NEWTON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING
November 9, 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 Ann Miles; Alternate Mary Allen; and Circuit Rider Planner Brian Groth. Minutes were transcribed by Interim Administrative Assistant Rick Milner.
Doggett appointed Allen to stand in for Kim Pettit.
White moved to recommend to the Board of Selectmen that Rick Milner be appointed to the position of permanent part-time Administrative Assistant to the Planning Board. Milner will be hired at a pay rate of $13.56/hr, with an increase to $13.90/hr on January 1, 2011. Second by Allen. Motion carried unanimously.
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.
Dennis Quintal was in attendance to represent the applicant. Mr. Marden was not present. Mr. Quintal presented a revised plan for the Marden Meadows Phase II residential development.
Mr. Quintal explained the changes to the plans based on discussions from previous meeting and progress made on approval requirements. Requirements completed for the plans presented by Mr. Quintal are as follows:
a. Per board's request, frontage dimensions for lots added to the plans,
b. Test pits dug,
c. Test pit results presented to board,
d. Test pit permit application presented to the board
Mr. Quintal explained that the test pit permit application was signed by the town Health Officer, verifying that he witnessed all 14 test pits for all seven lots. The results of the test pits found that the seasonal water table level was between 40 and 78 inches. All the test pits met state requirements.
Mr. Quintal explained that actions that still needed to be completed were:
a. Obtain state permits for wetland crossing and subdivision approval,
b. Monument lot corners and any bend points along the property lines,
c. Create final mylar plan for recording.
Mr. Quintal stated his belief that besides the above actions to be completed that all of the conditions of the subdivision regulations have been met regarding this plan.
Allen asked if there was any way to ensure that trees along Heath Street are not cut.
Mr. Quintal explained that the trees between the property line and the edge of the pavement are under the control of the conservation commission. There are no easements currently in place to protect trees. The board must decide if it wants to put conditions in place on the plans to protect trees (i.e. 10 foot buffer zone along property line except at driveway locations). Mr. Quintal explained that the problem with preserving trees resides in the enforcement and policing. In the development process, trees are cut down by mistake. It is difficult to fix that mistake after the fact.
Doggett and White noted that during the conservation commission site walk that the conservation commission members did not see any trees of significant size worth saving except two or three.
Quintal noted that the board must carefully consider driveway locations when considering saving trees. Some trees may need to be cut for safety reasons with regards to traffic sight lines. He pointed out that there are many saplings growing on the lots now that will be larger trees later and create natural buffers.
Doggett explained the board's desire to avoid the look created by the large amount of clear cutting that occurred on the previous project along Heath Street.
White noted that the way that the proposed house locations are shown on the plans would make clear cutting unlikely.
Miles expressed her view that the driveways would be dumping more cars onto Heath Street. She suggested flared ends to the driveways and less vegetation along Heath Street for safety reasons.
Miles added that her larger concern was limiting the total number of families that could live in the duplexes in the future; thereby controlling the amount of cars entering and exiting Heath Street. She did not want someone in the future to use the multi-family label on these units as justification to add onto a single family home or continue splitting the duplexes into more than two units. She suggested adding a note to the plan stating that the houses cannot be further subdivided beyond the two-unit duplexes shown on the plan. She stated her desire to have this note very clearly defined on the mylar plans presented to the board.
White noted that, according to the town's subdivision regulations, if someone wanted to put a single family home on one of the lots, they have the right to add an in-law apartment.
Miles moved to add a note on the mylar plans that the multi-family units shown on the plans are duplexes with no possibility of expansion. Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
Gibbs requested that the board discuss details regarding the underground electric utilities and the road bond for the driveways.
Allen asked who is responsible for installing the electric utilities up a long driveway as opposed to a road and if poles will be used.
Mr. Quintal explained that the electric company is responsible for installation on the street. Off the street and up the long driveway, the board can make the determination of the method of electric utility installation.
Miles stated, in order to be consistent with the subdivision regulations and past experience, the board should not mandate underground electric utilities on this project.
Doggett stated that the board cannot mandate underground electric utilities.
Gibbs next requested the board discuss requiring road bonds for Heath Street. He explained that a new surface recently applied to Heath Street could be damaged during construction of this project.
Mr. Quintal explained that requiring the present owner to obtain a road bond at this time is not feasible because he will not be involved in the construction process. He suggested putting a note on the plan that, prior to issuing a driveway permit, a road bond be obtained by the developer of the lot.
Gibbs suggested that the bond cover the section of road in front of the applicant's lot, not the entire road.
Gibbs moved that a note be added to the plan stating that the person applying for the driveway permit for a particular lot obtain a $5000.00 road bond for the section of road in front of that lot. Second by Allen. Motion carried unanimously.
Allen moved that the board conditionally approve the plan with the following conditions:
1. Applicant obtain state subdivision approval,
2. Applicant obtain state wetland crossing approval,
3. Applicant complete monumentation of lot,
4. Applicant add notes discussed at November 9 meeting of Planning Board to the mylar plan.
Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
3. 125 Development NH Corp. of Plaistow, NH continuation of 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.
Scott Frankiewicz was in attendance to represent the applicant. Mr. McDonough was not present.
Doggett asked Mr. Frankiewicz if he had resolved NPREA account balance issues.
Mr. Frankiewicz stated that he had resolved the discrepancies with the administrative assistant. He also agreed to add $1000.00 to the account for payment of future bills.
Doggett asked Mr. Frankiewicz to clarify the differences between the two sets of NHDES Alteration of Terrain permits.
Mr. Frankiewicz explained that one permit for excavation on Lots 27-3 and 27-4 is approved by the state. A second permit for development of buildings on Lot 27-4 is still under review.
Doggett presented the site walk report by the Conservation Commission for Lot 27-4 to the board for review. He summarized the commission's observations as follows:
a. Silt fences have been repaired or replaced. However, silt fences should be corrected to proper DES standards.
b. Piles of material on property that included construction debris, asphalt, concrete, and rubbish. Concern about dumping foreign material in the middle of an aquifer.
c. Large pile of stumps on the property. Need to see invoices showing stumps hauled away and not buried in the aquifer.
d. Large hole dug on the border of the Lewis Builder 55+ community. The hole appears to be in the no cut buffer and what is purpose of the hole.
Doggett asked Mr. Frankiewicz for clarification on the issues presented in the report.
Mr. Frankiewicz stated that he has discussed all the issues that need to be resolved with Mr. McDonough. He is not sure that Mr. McDonough's operations are the source of the trash. He agreed that the trash needs to be cleaned up. He further stated that the piles of loam, concrete, and asphalt are allowed to be stored on the site.
Gibbs stated that this lot is not a storage lot. A new set of plans needs to be approved for storage.
Doggett explained that the board is concerned that these foreign materials may be used as fill.
Mr. Frankiewicz stated that these materials will not be used as fill.
Doggett asked about the large amount of stumps on the property.
Mr. Frankiewicz explained that these are left over from previous operation that stopped due to cease and desist order. The stumps will be chipped for mulch.
Doggett asked for clarification regarding the large hole near the 55+ development border.
Mr. Frankiewicz stated that the hole is not within the undisturbed buffer zone. The purpose of the hole is the beginning stages of a retention pond shown on plans connected to the excavation permit.
Doggett asked Mr. Frankiewicz to reply to the conservation commission regarding each issue presented in their report. Mr. Frankiewicz agreed to reply to the conservation commission.
White asked Mr. Frankiewicz to provide invoices to the planning board and conservation commission to keep them informed as to the specifics of the stump removal. Mr. Frankiewicz agreed to provide these invoices.
Gibbs suggested that invoices for the debris, concrete, and asphalt piles should also be provided to inform the town about the nature/characteristics of the materials.
Miles asked for clarification as to whether the asphalt or other materials are classified as prohibited or contaminated waste by the state.
Groth stated that he will research the regulations and report back to the board.
Doggett next presented the applicant's request for a reduction in the site plan application fees.
Miles stated that, due to the extended period of time and the many problems presented by this project, numerous hours have been spent by town boards, staff, volunteers, and hired professionals overseeing this project. She is satisfied with the fee schedule as is and does not agree with waiving any fees.
Allen concurred with Miles not to waive or reduce any fees.
Doggett asked Groth for his input regarding the fee schedule.
Groth stated that he and the administrative assistant reviewed the fee schedules of many area towns. His research showed that Newton has one lump sum application fee, while other towns separate the cost in several itemized fees. This made Newton's fee seem larger, when in reality the fees were similar. When comparing Newton's fees on different size buildings to other towns (i.e. North Hampton), Newton's fees are cheaper for smaller buildings, but more expensive for larger buildings. Other town fees do have a maximum limit, while Newton's fees continue to rise as the square footage of the building increases. He suggested that the board could review its fee schedule in light of the evidence presented at this meeting.
Administrative Assistant Rick Milner added that his contacts with other town administrators revealed that some towns may revise their fee schedules in response to the higher costs that the towns are incurring. Also, the town of Windham has a sliding fee schedule based on 1% of the total construction costs of the building.
Groth pointed out that the goal of the fee schedule is to cover the town's costs and not generate any profits.
Mr. Frankiewicz commented that some of the comparisons made are not applicable to the situation in Newton. The other towns have much different levels of business development. A better comparison would be made with towns at similar levels of development as Newton (i.e. Brentwood and Fremont). Also, the request for reduction is not for the project in front of the board at the present time. It is for larger building in second phase of the project.
Groth suggested that the applicant has raised an issue that the board should consider at its next work session.
Mr. Frankiewicz next presented a new conceptual plan for Phase I of the project on Lot 27-4. Due to an oversight, part of a driveway going behind building one crossed onto property in Lot 27-3 owned by a condominium association. Due to the association and Mr. McDonough not coming to an agreement on allowing an easement for the driveway, the plan reconfigures the driveway to lie solely within Lot 27-4.
Mr. Frankiewicz stated that other changes were made to the plan based on review by Town Engineer Mike Vignale and Brian Groth. These changes were:
a. All roads and driveways were widened to 24 feet,
b. Pavement in some areas was lessened to prevent encroachment on the undisturbed buffer.
Doggett asked for clarification on the size of trucks allowed to use revised paved area behind building one.
Mr. Frankiewicz explained that there are no maximum size requirements. However, the area is not large enough for tractor-trailer trucks to use. It would be the responsibility of the business owners to regulate the size of trucks using the rear paved area.
Doggett suggested that a berm or high curbing be added all along back edge of the rear paved area (especially near dumpster at northwest corner) to prevent tractor-trailer trucks from rolling off pavement into wetland area.
Mr. Frankiewicz agreed to add the berm to the plan.
Doggett asked if there will be a culvert connecting the retention ponds going under the driveway.
Mr. Frankiewicz confirmed there will be a culvert.
Groth stated that he had a concern with the dumpster being located too close to the wetlands.
Doggett agreed that the dumpster should be moved as far away from the wetlands as possible.
Mr. Frankiewicz stated that he could move the dumpster closer to the building.
Groth expressed a concern with how stormwater runoff and water drainage off of the paved area will affect the nearby wetlands.
Mr. Frankiewicz explained how NHDES alteration of terrain review requires the developer to show how the water gets cleaned before it gets to the wetlands. The water will be flushed to a sediment trap that cleans the water before it gets discharged out. The retention pond will control the flow of water. The suggested berm will also help in controlling water flow off of the pavement.
White asked if the pavement slopes toward or away from the building.
Mr. Frankiewicz explained that the pavement slopes toward the building. In that way, the water runoff is dealt with on-site before it goes off-site.
White and Doggett suggested, if the dumpster is moved closer to the building, then the berm should be wrapped around the corner of the pavement to prevent the flush of water from flowing around the berm into the wetlands.
Groth asked if a decision has been made regarding the buffer zone between the puzzle factory lot and Lot 27-4.
Doggett explained that no decision has been made yet.
Doggett noted that the snow storage area on the plans crosses onto the gas line easement.
Mr. Frankiewicz stated that he will move the snow storage area off of the gas line easement.
Miles asked if there are any other possible access points to the back end of Lot 27-4, avoiding the pinch point shown on the plans.
Mr. Frankiewicz stated that there are no other possible access points.
Doggett noted, if the board required the 50 foot undisturbed buffer on both sides of the pinch point, then the buffers would overlap each other and present no ability to access the remaining area of the property.
Miles asked Mr. Frankiewicz at what point in the planning process is he with Phase II (larger building in back section).
Mr. Frankiewicz stated that Phase II is at the conceptual stage only. He is concentrating on the smaller buildings in Phase I at this time. The projects are independent of one another.
Miles expressed a concern for the lack of planning for the entire project. The board may be making decisions at this time on Phase I that may have negative consequences when it comes time to develop Phase II.
Mr. Frankiewicz explained that there is no hidden agenda concerning Phase II. There is still uncertainty regarding what size building may or may not be built.
Doggett explained that the board needs better numbers/specifics to make decisions on Phase II when it comes before the board.
Mr. Frankiewicz stated that those determinations can be made at that later time when the specifics are known.
Miles stated that the board cannot keep making exceptions to regulations throughout the planning process as problems occur. Plans for the entire project must be developed sooner to avoid problems that cannot be corrected at a later date without more exceptions (i.e. narrow access road and eroding buffer zones).
White asked if the board had received any input from fire department or other town departments regarding this project and the adequacy of the size of the access road.
Doggett stated that there was no input given at this time.
Miles further stated that the board must have a complete understanding of what is needed for access/egress to a large business development as shown on the plan for Phase II. She expressed concern that the narrow corridor at the pinch point may not be large enough not only for traffic to a large business area, but for the various types of infrastructure that will be included for such a project.
Mr. Frankiewicz suggested that he will get opinions from the fire chief, police chief, and town engineer regarding the adequacy of the size of the access road.
Abutter Jameson Fitzpatrick of 15 Walnut Farm Road addressed the board. Regarding the hole mentioned in the conservation commission report, Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if a violation occurred when the hole was dug.
Doggett explained that, at the time the hole was dug, it was a violation. However, at this time, there is no violation because the proper permits have been obtained.
Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that this project was approved for waivers to the buffer zone in the past and is not a viable project without more waivers to the buffer zone in the future. He stated that too many waiver approvals to the zoning ordinances will have a negative effect on the residential properties surrounding this site.
Doggett responded that the waivers to the buffer zone being discussed at this time are not along the residential properties.
Abutter Arthur Mitchell, president of the condominium association, addressed the board. Mr. Mitchell stated that the association worked intently to negotiate a settlement with Mr. McDonough regarding the driveway easement and parking lot finish work on Lot 27-3. However, the two sides could not come to an agreement.
He further stated that, based on his years of business experience, there was no way to prevent large tractor-trailer trucks from pulling onto Lot 27-3 to access the building on Lot 27-4. This traffic would cause damage to their access road and parking lot.
Mr. Mitchell stated that there were construction items for the condominium association's property still not completed by Mr. McDonough. He asked if there was any code enforcement authority that would require Mr. McDonough to finish the construction work.
Doggett explained that Mr. Mitchell needed to file a complaint with the Board of Selectmen and the code enforcement officer. Code enforcement is not under the planning board's authority.
Allen moved that, once Mr. Mitchell presents the board with a documented list of work on the plan not completed by Mr. McDonough, the planning board will send a memo to the Board of Selectmen to ask code enforcement to review the condominium association's property. Second by Miles. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Mitchell further expressed concern about concrete and rebar being stored close to wetland areas. He is worried about possible contamination from these foreign materials.
Groth asked if the town engineer monitoring this site has submitted any reports with his observations.
Mr. Mitchell asked if Mr. McDonough was allowed to work on the site on Saturdays and Sundays. Mr. Mitchell has witnessed trucks entering and exiting the site on Saturdays and Sundays.
Doggett explained that there are hours of operation attached to the excavation permit. Mr. Mitchell needs to call the police or code enforcement with an official complaint.
Mr. Mitchell noted that better oversight of the project on Lot 27-4 is needed at all times.
Mr. Frankiewicz responded that the contamination issue is connected to Lot 27-3, not 27-4. It should not be tied into discussions concerning Lot 27-4. It needs to be dealt with separately. He further explained that the excavation permit allows for hours of operation on Saturday, but not on Sunday.
Mr. Frankiewicz requested that the board finalize its decisions regarding the undisturbed buffer between the two commercial properties and the width of the roadway.
Miles stated that the town needs more time to review the project and consult with the fire chief and other town officials.
Miles moved to continue the public hearing to the December 14 public hearing. Second by Allen. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Town of Newton, NH review of a proposed addition to the Newton Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Village District Zoning.
Doggett requested that the board consider encumbering $5000.00 for matching funds for targeted block grant.
Miles moved that the board encumber $5000.00 for matching funds connected to the RPC/MPO (FWHA) grant application for contracting an engineering consultant to provide information on proposed roadway improvements in support of village district zoning implementation. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
Groth presented a revised copy of the village district road design study proposal based on discussions by the board at the previous work session. The major changes in the proposal are how design alternatives will be presented and more specific dates of completion for tasks in the project schedule.
Allen asked if the RPC or the town will supervise the bidding process.
Groth explained that there are a few options as to how the bidding can be handled. The most efficient option would be for the RPC, based on its expertise, to narrow down the choices for the board to consider. The board would then make the final selection.
White asked if the RPC had any prior experience with how many proposals they expect to be submitted.
Groth stated that he did not have any prior history to make an estimate. However, there was already some word of mouth interest spreading within the local engineering community.
Doggett stated that the most efficient selection process would be for the RPC to narrow down the number of submissions to a manageable number for the board to consider. White concurred.
Miles stated that the board should work with the RPC to explore five applicants to make a final selection.
Allen asked if the state Department of Transportation would participate or be informed about the process.
Groth explained that the grant is being issued by the DOT. There is a DOT qualification process to follow. A report on the project will be submitted to the DOT.
Miles commended Groth for the work he has performed on this project.
Doggett stated that the December 17 cutoff date for submitted applications should be moved to December 20 since town hall is closed on December 17. The board came to a consensus to change the application deadline to December 20.
White moved to allow the RPC to vet submitted applicants for the village district road design study to arrive at 3-5 candidates to present to the planning board for final selection. Second by Miles. Motion carried unanimously.
Doggett noted that final language for warrant article needed to be presented to the board for approval in time to be submitted for the official town meeting ballot.
Miles moved to continue the public hearing to the November 23 work session. Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
Groth released at 9:19 pm.
5. Other board business. White asked to have the minutes of October 26 meeting amended to add to her comments. Additions are noted in bold type below:
"With regards to notice of decisions, White asked if there is a process in place to ensure that conditions on approvals are met by developers, such as a tickler file for stated deadlines. White also asked if there was a section of the Planning Board Rules and Procedures regarding voting of alternates. There is a new RSA that mandates voting procedures for alternates. This needs to be written into the board's procedures."
"White stated that she will provide a copy of the East Kingston rules and procedures from other towns as a guideline to use."
White moved to accept the minutes of the October 26 meeting as amended. Second by Allen. Motion carried unanimously with Miles abstaining.
Doggett asked if board members had any comments regarding incoming correspondence. There were no comments.
6. Public comments. Sandra Hodge Sawyer of 5 Jacob's Way came to the board with a complaint regarding Jacob's Village. Doggett directed her to submit an official complaint for code enforcement with the Board of Selectmen.
Ms. Hodge Sawyer also asked the board for specifics concerning public trails in the area around Sarah's Way. Gibbs responded that there was no public property off of Sarah's Way. The only public property is the Sarah's Way road bed itself.
7. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 9:31 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rick Milner
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
