plans will be stamped by T.F. Bernier. He also said they are in the process of setting the monumentation for the lot-line adjustment and will provide a plan for recording.
Mr. Murray described Phase I as including: a new driveway entrance to the facility, construction of a 14,000 sf office building and a 4,600 sf extension off the existing metal building. Phase II will include: an additional building expansion and construction of an access roadway around the western perimeter of the site. He stated that the BOA has granted a waiver to keep 2 driveways on the contiguously owned sites.
An easement will be in place to provide continued access to CBI via the original driveway should the back-lot ever be sold. The original access will be used primarily for trucks and deliveries and transferring equipment off the site. The southern entrance will primarily be used by employees.
By providing a second entrance, employees can enter the site more safely and park in a centralized parking area. They will no longer be crossing through the staging area. Additionally, this will allow CBI to relocate the performance testing equipment back from the existing buffer alleviating some of the noise concerns that have been raised in the past.
The project also includes a new septic system, leach field and pump station to service both the existing buildings and proposed office area. That application has been submitted to the state.
Mr. Murray stated that the project does have some wetland impact. They have appeared before the Conservation Commission and submitted a minimum expedited wetland permit application with the Wetlands Bureau. They will be putting some areas into conservation easement in exchange for the wetland area that is affected by the project. The Conservation Commission has signed off on that.
They will be providing a total of 108 parking spots. NH Barrier Free guidelines require 5 handicap spaces for over 100 spots, including one that's van accessible.
Mr. Murray stated that stormwater is managed off of the new parking lot with a couple of centrally located catch basins and an underground detention system. They will not have an open detention pond. Stormwater will be stored in a closed system. There will be a stormwater treatment device to remove oil, grease, and sediment. As part of Phase I, stormwater will be discharged off site to the southern wetlands through a level spreader and swale. When Phase II is constructed, the new access road will have its own roadside adjacent swale and directly discharge off site.
Regarding the driveway, the DOT required that it be located directly across from Chongor Drive. The DOT driveway permit has been received. The line of site in either direction is not an issue. A note will be added to the plan to trim some brush and limbs to provide a clear line of site. Currently the line of site is about 800' to the north and 700' to the south. Mr. Murray distributed photos showing the line of site.
There will be some clearing to the south of the existing building for a lawn area but they are attempting to retain as much of the existing wooded area as possible. Parking lot lighting will be fairly limited, there will be no overspill of light.
Mr. Murray explained that there will be a gate at the new entrance which will be locked during non-operating hours. The gate will be set back enough to allow a vehicle to park in front of the gate and still be off the road.
Gibbs asked how tall the building will be. Steltzer stated that the height in the elevation plan is 34' 10'' to the peak. Thayer asked how close the Phase II driveway would be to the cemetery. Mr. Murray said in excess of 25'.
Mr. Murray stressed the importance of moving forward with the application. He said that CBI is experiencing overcrowding conditions in the existing office space and is looking to hire additional employees.
Miles asked what permits are not yet in place. Murray replied that the DOT permit has been approved, the remaining permits are the standard dredge and fill, wetlands impact and subsurface disposal permits. They have all been applied for.
Steltzer referred to his letter dated 4/2/08 and stated that the first 3 issues listed deal with completeness of the application, what's required for the board to take jurisdiction. The issues he identified were: the surveyor's seal (already discussed), HISS soil requirement, and snow storage is not noted on the plan.
Mr. Murray said they had not anticipated that a HISS soil would be needed given the existing development on the site and the limited scope of the project. He also pointed out that test pitting that was completed in 1998 for the original septic confirms what the NCRS has for soil zones. Also, the wetlands have been delineated on the plan. There has already been a lot of soil investigation and wetlands investigation on this parcel. He said they would like to request a waiver from the HISS requirement.
Steltzer said the HISS soil is done to delineate where the wetlands are, figure out where the building can go and to determine whether the soils are matched up to the sewage capacity. He said from a planner's perspective, not an engineer's perspective, those have been met; the absence of a HISS would be fine. He said he was confident that the other two issues (surveyor stamp and snow storage) would be addressed by CMA.
Pettit stated that the engineer does ask that a test pit be dug at the subsurface detention basin. (Comment # 11, KV Partners letter dated 3/28/08.)
Mr. Murray said he thought the engineer was concerned about water elevations and reduction of storage in the detention system, but it is a closed system and does not rely on exfiltration, so even if the ground water table were to come up it's not going to impact it. Once that is pointed out to KV, it should not be a concern.
Miles pointed out that CBI's engineer has been working with the TRC for about 2 months and that they have met with both the police and fire departments. They are coming in with a very complete application.
Pettit asked that the engineer submit a waiver request for the HISS soil in writing.
Doggett moved to accept jurisdiction of CBI's application for a non-residential site plan and lot-line adjustment at 22 Whittier Street. Second by Pettit. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Thayer recused.
Mr. Murray said one comment raised by Steltzer was the hours of operation. They will add a note on the plan indicating that the hours are Monday through Friday 7:00 am – 5:00 pm. He said KV Partner's comments were primarily related to the drainage system and some signage. He said one issue that they needed to resolve was regarding hydrographs.
Miles asked if any abutters would like to speak. Nancy Slombo, 24 Whittier Street, addressed the board. Her questions and the responses are as follows:
Ms. Slombo asked how the back-lot would be numbered since CBI was 22 and she was 24. Steltzer said the assessor would determine that. She asked if another commercial building was going to be built behind her house in the back-lot, she asked if the chipping operation was going back there. Mr. Murray said the lot is a commercial lot and that there are minimum buffer requirements for anything built there; in addition, the Board can impose additional buffers. Ms. Slombo asked if the fire department had adequate equipment to keep a fire at CBI from spreading. Mr. Ragnarsson said the new office building would have a sprinkler system but they would be requesting a waiver from putting a sprinkler system in the addition to the metal building because they bays are too high for it to be effective. He said he thought he would be
grandfathered in as long as the addition doesn’t exceed 5,000 sf. He will ask for a waiver for a proposed 15,000 sf structure.
Ms. Slombo stated that there is a pipe under the existing access way. It is owned by CBI. She was concerned that heavy trucks could crush it causing flooding onto her property. She asked that they show it on the plan. Mr. Murray said there was no plan to disrupt the pipe. Pettit said it would be a good idea to show it on the plan.
Ms. Slombo, speaking on behalf of the Conservation Commission, said a portion of the property is in the aquifer protection zone. She asked that the aquifer zone be noted on the plan. Ms. Slombo added that CBI has been a good neighbor.
Doggett asked if the fire department would have keys to the entrance gate. Mr. Murray noted that there would be a knox box and the fire department would have access.
Doggett also asked that when the access road is constructed in Phase II that they consider planting some 6’ to 8’ shrubs to act as a buffer to the cemetery. Mr. Murray said they would be able to add plantings to that area. Doggett also asked if CBI would be coming back to the Planning Board for approval on Phase II. Mr. Murray said the intent was to have both phases approved at the same time.
Mr. Murray handed out copies of the easement language for the amendment for the conservation easement as well as the access easement. The access easement sets up for continued use of the existing driveway for CBI should the back lot ever get sold. It also establishes a 50/50 split for maintenance of the access way.
Thayer asked if there would be any more drainage onto the Elm Street side of the property. Mr. Murray said the plan is not to incur any additional flow off site than currently exists.
Mr. Murray then went through each of the comments on the KV Partner’s letter.
1) Add dimensions to the parking lot – dimensions are shown on new plan set.
2) Clearing limit – the plans have been revised to depict the same limit of clearing. This change will impact the stormwater management calculations which will also be revised.
3) Accessible parking spots and grading – Parking lot grading plans have been modified so there is a 2% maximum grade across the handicap area.
4) Sidewalk detail – the sidewalk detail has been changed to denote a 2% max slope.
5) Proposed trees conflict with the septic system – Proposed tree locations have been shifted 25’ to the east to avoid conflict with the leach field.
6) Show conduit connections to parking lot lights – Underground electric connection to the proposed lights have been added to the plans.
7) Stop sign and stop bar sizing – 12” minimum has been noted on plans.
8) Awkward layout of Phase II roadway – Proposing to swing the roadway out a little to come in at approximately a 90° angle. There will be no additional pavement just a better approach.
9) Plans stamped by wetland scientist – Sheet 3 will be stamped by Gove Environmental.
10) Drainage calculations – this was discussed previously; with a closed system we’re not looking at storage in the stone bedding.
11) Test Pit – Similarly, this is not an exfiltration system so a test pit to confirm groundwater elevation should not be necessary. We can provide the test pit log from 1998.
12) Hydrographs – The post development flow hydrographs will be provided.
13) Dimensions of the subsurface detention basin – The dimensions have been added to the plans.
14) Potential conflict between the detention basin and site lighting – We’ve shifted the subsurface detention basin 3’ to the north to avoid conflict with the existing light structures.
15) Maintenance plan for the detention basin – Maintenance notes have been added to the plans.
16) Minimum cover over the detention basin should be 24” for Class I embedment – The details have been revised to include Class I backfill only with a minimum cover of 24”.
17) Possible erosion problem with configuration of level spreader – the level spreader configuration has been revised.
18) Underdrain Detail - The underdrain detail has been revised.
Steltzer directed the Board’s attention to the memo from the Fire Department dated March 31, 2008. He said the sprinkler system needs to be noted on the plan and have the fire chief review the plans again to make sure the notation is clear. He also noted that the granite bounds need to be set prior to construction. Steltzer also asked about a noise buffer.
Mr. Murray stated that CBI is proposing to move the testing area 100 ft closer to the building in Phase I which would provide that much more of a buffer than adding trees. With the Phase II expansion, the performance testing will need to be moved to the back side of the site. Miles asked if that would be behind Ms. Slombo’s property. Mr. Murray said no, it will be moved to another location which is further away from the abutters.
Steltzer said to clearly note on the plan which state permits are pending, which are approved and what the permit numbers are.
Pettit suggested waiting to grant conditional approval until the engineer and planner can review the revised plans. Conditional approval could be taken up at the work session. Steltzer agreed.
Miles said she disagreed, stating that the applicant had worked with TRC and had a well put together plan and good presentation. Doggett said they had put together a good project and stated that 2 weeks can make a difference in whether you can get a contractor or not, most applications don’t come in as complete and thoroughly done. Vaillant pointed out that the Town wants to encourage responsible businesses such as this. It brings employment to the town.
It was noted that the board had not formally opened the public hearing.
Doggett moved to open the public hearing for CBI. Second by Pettit. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Thayer recused.
Vaillant moved to grant conditional approval for the CBI non-residential site plan and lot-line adjustment at 22 Whittier Street with the following conditions precedent:
1) Planning Board receipt of a clean letter from the Circuit Rider Planner.
2) Planning Board receipt of a clean letter from the Town Engineer.
3) Waiver request for Non-residential Site Plan Regulation Section 7.1.4(K) requiring HISS soil information and Planning Board approval of the waiver.
4) Receipt of all outstanding permits including: NHDES Dredge and Fill Permit, Minimum Expedited Wetlands Permit, NHDES Subsurface Disposal Permit.
5) Show the approximate location of the drainage pipe referred to by Ms. Slombo on the plan.
6) Show the aquifer line on the plan.
7) Note on the plan to supplement the existing screening in the area of the cemetery.
8) Approval of the easement language.
9) Sprinkler system noted on the plan.
Second by Doggett. Motion carried 5-1-1 with Pettit opposed and Thayer recused.
Miles moved to close the public hearing. Second by Pettit. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Thayer recused.
5. Acceptance of Minutes from the March 25, 2008 Work Session: White noted an error that had been made. She said that she had not asked "why the board did not support the ordinance submitted by the building department regarding building codes" but that Vaillant had simply offered the explanation as information. White said that she did ask if the Police Chief needed to get 3 bids for a plan for a new police station. The minutes should be amended as follows:
Strike "White also asked why" from paragraph 2 under section 11. Other Business.
Add a third paragraph: "White asked if the Police Chief needed to get 3 bids and not just have the person he referred to draw up a plan for the new police station. It was explained that any plans presented before approval would be considered "conceptual plans" and there would be no obligation to offer the person the job. Three bids are required."
Doggett moved to accept the minutes of March 25, 2008 as amended above. Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Manifests:
Doggett moved to pay the NPREA manifest dated April 8, 2008, in the amount of $150. Second by Pettit. Motion carried unanimously.
The Board reviewed the Operating Budget manifest. Pettit felt that part of the legal bill should be paid by Coleman McDonough because it dealt with questions concerning the bonding for Puzzle Lane.
Doggett moved to pay the Operating Budget manifest dated April 8, 2008, in the amount of $682.50 to DTC and $4,086 for RPC dues (total $4,768.50). Second by Pettit. Motion carried unanimously.
The Board decided to discuss the DTC bill pertaining to Mr. McDonough at the work session. Miles asked that all bills be included in meeting packets.
7. AA job performance review:
Doggett moved to adopt and submit the employee review drafted by Pettit to the Board of Selectmen. Second by Vaillant. Motion carried unanimously.
8. Rockingham MPO appointee: Pettit said she would contact Deborah Finnigan to see if she was interested in serving on this committee. The Board will revisit the issue at the work session.
9. HCPP Grant: Steltzer explained to the board that in order to apply for the HCPP Grant, the board needed to apply for stage 1 of the grant. He also stated a 5% match was required for this stage which could be supplied by RPC's Regional Environmental Planning Program (REPP). He said the grant would be used to create a community profile, natural resource inventory, build-out analysis and historical resource inventory for the town.
Doggett moved to authorize the Chair to sign the HCPP stage 1 grant application. Second by Pettit. Motion carried unanimously.
10. Walnut Farm letter from the BOS: Miles reminded the Board of Maplevale Builder's request to get a letter from the Board of Selectmen outlining the road acceptance policy as part of Maplevale's application for exemption from registration of the subdivision. She said it was a common practice.
Pettit moved to authorize the Chair to send a memo to the Board of selectmen recommending that they sign the letter requested by Maplevale Builders outlining the process by which roads are accepted in town. Second by Doggett. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Vaillant abstaining.
11. Other Business: Thayer notified the board that the town has agreed to send out for bids for IT functions within the town.
12. Miles moved to adjourn at 10:00 pm. Second by Pettit. Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa Babcock
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
