NEWTON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING
JANUARY 11, 2011
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 Ann Miles and Frank Gibbs; and Circuit rider Planner Brian Groth. Minutes were transcribed by Administrative Assistant Rick Milner.
2. Keith Hart of Newton, NH requests a public hearing to change the designation of the parcel of land as shown on Newton Tax Maps as Map 6, Block 5, Lot 11 from being part of and in the Residential A zone to being part of and in the Commercial zone.
Doggett re-opened the public hearing. Doggett read the citizens petition regarding Mr. Hart's property. Doggett asked Mr. Hart if he would like to comment on the petition.
Mr. Hart stated that he had nothing to add as long as the board was in support of the petition. It has been his experience that residents cast their vote according to the board recommendation on the ballot.
Milner stated Mr. Hart was requesting that his property be included in the Village District zone and petitioning to be a part of the Commercial zone. He asked how the board was going to handle this conflict.
Miles stated that she was against spot zoning one piece of property as commercial within a residential zone. It sets a bad precedent. The board needs to better understand the future implications of approving spot zoning. Miles was in favor of adding Mr. Hart's property to the Village District zone.
Mr. Hart responded that approval of his petition would not constitute spot zoning since the rear of his property abuts commercially zoned property.
Gibbs stated that he was in favor of allowing Mr. Hart's property to be within the Commercial zone because it abuts existing commercial property. Also, there are other properties in Newton that are spot zoned as commercial properties.
Miles stated that the history of zoning in Newton has been erratic with many instances of grandfathering and spot zoning. There needs to be some organization and consistency brought back to the process of zoning in Newton.
Doggett stated that he would prefer that Mr. Hart's property be included within the Village District zone and not zoned as strictly commercial. This would allow more flexibility for uses of the property going forward. Doggett also suggested that a conditional use permit for a home based business was a better alternative than changing the zoning of the property.
Groth noted that the board was not trying to deny Mr. Hart specific uses for his property. The board was attempting to find the proper way for Mr. Hart's intended uses to conform to regulations.
Miles noted that there may be confusion among voters regarding Mr. Hart's property being proposed for two different zones. In order to avoid any confusion, she suggested that Mr. Hart try to change the language of his petition or withdraw the petition at the deliberative session. She also re-stated her support of Mr. Hart's property being included within the Village District Zone.
Mr. Hart stated that his petition is his attempt to conform to the regulations. He would prefer to keep his petition as written in case the village district proposal does not get approved by the voters.
Doggett and White agreed with Miles' suggestion for Mr. Hart to try to change the petition language at the deliberative session.
Doggett declared public hearing closed.
3. Newton Grange of Newton, NH requests a public hearing regarding a proposal for the establishment of a Newton Agricultural Commission.
Doggett re-opened the public hearing.
Milner asked for clarification on the RSA references indicated in the petition. During the proof reading process of the petition, some of the RSA references could not be found.
Groth suggested that the some of the RSA references may be obsolete and consolidated under other reference numbers.
White suggested that the article be sent to the DRA for proof reading.
Doggett declared public hearing closed.
4. Town of Newton, NH requests a public hearing to review proposal for the creation of village district zones in the areas of Rowe's Corner, Central Main Street, and Newton Junction.
Doggett re-opened the public hearing. Doggett presented revised draft of proposal based on changes made at last meeting.
White asked what the rationale for changing the building setbacks at the last meeting was. At the present time, the buildings in these areas have a uniform appearance along the roadway. She stated that changing the setbacks will result in an uneven/irregular look to the areas.
Groth disagreed with the setback changes that were made at the last meeting. They do not relate to the historical characteristics of the buildings or the intent of the village district proposal.
Gibbs stated that there was only a 10 foot difference between the two different setback proposals.
Groth stated that the difference was far greater than 10 feet. The original setback proposal provided for a minimum 15 foot setback off of the front lot line. The setback changes could result in a minimum 50 foot setback off of the front lot line. This change was a significant difference. At the present time, some of the properties could not achieve the larger setback.
White stated that she was not in favor of the changes that could create larger setback distances.
Gibbs stated that putting homes closer to the road could create a safety issue.
Groth stated that one goal of the village district proposal was to maintain and/or bring back the historical characteristics of the areas. The setback changes are contrary to this intention.
Miles agreed with Groth's statements. Looking at the parcels individually, there is little space for changes to be made. The setbacks cannot be achieved in many instances. She further stated that it is not feasible to apply the same setback specifications of large rural properties on the smaller properties of the village areas.
White moved that the words in Section 3c(1) – Dimensional Requirements be changed to "All buildings shall be setback a minimum of fifteen feet (15') from lot lines other than the front lot line; and shall have a setback of between fifteen feet (15') and thirty feet (30') from the front lot line." Second by Miles. Motion carried 3-1 with Gibbs opposed.
Miles asked if it was possible to include the remaining available elderly housing units in the Village District Zone.
Doggett stated that the matter of available elderly housing units was being reviewed by the town counsel at this time.
Doggett presented the language for the town ballot question regarding the Village District zone. Milner read the question language.
White moved to approve the town ballot question language and present the question for inclusion on the town ballot. Second by Miles. Motion carried unanimously.
Doggett declared public hearing closed.
5. 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.
Mr. Frankiewicz presented revised plans based on his discussions with the board at the previous public hearing regarding this project. Mr. Frankiewicz explained the major changes shown on this version of the plans. The changes are as follows:
- cul-de-sac at end of driveway will be paved,
- signs added to direct delivery trucks and stop trucks from entering behind building #1,
- snow storage area added behind building #1,
- per the board's request, the hours of construction operation will be added to the plans.
Gibbs stated that paving of the cul-de-sac was not noted on the plans.
Mr. Frankiewicz stated that he will add the notes indicating that the cul-de-sac will be paved.
Doggett asked for circuit rider planner comments.
Groth stated that he had briefly reviewed the plans. He had no issues at the present time.
Miles asked for clarification regarding the 50 foot undisturbed natural buffer between the puzzle factory property and Lot 27-4. She wanted to make sure that no trees would be planted along buffer.
Mr. Frankiewicz explained no trees would be planted. The area would be landscaped with grass only.
Miles asked for clarification regarding work around the gas line easement.
Mr. Frankiewicz explained that construction activities will not approach or encroach upon the gas line easement. The construction will be parallel to the gas line easement.
Doggett asked for abutter comments. Jaime Fitzpatrick of 15 Walnut Farm Road addressed the board.
Mr. Fitzpatrick asked what will be the construction hours of operation.
Mr. Frankiewicz stated that the construction hours of operation will be Monday thru Friday 7am – 6pm, Saturday 7am-3pm, and Sunday No Work.
Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if the board had made a decision regarding the 50 foot undisturbed natural buffer requirement along the roadway at the pinch point of the lot.
Doggett stated that the board had not yet made a decision regarding the 50 foot undisturbed natural buffer. Doggett explained that the definition of an undisturbed buffer, with regards to this project, needed to be clarified. The board can interpret the ordinance language of "any other zone" as meaning a different zone, not the same zone.
Groth stated that the intent of the zoning language was to provide buffers between zones that permitted different uses (i.e. residential versus light industrial/commercial). Since the lot line in question (between the puzzle factory property and Lot 27-4) separated two properties within the same zone, the buffer was not necessary.
White moved that, only as it pertains to the proposed plan for Puzzle Lane Lot 27-4 Phase I project (Tax Map 14, Block 1, Lot 27-4), the 50 foot undisturbed natural buffer applies only where different zones abut each other. Since the lot line in question (the lot line separating the puzzle factory property referenced as Tax Map 14, Block 1, Lot 27 and Lot 27-4 Phase I) separates lots that are both within the Light Industrial/Commercial Zone, the 50 foot undisturbed natural buffer is not required. Second by Miles. Motion carried unanimously.
Doggett asked Mr. Fitzpatrick if he had any further comments.
Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that the rules are not always the rules.
Doggett asked Mr. Frankiewicz to provide receipts for stump removals.
Mr. Frankiewicz did not have any receipts at this time.
Mr. Frankiewicz asked if the board would consider giving conditional approval to this project.
Doggett stated that more review of the plans was needed before the board could consider voting on approval of the project. Items such as town engineer review, notes added to plans, and expert stamps still needed to be completed.
White moved to continue the public hearing to the February 8, 2011 public hearing. Second by Miles. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Town of Newton, NH review of RPC vetted firms applying as consultants for road design study.
Groth presented the five finalists for the road design study to the board. He stated that the five proposals were all excellent. Each finalist was worthy of an interview. Groth explained the criteria used for selection of the finalists were as follows:
- experience working with towns similar in scope, size, and character to Newton; especially locally,
- experience designing roundabouts,
- ability to recognize how the traffic improvements connect with the village district concept.
Miles stated that the board should allow enough time during the interview process for the board to ask adequate amount of questions to enhance the board's knowledge in these matters.
White asked Groth if he looked into the professional reputations and references of the final candidates.
Groth explained that he reviewed the work experience and references of the final candidates.
Gibbs left meeting at 9:20pm. Doggett appointed Milner to stand in for Pettit for remainder of the meeting.
The board came to a consensus to interview the final candidates at the January 25, 2011 meeting.
White moved to approve the list of final candidates applying as consultants for road design study. Second by Miles. Motion carried unanimously.
Groth released at 9:45pm.
7. Other board business
a. Board recommendation of town warrant articles.
Milner moved to place the citizens' petition regarding Keith Hart's property at 5 Crane Crossing on the Town Warrant. Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
Milner moved for the board to recommend the citizens' petition regarding Keith Hart's property at 5 Crane Crossing. Second by Doggett. The board voted 4-0 Not to Recommend the petition.
Miles moved to place the citizens' petition regarding the Agricultural Commission on the Town Warrant. Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
Miles moved for the board to recommend the citizens' petition regarding the Agricultural Commission. Second by White. The board voted 4-0 to Recommend the petition.
Miles moved to place the petition of the Planning Board regarding Village District zones on the Town Warrant. Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
Miles moved for the board to recommend the petition of the Planning Board regarding Village District Zones. Second by White. The board voted 4-0 to Recommend the petition.
b. Manifests
Doggett presented the operating budget manifest to the board. The invoices reflected payment of legal notice advertisements, office supplies, and the first installment of the circuit rider planner contract.
Miles moved to pay the operating budget manifest amount of $6,473.03. Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
Doggett presented the NPREA manifest to the board. The manifest indicated the payment of a legal advertisement.
Miles moved to pay the NPREA manifest amount of $50.05. Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
Miles asked for clarification on the board correspondence regarding 14 and 16 Amesbury Road. She stated that the owner may be exceeding the limits of the approved uses for the property.
Doggett explained that the board has requested that the owner come before the board for a site plan review before he begins any new uses for the property.
Doggett reviewed the correspondence regarding multiple home based businesses at 8 Sarah's Way.
Milner noted that he explained the process for obtaining approval for a home based business to the property owner.
White suggested that the administrative assistant should contact the property owner and present her different options to resolve the situation.
Miles stated that the board should listen to the questions of the property owner at a meeting.
6. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 10:11 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rick Milner
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
