NEWTON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF PUBLIC MEETING
OCTOBER 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 Chair Barbara White; Planning Board members Frank Gibbs, Ann Miles, Kim Vaillant, and Robert Miller; Alternates Sandra Estabrook, Charles Melvin, and Chuck Whitman; and Circuit Rider Planner Brian Groth. Minutes were transcribed by Administrative Assistant Rick Milner.
2. Town of Newton, NH preliminary consultation regarding land use and site plan implications of reconstruction plans at 99 Amesbury Road.
Todd Fitzgerald was present to represent the property owner. Property owner John Lampropoulos was present.
Mr. Fitzgerald addressed the Board. He stated that the structure was burned in a fire. He will be rebuilding the interior of the burnt structure within the existing footprint.
Doggett asked if any Board members had questions about the site. No questions were raised.
Doggett asked Mr. Fitzgerald if there were any plans for changing the existing footprint or land usage.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated that no changes would be made to the existing footprint or land usage.
Doggett stated that, unless some sort of land usage change (such as the property being used for commercial purposes) occurred, the Board had no concerns regarding the reconstruction plans for the site.
3. Town of Newton, NH preliminary consultation and pre-application review of proposed change in land use.
- Nick DeRoche and Henry Olshefsky – 85 South Main Street. Proposed addition of outside deck at Hen House Restaurant.
Engineer Dennis Quintal was present to represent the business owners. Mr. DeRoche and Mr. Olshefsky were not present. Melvin stepped down from the Board.
Mr. Quintal stated that he prepared a more detailed plan for the proposed addition of an outside deck at the restaurant in response to the comments of the Board at a previous meeting. He noted that the deck would be added to the front of the building. There would be no changes in usage and seating requirements. The revised plan accounts for setbacks, grading/sloping, and drainage.
Miles asked how the handicap ramp off the deck met the parking lot and access road around the building.
Mr. Quintal explained how the revised plan showed the landing area of the handicap ramp was relocated to a more protected position away from possible approaching traffic.
Doggett asked about changes in noise and lighting requirements due to the deck addition.
Mr. Quintal stated that he could not address noise and lighting issues. He assumed that the restaurant owners would have to comply with town regulations just like any other person.
Doggett asked how the deck addition would affect seating requirements.
Mr. Quintal stated that there would be no change to the seating requirements.
Doggett asked Groth if he had any comments.
Groth stated that he saw no issues with the proposal.
Doggett suggested that a notation indicating that the seating occupancy for the restaurant will remain the same be included on the revised plan.
Milner asked the Board for direction on the proper procedure to follow regarding the deck addition.
Doggett suggested that the restaurant owners needed to file an application with the Board. However, the need for application or the type of application was a decision for the entire Board to determine.
Vaillant stated that since:
- the activities that will occur are the same as the current activities,
- there will be no increase in the number of patrons, and
- the property was commercially zoned,
an application was not necessary. She noted that an abutter was present and could provide input.
Abutter Charles Melvin stated that the proposal seeks to take the business operations from inside the building to outside the building. Currently, music plays and lights are on into the early morning hours. He would like a solid wall facing his property added to reduce noise and lighting problems.
Doggett stated that the activity the Board was currently performing was an amended site plan review without proper noticing or public hearing. An application for an amended site plan should be submitted. The appropriate procedures for such an application should be followed.
White stated that abutters should be given the opportunity to speak at a public hearing due to the likelihood of increased noise issues at the location.
Miles stated that the location is commercially zoned and commercial activities currently occur. There will be no change on the property in that the same commercial activities will continue to occur. She does not see a problem with the proposal. Abutters have other avenues to mitigate noise (such as calling police). The proposal is in order. The Board merely needs to inform the Building Department that the restaurant may proceed with the deck addition.
Vaillant moved that the proposal for a deck addition to the Hen House Restaurant does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and is solely within the purview of the Building Department. Second by Miles. Motion failed 3-3 with White, Doggett, and Gibbs opposed.
Doggett asked Groth for input on procedural options for the Board.
Groth stated that the Board had two options:
- allow the proposal to proceed to the Building Department or
- require a minor site plan review for an amended site plan.
Miller moved that the proposal for a deck addition to the Hen House Restaurant be classified as an amended site plan and follow the procedures for a minor non-residential site plan review. Second by Gibbs.
Discussion of motion –
Miles stated that the Board is extending its boundaries of influence.
Miller stated that the abutters should be heard. However, he is concerned that the restaurant owners will be required to pay fees unnecessarily.
Doggett suggested that the Board has the ability to waive any fees that it deems unnecessary.
Vaillant and White suggested that all fees except those for required notices and Planning Board expenses be waived.
Motion carried 4-2 with Miles and Vaillant opposed.
Miller moved to waive any fees associated with the Hen House Restaurant deck addition minor non-residential site plan review except those for required notices and Planning Board expenses. Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
Quintal asked the Board how the plan should be presented to the Board in the minor site plan review application and which requirements needed to be followed.
Doggett suggested that a plan showing the entire site with the proposed deck included be presented in addition to the deck details plan. The applicants may present waivers to the Board for any other minor site plan review procedures that they deem unnecessary.
Melvin returned to the Board.
4. Town of Newton, NH review of structure and driveway reconfigurations at Sargent Woods condominium community.
Joshua Manning, Harold Morse, and Robert Levine of Lewis Builders were present. Vaillant stepped down from the Board. Melvin released at 7:38 pm. Doggett appointed Estabrook to stand in for Vaillant.
Doggett presented correspondence from the Town Counsel regarding legal parameters and definitions of what constitutes minor revisions or substantial change in order to provide guidance to the Board in its determination of whether or not to proceed with amended site plan review procedures.
Doggett stated his interpretation that, with regards to cluster and condominium zoning, the developer is required to strictly adhere to the location of buildings noted in the site plan. If buildings move, then the developer is out of compliance with the approved site plan. Doggett referenced the following excerpts from the Town Counsel's letter:
- "Concluding, if the proposed revisions to the original recorded plan require the exercise of Planning Board discretion to approve or not approve those revisions, a hearing pursuant to RSA 676:4, 1(d) is required."
- "To the extent the revisions substantially change the location of the building footprints and access, they are subject to this additional scrutiny and review."
Doggett further stated that the entire Board needed to make a determination as to whether the structure and driveway reconfigurations constituted:
- substantial change that required a minor non-residential site plan review for an amended site plan or
- inconsequential revisions that merely needed to be represented on an as-built plan.
Groth noted that the Board is not bound to one procedure over another. The proper method for proceeding is open to the interpretation of the Board members.
White stated that the changes were all incurring within the confines of the development. A public hearing was not necessary because abutters were not affected by the changes.
Miles stated that the Board should receive input from groups such as the Conservation Commission and Rockingham Planning Commission to provide further expertise to the Board to help the Board determine how to proceed on such an important planning activity.
Doggett suggested that, due to the Board's divided opinions regarding the Sargent Woods site changes, the Board ask the RPC to review the plan and give the Board an opinion as to whether the changes shown on the plan are substantial or inconsequential.
Groth stated that he has expressed his opinion that the changes are not substantial. However, if the Board so requests, he will have others at the RPC review the plan to provide input.
Estabrook asked if the change of a maintenance building area to a proposed RV storage area was an inconsequential or substantial change.
Doggett stated that the changes proposed for the entire site are substantial and require a minor non-residential site plan review for an amended site plan. He further stated that the Board should accept the changes proposed by Lewis Builders during this review process. The final Board-approved version of the Sargent Woods revised plan should be recorded at the County Registry. The developer should be made fully aware that any further changes not in compliance with the approved site plan will require Planning Board approval prior to construction.
Gibbs asked for input from the Chief Building Official Ron LeMere regarding his criteria for approving building locations in the Sargent Woods community.
Mr. LeMere stated that Lewis Builders received approval from the Planning Board for a new type of building structure. There is no way for the Building Department to determine if a different type of building structure will fit into the exact same foundation footprint of the original buildings indicated in the original site plan. When the foundation system is installed, the primary concern of the building inspector is whether the foundation meets the required setbacks. The only requirement under the jurisdiction of the Building Department is whether the building meets the setbacks. The Building Department has the documentation on file that the buildings do meet the required setbacks. The Planning Board needs to determine whether the changes are minor or substantial. In his opinion, the changes are minor.
Resident Kim Vaillant stated that the activity the Board is currently performing falls within the scope of project management. She believes that the Board should not be involved in project management of the Sargent Woods site. Based on the expert opinions expressed by the Chief Building Official and the Circuit Rider Planner, she finds the changes proposed by Lewis Builders to be reasonable and minor in nature.
Doggett noted that, with respect to cluster type developments, the project must be built in a manner consistent with the recorded plan. He believes that the building location changes are substantial. The Board should hold noticed public hearings to produce a revised plan for recording at the County Registry to ensure the accuracy of the documents for the Sargent Woods project.
Mr. Levine of Lewis Builders addressed the Board. He stated that the as-built building locations are consistent with the original recorded plan. The substantial elements of the recorded plan (such as setbacks, location of roads and drainage) have not changed. He also noted that Lewis Builders has complied with state statutes regarding the proper recording of the as-built building locations with the Attorney General's office and the County Registry.
Gibbs noted that there are no exact measurements for the location of the buildings indicated on the original site plan. The as-built plans provided by Lewis Builders have exact measurements. The Board should not be trying to hold Lewis Builders to building locations that were not clearly defined on the original site plan.
Estabrook suggested that the original site plan approval documents should be reviewed prior to the Board deciding to proceed with a minor non-residential review.
White stated that, based on the information presented in the current discussion, she has changed her opinion. A public hearing on this matter may be necessary.
Miles asked Mr. LeMere what the Board can do to help ensure that units are properly placed as the project continues.
Mr. LeMere responded that improving communications between the Building Department, the Planning Board, and the Town Engineer will give the Building Inspector more precise direction and help coordinate actions to address each department's responsibilities and concerns.
The Board came to a unanimous consensus that the Building Department should have increased access to the Town Engineer to improve communications and ensure site plan compliance.
4. Other Board business.
a. 2012 Proposed Operating Budget.
Milner presented the 2012 Planning Board Proposed Operating Budget and 2011 expenditures to date to the Board. He noted the only change being the increase in RPC dues.
Gibbs suggested creating a level funded budget with funds being moved from another budget line into the RPC Dues budget line.
White moved for the Planning Board to submit a level funded 2012 Proposed Fiscal Budget to the Board of Selectmen for approval. The proposed budget will be amended to move $50.00 from Office Supplies line to RPC Dues line to cover possible increase in 2012. Second by Miller. Motion carried unanimously.
b. Acceptance of minutes.
White moved to accept the minutes of the September 27 meeting. Second by Miller. Motion carried unanimously.
c. Manifests.
Doggett presented the NPREA manifest to the Board. The invoices reflected payment of legal ad for public hearing and refund of unused fees for accessory apartment application.
White moved to pay the NPREA manifest amounts of $85.80 and $145.67. Second by Miles. Motion carried unanimously.
d. Correspondence.
Doggett presented a letter from Town Counsel updating the status of the Walnut Farm Road acceptance process.
Milner informed the Board of the Social Media Policy recently adopted by the Town of Newton.
5. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rick Milner
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
