NEWTON PLANNING BOARD
SEPTEMBER 28, 2010
MEETING MINUTES
1. Call to Order: Chairman Jim Doggett called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm. In attendance were: Chairman Jim Doggett; Vice Chairman Barbara White; Planning Board member Frank Gibbs; Trisha McCarthy, BOS ex officio, and Alternates Rick Milner and Mary Allen. Notes were taken by Administrative Assistant Karen Conti and transcribed by former Administrative Assistant Lisa Babcock.
Also in attendance: Brian Groth, Circuit Rider Planner. Doggett appointed Milner to stand in for Kim Pettit and Allen to stand in for Miles.
2. Charles and Kathleen Marden of Groveland, FL continuation of a public hearing for an 8 lot subdivision on Heath Street. The property is referenced as Tax Map 4, Block 6, Lot 3.
Board member Ann Miles arrived and Allen stepped down.
Dennis Quintal was in attendance to represent the applicant, Mr. Marden was not present. Mr. Quintal explained that he tried to drop off copies of the updated plan set prior to the meeting but the office was closed due to the transition in administrative assistants. He distributed copies to the board.
Mr. Quintal reminded the board that after discussions at previous meetings and the site walk, he got a consensus from the board that the plan depicting 6 duplex lots with shared driveways and 1 single family lot was the preferred design. He also stated that the lots might not necessarily be developed as duplex lots, but that is how the area is zoned.
Mr. Quintal provided copies of a traffic analysis, a drainage analysis and a culvert sizing analysis for the culverts across the driveways. He also explained that he conducted the lot size calculations for the remaining parcel of land which is on the eastern side of the property. The lot size information has been included on sheet LS along with the lot size calculations for the other lots.
Street numbers have been provided and are shown along the frontage of each lot on the plans. The driveway widths have been revised.
Mr. Quintal said he met with the fire chief and provided a letter from him. (Chief Ingalls was not present.) Mr. Quintal said that Chief Ingalls accepted the changes that were made to the plans for the proposed driveways.
Mr. Quintal noted that the road agent has recently re-paved a stretch of Heath Street including portions in front of the proposed development. Mr. Quintal included information about the recently paved section of the roadway on his plans. The new pavement is approximately 1000 feet long and 22 feet wide.
Mr. Quintal said that he submitted two waivers to the board – one for overlapping well radii and one for the construction requirements for common driveways.
He said that he still has to dig test pits for the site, but Mr. Marden wanted to wait until after this evening’s discussion to see if the board has any other concerns regarding the layout. He also stated that he will be submitting applications for the two wetlands crossings but also wanted to hold those until after this meeting.
Doggett said he had a concern regarding the wetland crossing on the 3rd lot with the very long driveway. He said he was concerned about the width of the driveway and the ability of emergency vehicles to get across safely.
Mr. Quintal said he spoke to the fire chief about the project. Chief Ingalls’ main concern is the ability of vehicles to make the turns coming from Heath Street onto the driveways. As far as getting to the rear of the lots, he would like to see a 20 foot minimum and places for vehicles to pass each other.
Mr. Quintal said that there is a bit of a conflict regarding the wetland crossings – the town wants them as wide as possible, but the state wants them as narrow as possible to minimize disturbance. Chief Ingalls said they should be at least 12 feet wide.
Milner said that the safety concern would override any impact to the wetlands and that even 14 feet might be too tight.
Doggett read Chief Ingalls’ letter. Doggett said the driveways should be 16 feet wide at the wetland crossings. He also said there should be guardrails on either side since the driveways could potentially serve 4 housing units – which is more than a typical shared driveway.
McCarthy said she would like to see Heath Street bonded. She said the road agent shared this view.
Mr. Quintal said he was not sure how that would work since in the past Mr. Marden has always sold off the lots to multiple developers. The lots will be sold just as they are – without any construction – and construction could occur over many years.
Doggett asked how the deeds would be written for the shared driveways. Mr. Quintal said the construction and long term maintenance of the driveways are covered by easements. White added that these easements get written into the property deeds. Mr. Quintal offered to provide a copy of a typical deed.
Gibbs said that one way to bond the road was to require a $5,000 bond each time a driveway permit is pulled for a lot.
Allen said that way each developer is responsible for his/her share of the road usage.
Groth said that some of the detail is missing from the soil information that Mr. Quintal provided for the remaining land. Mr. Quintal said he would look at it and provide all of the necessary data.
Groth asked if the culvert designs have been submitted to the town’s engineer. Mr. Quintal said the information is in the drainage report.
Groth said a note is required stating “all road and drainage work to conform to the standard specifications for the state of NH”. Mr. Quintal said it will be added.
Groth said that the Conservation Commission has not submitted comments yet. McCarthy said a public hearing must be scheduled.
Milner moved to keep the driveway widths to 20 feet except at the wetland crossings where they shall be 16 feet wide. Second by Gibbs. Discussion: Gibbs asked if the motion should include a requirement for guardrails. Mr. Quintal said he would add detail about that. Gibbs asked if the utilities are to be underground. White asked if underground utilities would cause more disturbance, Mr. Quintal said probably not.
Miles asked if this motion covers the waiver request for shared driveways. Groth said that once the waiver for shared driveways is granted, the town specification condition kicks in. He said the applicant did not want to use the materials required by the town specification either. He had voiced a preference for gravel driveways. This must be addressed as well.
Milner amended his motion to allow for common driveways with the specification that they be 20 feet wide except at the wetland crossings where the driveway shall be 16 feet wide. Gibbs seconded the amended motion. The motion carried 5-0-1 with Miles abstaining.
The Board then discussed the waiver for overlapping well radii. Groth said that 2 or 3 waivers are required because of some redundancy in the regulations. He said that sometimes the actual locations of the well heads are very different from what the plans show.
Mr. Quintal said it would cause additional wetlands disturbance to move the wells to the rear of the lot.
Planning Board member Kim Vaillant arrived at approximately 7:50 pm.
Milner moved to approve the waiver for overlapping well radii. Second by Gibbs. Motion failed 0-6-1 with Vaillant opposed.
White moved to continue the public hearing to the first meeting in October. (October 12). Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
3. James and Mike Garvey of Londonderry, NH request a Conceptual Pre-Application Review for a home-based business on Maple Avenue.
James Garvey addressed the board. He said that he has signed a purchase and sale agreement for 13 Maple Avenue with the intent of closing within the next week. He explained that he has a tent rental company that he will be operating at the property. He said that it is a small, seasonal business that rents out tents for weddings, parties, etc.
He said that he doesn’t do any work on the property, there are no customers coming to the site and he would not post a sign.
Doggett asked if there was adequate storage on the site for the tents. Mr. Garvey said yes.
Doggett also explained that the board does not have the power to pre-approve an application and since Mr. Garvey doesn’t own the property yet, he can’t submit an application.
Groth noted that the business cannot occupy more than 25% of the total floor space including accessory structures. He asked if there are any employees. Mr. Garvey said he has 1 seasonal employee.
White said the zoning ordinance prohibits large trucks. Mr. Garvey said he does have a 14,000 pound truck but he plans to park it inside a garage. He said he interpreted the regulation to mean that such a vehicle is allowed as long as it is not parked outside.
Groth said he agreed with the interpretation but stressed that the home business is limited to 2 commercial vehicles.
Doggett asked if a memo should be sent to the town clerk stating that vehicles over 14,000 pounds should not be registered to residential addresses. Gibbs questioned the legality of that. McCarthy suggested that the memo be in the form of a question to the town clerk.
Vaillant said that if the ordinance is prohibiting a majority of the vehicles that are used for personal use – such as horse trailers and dually wheeled pickup trucks – perhaps it should be amended.
Groth said that if Mr. Garvey has a garage to store his trucks in, he can have up to two commercial vehicles, no matter what the weight.
4. Helen Nault of Newton, NH requests a public hearing for a conditional use permit for an accessory apartment at 5 Gale Village Road. The property is referenced as Tax Map 9, Block 3, Lot 11-2.
Doggett read the abutter list. Mr. and Mrs. Nault were present. She explained that she wants to build an accessory apartment for her mother to live in. She said the apartment will be under 800 sf. She said a mud-room will be built between the main house and the apartment. The mud-room will be part of the main house. The apartment will be an addition to the house – new construction.
Miles asked what the square footage of the existing house is. Ms. Nault said 2,415 sf, 2,639 sf with the addition of the mud-room.
Groth asked about the parking. Mr. Nault said the driveway is 150’ long by 40’ wide.
Milner asked if there is a separate entrance for the apartment. Ms. Nault said yes, there are sliding doors off the living room.
Allen asked if heat and electric will be shared. Ms. Nault said yes.
Groth asked about the septic system. Ms. Nault said she met with the health inspector and he instructed her to have plans drawn up for a replacement system should the existing system fail. The plan has been approved by the state.
Groth said the water must be shared between the units. Doggett said all utilities must be shared.
Doggett asked if the addition was going to be on grade. Ms. Nault said there will be a full basement under the addition. The basement will only be accessed from the main house. Doggett asked if there would be some sort of landing outside the door. Ms. Nault said probably a ramp since her mother is handicapped.
Vaillant moved to grant a conditional use permit for an accessory apartment at 5 Gale Village Road. Second by Gibbs. Discussion: McCarthy asked if an impact fee applies. Doggett said no, impact fees are only for new construction, not additions. The motion carried 6-1-0 with Miles opposed.
5. 125 Development NH Corp. of Plaistow, NH requests a public hearing for a major non-residential site plan at Puzzle Lane. The property is referenced as Tax Map 14, Block 1, Lot 27-4.
Doggett read the abutter list. The following abutters were present: David Hardy, 19 Walnut Farm Road, James Fitzpatrick, 15 Walnut Farm Road and Arthur Mitchell, president of the 6 Puzzle Lane Condo Association.
Scott Frankiewicz was in attendance. Mr. McDonough was not present. Mr. Frankiewicz explained that this is the first phase of a two phase project. He also stated that he had only received the engineer’s comments today and understands that those comments must be addressed.
Mr. Frankiewicz said that the state will require an Alteration of Terrain (AOT) permit for all phases of the project. An AOT application has been submitted to the state but there is currently a 49 day back log.
Mr. Frankiewicz said that lot 27-4 will be developed in 2 phases. The first phase proposes two buildings – one at 5,400 sf and one at 8,400 sf. Phase I will be accessed by the private road off of the Puzzle Lane cul-de-sac that also serves 6 Puzzle Lane.
Eleven parking spaces will be provided for building 1, 10 are required. Parking will be in front of the building. On the back side of the building there will be overhead doors that are typical of the other structures in the industrial park. There will be 3 or 4 units in building 1.
Seventeen parking spaces will be provided for building 2, 15 are required. There will be no access to the rear of the building except for some emergency doors required by the fire department. There will be a gravel walkway in the rear of the building. Two overhead doors are proposed for the northern end of the building.
Mr. Frankiewicz reviewed the proposed drainage plans for the site. He said the new regulations require them to recharge on site. The proposal includes: a 5 foot wide recharge area in the back of building 2 which is deep and lined with filter material, 4 tree-box treatment systems containing filter material and underdrains that discharge into a detention pond, and a detention area with a multi-stage discharge structure that discharges to a treatment swale which in turn discharges into the larger wetlands on the site.
The following items are proposed for the buildings: sidewalks along the front, handicapped parking spaces, wallpack lights on the front and at the emergency access points. Street lights are also proposed.
Several snow storage areas are shown on the plans near the cul-de-sac and along the road. A dumpster is located at the backside of building 1 in the lower parking lot.
Mr. Frankiewicz noted that he also submitted a waiver regarding site plan application fees.
Doggett called for abutter input.
James Fitzpatrick asked for clarification on the waiver request. Doggett explained that the waiver requests a reduction in fees.
Arthur Mitchell, president of the 6 Puzzle Lane Condo Association and owner of units 7, 8 and 9 addressed the board. He said that the members of his association want to see the project go through. They believe that the project is good for their association and good for the town. He said that they do, however, have many concerns. He said that he has submitted letters to the Planning Board and to Mr. McDonough voicing these concerns. He would like to see one project finished before another project is started.
Mr. Mitchell said that concrete sidewalks appear on the plans for 6 Puzzle Lane, but they have never been constructed. The association’s main concern is the condition of the parking lot – it does not have a top coat of hot-top and it is beginning to break up.
Mr. Mitchell said that the association recently went to the Board of Tax and Land Appeals and the town lost 15% on $1.5 million of property because the parking lot has not been paved.
Mr. Mitchell has asked Mr. McDonough to put money in escrow for the paving or submit a letter of commitment indicating a time frame for completion but Mr. McDonough has done neither.
Mr. Mitchell also said that a great amount of dust has been coming from the site and he is concerned about breathing it in.
He also stated that Mr. McDonough has been dumping tons of concrete and rebar and storing it on the site.
Mr. Mitchell said that it appears that a proposed road on the site appears to be encroaching on property owned by the condo association.
He again stated that he wants to see the property developed but he wants to see it done right.
Doggett said the board can commiserate with the association, but they cannot take what was done on one site and carry it over to another site.
Miles said that if the concrete sidewalks and final coat of hot top were shown on the plans for 6 Puzzle Lane then they should be constructed. Doggett said he was not sure how occupancy permits were issued when the project was incomplete.
Vaillant called for sending a memo to the building department asking why occupancy permits were issued when the project was not complete. She asked who is responsible for making sure that what is on the plan is getting done. Doggett said the building inspector and code enforcement officer are responsible for enforcement.
Miles said the planning board also signs off on occupancy permits.
Vaillant said a memo must be sent to the building department asking how this got signed off on and what the corrective action should be. She said she is also concerned about the material being dumped at the site.
Mr. Mitchell said that he was informed by the building inspector that Mr. McDonough has the right to store concrete on site as long as he doesn’t grind it or use it for fill. He said there is also rebar in the concrete – which he doesn’t think is allowed by the state.
McCarthy said that Mary Pinkham-Langer investigated the site and did not find evidence of grinding. Vaillant asked that a letter be sent to Ms. Langer regarding the concern about rebar.
Doggett said that the site was approved for excavation and that the dirt was going to be used as fill. He also noted that this is an aquifer area.
Vaillant asked who monitors the property to ensure that the concrete does not become part of the fill. Milner said the board had already voted to have KV Partners monitor the site. Vaillant reminded the board that there are fees involved with having KV Partners monitor the site.
McCarthy said that instead of writing to Mary Pinkham-Langer, the board should first ask the town administrator if she has something in writing from Ms. Langer concerning her most recent visit to the site.
Doggett said Ms. Langer had sent correspondence to the board about 3 months ago stating that she had detected no activity other than dead-storage. However the property had been in current use at the time and storage is not a permitted use for land in current use.
Mr. Frankiewicz said what Doggett was referring to was lot 27-3, not 27-4.
Doggett asked about the land encroachment issue that Mr. Mitchell had brought up. Mr. Frankiewicz said it was an oversight on his part and he will correct it.
Doggett said the board also did not have a recorded copy of the condo docs for lot 27-3. He said that condo docs will be required prior to the sale of any unit or the issuance of occupancy permits.
Mr. Frankiewicz disagreed with this saying that sometimes the units are leased or leased-to-sell. He said if the units are not sold, condo docs are not needed.
Doggett said the intent is ultimately to sell the units and condo docs should be recorded with the plans. Gibbs noted that the plans indicate that the units are condos.
Abutter David Harding addressed the board. He said he is concerned for the children on Walnut Farm because of the hazard caused by the excavation.
Doggett said that as part of the excavation plan, a vegetative barrier must be planted along the top of the hillside. Mr. Harding said it would not help. Milner said a fence should be constructed. Doggett said the board can require that a fence be installed as part of Phase II.
Gibbs asked if Mr. Frankiewicz would be willing to put a snow fence along the hill about 50’ down. Mr. Frankiewicz said yes.
Mr. Fitzpatrick asked for clarification about what can and cannot be carried from one project to another.
Doggett said the board must be careful about allowing what a developer does on one project to color the boards’ decisions regarding another project. Each project must be handled individually.
Vaillant said the board cannot be jaded in its dealings. They must be fair about each project. They have a duty to ensure that what was agreed to on one plan is adhered to but they cannot let one project influence the decisions about another project nor would they make bargains across different projects. Doggett said that the board must perform due diligence to make sure that each project gets completed.
Mr. Fitzpatrick said that based on what has happened in the past, he is not confident that this new project will be handled correctly. He said that a stockade fence would ensure safety and would also act as a sound barrier and provide a visual barrier as well.
Miles asked if they are digging a 30 foot hole. Mr. Frankiewicz said in phase II the large building will be 30 feet down so it won’t be seen from Walnut Farm Road. The pitch of the slope will be 3:1.
Mr. Frankiewicz said a 6 to 8 foot retaining wall will be built at the bottom of the slope and a fence will be put at the top of the slope. There will be something to protect the neighbors.
Groth asked for a time line for installation of the construction fence. Vaillant asked for a description of the fence. Mr. Frankiewicz said it is a plastic orange fence with 4 foot wooden stakes that are driven 1 foot into the ground.
Vaillant said a more permanent fence was called for; the snow fence would just get knocked down. Mr. Frankiewicz was concerned about putting up a permanent fence before beginning the project he felt it would just get damaged during construction.
Vaillant said there is a big drop and it’s a safety concern for children and animals. She said a snow fence will not serve any purpose and will fall down with the elements.
Gibbs said the snow fence will work well. It’s very noticeable.
Vaillant said it was better than nothing but was not convinced it would be effective.
White asked where the street lights would be installed. Mr. Frankiewicz said the street lights will be the same shoe-box lights as are installed on the other parts of the development.
Mr. Mitchell said the lights on the existing buildings and the streetlights are on timers.
White said there is a phase II building that does not appear on the phase I plans. Mr. Frankiewicz explained that the building is not shown because the area will be used as a temporary turn-around for phase I.
Doggett asked why a community well is not shown. Mr. Frankiewicz said the buildings in phase I will be approved for 24 people. A community well is required for 25 or more people. Mr. Frankiewicz said that he and Mr. McDonough will have to deal with a community well system if the project gets bigger.
Doggett said this is a known issue – Mr. Frankiewicz must pre-plan for the community well system.
Mr. Frankiewicz said he has thought a lot about the issue. He said they can have up to two wells on the site with each one serving 24 people. He said the large building is just a dream on a conceptual plan right now and to force a community well is not warranted.
Mr. Frankiewicz said that he has been working with Mr. McDonough for about 6 months and has been trying to clear up all of the previous issues caused by the other projects and has been making progress. He encouraged the abutters to contact him directly with any questions or problems they may have.
He also stated that the Alteration of Terrain permit includes a dust mitigation requirement and the town’s engineer will ensure that that is being followed.
Gibbs moved to continue the hearing for Puzzle Lane lot 27-4 to the first meeting in October (October 12). 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 at Newton Junction and portions of South Main Street.
Milner moved to continue the public hearing for village district zoning to the next work session, October 26th. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
7. Other Board Business:
- Re-appointment of Alternate Allen – the board concluded that information provided was outdated and that Allen’s appointment had not expired.
- Well Testing – Groth provided a draft of language provided by DES for preliminary well tests to be taken at the point of subdivision. Doggett asked the board members to review the information for discussion at the next work session.
White and Groth departed at 9:30 pm. Doggett appointed Allen to stand in for White.
Allen moved to accept the minutes of August 24, 2010 with the following amendment: section j. to read “no cut zone”. Second by McCarthy. Motion carried unanimously.
Gibbs moved to authorize the Chair to sign the Operating Budget manifest dated 9/28/10 in the amount $323.32. Second by Milner. Motion carried unanimously.
Gibbs moved to authorize the Chair to sign the NPREA manifest dated 9/28/10 in the amount $238.80. Second by Allen. Motion carried unanimously.
- Occupancy Permit – 6 Twombly Drive: Doggett stated that Mr. Hebb had submitted an occupancy permit for 6 Twombly Drive. Gibbs asked if the road had been accepted. McCarthy said yes. Gibbs said he drove down there and everything looks fine. Doggett said that unless there were objections from the board he would sign the occupancy permit.
- 2011 Budget – Doggett said the budget will be on the next agenda.
- Fees: Gibbs said that he went to Plaistow to verify the information provided by Scott Frankiewicz concerning fees. Gibbs said the information is correct and that Newton’s fees are way out of line with area towns. Plaistow charges $900 and Newton charges $10,000 for the same building. This is just the site plan fee; it does not include building permit fees. There is no reason for the board to be charging that kind of money.
Doggett said he thought the board set the fees to discourage big-box businesses from moving in. Vaillant said it was more to compensate the town if a big-box store does move in. Miles said the board could always consider hardship for any particular situation. Doggett said the fees will have to be discussed at a public hearing.
- Agricultural Committee Meeting: Doggett said the meeting would be held on the 2nd Thursday of October at 7:00 pm at the town hall. It will be advertised in the Carriage Towne News and the Tribune.
- Peaslee Crossing Driveway: Milner said he attended the ZBA meeting to discuss the Peaslee Crossing Driveway. The item was not on the agenda but he explained the planning board’s position to the ZBA. The ZBA was in agreement that this was a matter for the courts to decide.
8. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 9:47 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa Babcock
Temporary Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
