NEWTON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING
April 13, 2010
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Jim Doggett called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. In attendance were: Chairman Jim Doggett; Vice Chairman Barbara White; Planning Board members Frank Gibbs and Kim Vaillant; Alternate Rick Milner; and Trisha McCarthy, BOS ex officio. Minutes were transcribed by Administrative Assistant Lisa Babcock.
Also in attendance: Circuit Rider Planner Brian Groth and Police Chief Larry Streeter.
2. Metro PCS Massachusetts, LLC of Chelmsford, MA continued public hearing for a minor site plan for co-location of a telecommunications antenna on an existing monopole at 85 South Main Street. The property is referenced as Tax Map 13, Block 2, Lot 24T.
Kate Rugman of Metro PCS was in attendance, she informed the board that she had contacted the tower owner Global Tower Partners concerning the police department's request for a repeater site on the pole and had received a letter from them which had been distributed to the board.
Chief Streeter stated that he has been speaking with GTP concerning the repeater site for the town – a critical need. GTP has assured Chief Streeter that there will still be room for a repeater site after Metro PCS puts up their antennas.
White noted that the GTP's letter of April 7, 2010 indicates that the tower can accommodate 5 carriers and currently has 4. If Metro PCS is granted access, how can there be room left for the repeater?
Chief Streeter said that he has been advised that there is room for the repeater. Ms. Rugman added that typically repeaters go on top of the tower.
McCarthy said she spoke to the department of homeland security and was told that there is money available for communications. Doggett added that when the Police Department is ready they should come before the board to inform them of their plan for the repeater site.
Chief Streeter departed at this time.
Doggett appointed alternate Rick Milner to stand in for Miles for the evening.
Vaillant moved to grant approval for a minor site plan for co-location of a telecommunications antenna on an existing monopole at 85 South Main Street. Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
Doggett closed the public hearing for Metro PCS.
3. Coleman McDonough/125 Development Corp., Plaistow, NH & Mary Pinkham Langer, Department of Revenue Administration discussion concerning excavation at Puzzle Lane Lots 27-3 and 27-4.
Mary Pinkham-Langer, gravel tax adviser for the DRA, was in attendance and addressed the board. Ms. Pinkham-Langer said she was told by Mr. McDonough that he intends to develop lot 27-4 for industrial purposes.
She said that under RSA 155:E in order to excavate earth from that property, one of the following must be met: it should be running as a commercial gravel pit with an excavation permit under RSA 155:E(3), or all permits and approvals should be in place for construction, or it should receive approval from the Planning Board as an exception for minor topographical adjustment or normal landscaping.
She explained that if it was a necessity that Mr. McDonough level off the lot to get it graded for a pad for a commercial building the planning board has the ability to require a site plan even though it's not necessarily a commercial pit.
Ms. Pinkham-Langer said at this point in time, that property doesn't have a 155:E permit to excavate and it doesn't have an exception for any other use whether it be as a development, a minor topographical adjustment or normal landscaping.
She added that an Intent-to-Excavate has been filed on that property but an excavation intent is not a permit, it’s only a tax document. The burden is on the regulator to decide what is going to be required and the developer is going to have to present his plans to the board. An additional problem with the lot is that this parcel is in current use. Excavation is not allowed in current use.
Ms. Pinkham-Langer stressed that current use is a taxation issue, not a planning board issue, however the town assessor, cannot determine the highest and best use of that property until she knows what the legal use is.
On the other parcel (27-3), excavation has begun in some areas. We have the same situation for that parcel; there are no approved permits for either excavation or for development in some areas where excavation is ongoing. In addition, the parcel is also in current use.
Ms. Pinkham-Langer said on both parcels the question is "what is it?" Is it a development that doesn't have the approvals in place or is it a gravel pit?
Milner asked if the property would be taken out of current use because of the excavation. Ms. Langer said no, the only areas that become disqualified are those that are actually disturbed. Some sections of lot 27-4 have not been disturbed. Trees may have been cut, but if it hasn't been stumped or grubbed, it still qualifies for current use.
In addition, there is a logging road on 27-3. Logging roads are also allowed in current use so long as they're only used for that purpose. But that purpose appears to have changed - that road has become an access and hall road to get the gravel out, so it's no longer exempt. There are also pockets of excavation and those pockets and the roads are the areas that have currently been disqualified from current use.
Scott Frankiewicz, project manager for Mr. McDonough said the intent for lot 4 is to be used as a commercial/industrial base. The intended use for lots 27-3 & 27-4 is what they are zoned for – commercial/light industrial.
Mr. Frankiewicz said there is a plan for lot 3 that showed that the lot had to be graded and there was an Alteration of Terrain permit that was approved for that lot.
McDonough said an Alteration of Terrain plan was also filed with DES for lot 27-4. He said the lot was hilly – a mountain of glacial till – and it needed to be leveled to make the site look ready for potential buyers. Doggett said you can't do that on property that is in current use.
Ms. Pinkham-Langer said any activity on lot 27-4 such as excavation will disqualify it from current use. She added that Mr. McDonough may have an AOT permit from DES to do this alteration – however, the question is does the town of Newton require site plan review for this type of activity?
Doggett said the town's excavation regulations do require it.
Ms. Pinkham-Langer said Mr. McDonough should have come before the planning board with his plan for an exception under RSA 155:E-2(a). The planning board needs to ask itself – "is this reasonable, is it feasible" based upon what's presented in the plan, based upon the location of the property, how much material is coming out and how long is it going to take. The board must ask – is this really commercially viable material that's coming out (a gravel pit) or is it a necessity to get it out of there to make a marketable lot.
Ms. Pinkham-Langer said that typically an alteration of terrain permit is only good for 2 years, but a gravel pit permit is good for the life of the pit.
Vaillant asked Mr. McDonough to provide a copy of the permit and the plan that accompanied it.
Ms. Pinkham-Langer also said that a permit from DES does not supersede local regulation. The developer has to bring a plan before the board and ask for an exception for the earth removal project.
Mr. McDonough said that when the plan was submitted to DES for the AOT, the town didn't have excavation regulations in place, or at least no one brought it up.
Vaillant said – yes the town has had the excavation regulations in place, they were just recently updated. Mr. McDonough said lot 4 was glacial till, not gravel. He said he was taking the fill to lots 3 and 1.
Groth said from the board's perspective, Mr. McDonough needs to have a planning board approved plan which means a site plan review. The plan submitted to DES for the permit is good to have for the records, but it doesn't mean anything as far as the zoning and regulations of the town.
In order to release the Cease and Desist he needs site plan approval and to renew the AOT permit from DES if it has expired.
Walnut Farm Road resident Craig Jackson asked if there was a stipulation that the fill from lot 4 had to be used on site. He said there is a 15-20' shear face on lot 4 where the material was excavated and he would be surprised if the other lots required that much fill.
McCarthy said that the Conservation Commission recently did a site walk. She agreed a large amount of fill has been removed from lot 4. She said the selectmen's office received calls that material was going off site. Doggett said if the proper process had been followed, the board could have determined how much fill was removed and where it went. At this point all that can be done is to make sure the proper approvals are obtained and move forward from there.
4. Coleman McDonough/125 Development Corp., Plaistow, NH requests a non-binding/conceptual pre-application review for a proposed non-residential plan for Puzzle Lane. The property is referenced as Tax Map 14, Block 1, Lot 27-4.
Scott Frankiewicz addressed the board. He said they are proposing 3 industrial buildings on the site with a mix of office and warehousing space. Each building will have its own septic system and the site will be serviced by two wells.
The board members viewed a sketch of the proposal. The board made the following suggestions – access roads must go all the way around the buildings and cannot be in the buffer zone; ensure that all construction is away from the wetlands; and ensure that the 15-20' drop mentioned by Mr. Jackson does not become a safety hazard.
Ms. McCarthy added that a stormwater management plan will be required, pavement abutting the wetlands should be minimized and the plan should include vegetated swales.
White said to indicate the snow storage areas on the plans. Doggett said to check on the DES regulations for paving in an aquifer protection zone. Milner asked what the time frame will be for the project. Mr. Frankiewicz said he expected to submit a plan within the next couple of months.
Doggett said a reclamation plan should also be submitted. Groth suggested tying a bond requirement to the project.
Mr. Jackson suggested that the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen be as clear and explicit as possible in their direction to Mr. McDonough to avoid any uncertainty as to what will be permitted on the site.
5. Karl N. LaCroix, of Newton, NH requests a public hearing for a 2-lot subdivision at 44 Whittier Street. The property is referenced as Tax Map 5, Block 5, Lot 5.
Doggett opened the public hearing for Mr. LaCroix for a 2-lot subdivision at 44 Whittier Street.
Doggett read the abutters list, no abutters were present. Mr. LaCroix addressed the board. He explained that currently there are 2 residences on the lot and he wants to separate the lot into 2 lots. He said he does not currently have any plans to build on the lots but is considering selling one of the lots off after the subdivision.
Mr. LaCroix referred to the comment letter from Groth dated 4/8/2010. Comment # 3 of the letter addresses the driveways for proposed lot 5-1. The existing driveway which accesses the trailer (mobile home) is within 1' of the proposed lot-line this is out of conformance with the 25' building setback requirement. Also, the driveway labeled "proposed gravel driveway" does not meet wetlands setbacks. (The driveway that is labeled "proposed gravel driveway" currently exists as an access way to the back of 5-1.)
Mr. LaCroix said the proposed lot line is close to the trailer driveway in order to keep the proposed lots as square as possible.
Groth asked if Mr. LaCroix would consider having only 1 access point for lot 5-1. Mr. LaCroix said he uses the "proposed gravel driveway" to access the back of the lot.
For the driveway to the trailer, Groth said without a waiver, Mr. LaCroix would have to adjust the proposed lot line, or propose a different configuration for the driveway. For the "proposed gravel driveway", the board will have to determine whether or not it is an existing driveway.
Doggett said the "proposed gravel driveway" only appeared a few years ago and the board has already had concerns about that driveway. He said there should only be one driveway per lot.
Gibbs noted that the plans don't indicate that one of the driveways on lot 5 is abandoned.
McCarthy said the Conservation Commission is also concerned about the "proposed gravel driveway" and its proximity to the wetlands. Gibbs said that Mr. LaCroix has permits for all the driveways.
McCarthy said that Conservation is also requesting that hay bales and silt fences be used during construction to minimize impact to the wetlands.
White proposed abandoning both existing driveways on lot 5-1 and creating a new driveway to the left of the trailer that could be used to access both the trailer and the back of the lot. Mr. LaCroix said he would consider it but he believes there is ledge in that area that would make it difficult.
Doggett said the state did issue the driveway permit (since Whittier Street is a state road) but the state doesn't consider things like wetlands setbacks. The "proposed gravel driveway" is well within the wetlands buffer.
The board's suggestions were to move the proposed lot line to accommodate the 25' setback for the driveway to the trailer, or move the driveway to the trailer to the left of the trailer. Both the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission had concerns about the "proposed gravel driveway's" proximity to the wetlands.
Vaillant moved to continue the public hearing for a 2-lot subdivision at 44 Whittier Street to May 11. Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Town of Newton, NH continuation of a public hearing to review a proposed addition to the Newton Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Village District Zoning.
The following residents were in attendance: Kathleen Hoffman, Sandy Estabrook and Ray and Jane LaBelle.
Groth said that he would like to bring some areal maps to the next work session (April 27th) so that the board could begin to hammer out the exact areas to be included in the village district zones. It will be the first item on the agenda.
Mr. LaBelle addressed the board. He said that he approved of the idea to bring some commercial businesses into the town – he felt the town had become stagnant. He said he may be interested in using his own property for a commercial business. He questioned the maximum building size in the proposed ordinance stating that he thought it was too small. Doggett explained that the smaller size discourages big-box stores.
Mr. LaBelle also asked if a person's taxes would increase just because his/her house is located in the village district zone. Doggett said that if a property is not used as a commercial business it would not be taxed as such.
Groth said he had questions about the section that does not permit multi-family use along with commercial use on the same lot. Vaillant said she thought that stipulation was intended to keep people from renting out their property and instead to encourage owner-occupied uses.
Groth said he will also present some ideas on choosing lot sizes and frontage requirements.
White moved to continue the public hearing to the next work session, April 27th. Second by Vaillant. Motion carried unanimously.
7. Other Board Business and Correspondence:
a. Minutes:
Vaillant moved to accept the minutes of March 23, 2010 as written. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
b. Manifests:
Motion by Gibbs to authorize the chair to sign the operating budget manifest dated 4/13/2010 in the amount $4,357.38. Second by Vaillant. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by White to authorize the chair to sign the NPREA manifest dated 4/13/2010 in the amount $75.07. Second by McCarthy. Motion carried unanimously.
c. E-mail from M. Vignale re: Pond Street Subdivision dated 4/8/10
The board reviewed the e-mail in which the town's engineer stated several concerns he has regarding the Pond Knoll Subdivision. He stated that upon driving by the site he noted that slopes are not stabilized, there is inadequate erosion control; and the detention basin/vegetated swale has not been constructed per plan. He was unsure if the board wanted him to review the site and/or meet with the contractor.
Gibbs said when the board last met with Mr. Fitzgerald he was told that if there were any violations at this site, they would be brought before the code enforcement officer.
Gibbs moved to send a memo to the code enforcement officer informing him of the violations at the site. Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
d. Zoning Ordinances on Web Site:
The secretary said the zoning ordinances had been removed from the web site some time ago after it was noticed that an old section had been submitted and posted to the web site causing some confusion with the requirements for an accessory apartment. However there has always been a disclaimer on the web site indicating that the zoning ordinances posted on the site are not to be considered official copies.
Doggett said the updated and corrected zoning ordinances should be submitted to be posted on the web site, however a watermark should be included that indicates that pages printed from the web site are not official.
Only zoning books obtained directly from the Planning Board office can be considered official copies.
McCarthy said she also spoke to the web master about adding an additional disclaimer to the web site specifically for the zoning ordinances.
e. Fax from SEC & Assoc. 3/22/10 re: driveway at 13/3/8-11 Walnut Farm: The board reviewed a fax from SEC requesting that a driveway be installed over the ROW at the end of the cul-de-sac.
The board determined that more information was needed – who owns the ROW and is it definitely a ROW and not an easement. The secretary will contact LGC and the board will discuss the issue further at the work session.
f. Memo from M. Vignale re: Sargent Woods Bonds 4/8/10: The board reviewed a bond proposal from the town engineer for the new owners of the Sargent Woods project.
The proposal included $56,923 for Phase 1 Site Improvements, $47,475 for Erosion Control and $20,000 for Smith Corner Road.
Gibbs said that he had suggested the bond on Smith Corner Road during the winter when the likelihood of damage from trucking was greater. He said it should have been requested at the very beginning of the project. Vaillant said the board should not be imposing additional conditions on the new developer at this time. She said the board may wish to consider requesting a bond on Smith Corner Road for Phase III.
Gibbs moved to approve the proposed bond amounts as stated in the engineer's letter of April 8, 2010 but to remove the requirement for the $20,000 bond on Smith Corner Road for the time being. Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
g. Appointment of RPC Commissioners:
Doggett said he would be willing to serve at an RPC Commissioner. The secretary said Miles has also expressed interest. The board decided to re-nominate Mary Allen and to hold off on nominating Miles or Doggett until it can be confirmed that Miles is interested in attending the meetings.
Vaillant moved to nominate Mary Allen for another term as RPC Commissioner. Second by White. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Gibbs out of the room.
8. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 10:01 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa Babcock
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
