NEWTON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING AND WORK SESSION
NOVEMBER 22, 2011
1. Call to Order: Chairman Jim Doggett called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm.
In attendance were: Chairman Jim Doggett; Planning Board member Ann Miles; Alternates Sandra Estabrook, Charles Melvin, Mary Allen, and Chuck Whitman; BOS ex-officio Trisha McCarthy; and Circuit Rider Planner Brian Groth. Minutes were transcribed by Administrative Assistant Rick Milner.
Doggett appointed Allen to stand in for Vaillant.
Doggett appointed Estabrook to stand in for White.
Doggett appointed Melvin to stand in for Miller
Doggett appointed Whitman to stand in for Gibbs.
2. Town of Newton, NH joint meeting of Planning Board, Board of Selectmen, and Chief Building Official to discuss the responsibilities of relevant town departments to ensure construction compliance to approved site plans.
Chief Building Official Ron LeMere was present.
Trisha McCarthy was present to represent the Board of Selectmen.
Gibbs arrived at 7:07 pm.
Doggett explained that the Planning Board was attempting to develop a process for ensuring that buildings were located in compliance with the approved site plan prior to the buildings being constructed. This meeting was being held to determine the responsibility of each Town department for verifying that the building location was in compliance with the approved site plan.
McCarthy stated that the Board of Selectmen wants to ensure that the people doing the jobs are the appropriate people to perform that function. The Selectmen want to avoid risk to the Town of a person doing a job that they are not licensed or equipped to perform. The verification of the building location is not a Building Department function. The appropriate person to verify building locations is a licensed land surveyor, not the Building Inspector or the Town Engineer.
Allen stated that the proposed building location verification process allows the Planning Board and the Town Engineer to make informed decisions. If needed, they may ask for the assistance of a land surveyor. Each project can be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Milner stated the Town Engineer is already tasked with ensuring that the roads, drainage, and other features are located and constructed according to the approved site plan. There is no requirement to have a land surveyor verify the location of these important site plan features. Adding the responsibility of verifying the building locations is within the Town Engineer's abilities and expertise. The additional task would not add significant time or cost to existing required inspections. There are funds and liability coverage already put in place to cover his activities.
Doggett explained that the proposed building location verification process is similar to a process already being conducted at the Puzzle Lane project.
Melvin stated that the proposed process performed by the Town Engineer would be adding a second inspection and cost to a function (location verification) that can be performed by the Building Inspector during his inspection at no additional cost.
Gibbs stated that the person who is creating the foundation certification must review the site plan and certify that the foundation is in conformance with the site plan. This is the only process or requirement that needs to be implemented.
Mr. LeMere addressed the Board. Mr. LeMere suggested an inspection prior to the construction of the foundation with a land surveyor present. The burden will be placed on the surveyor to certify that the building location is in conformance with the site plan at this pre-construction inspection. The developer should provide the Town a pre-construction document that will certify that the building location conforms to the site plan.
Miles stated that she agrees with the Building Inspector that the responsibility lies with the professional surveyor and his ethical obligation to do what is correct under the guidelines of the certification process. If a building location has moved even four feet off the location indicated on the approved site plan, the developer has an ethical obligation to notify the Planning Board.
Doggett stated that the foundation certifications should reference the building location conformance to the approved site plan, not the zoning setbacks.
Gibbs agreed with Doggett. He stated that the solution to ensuring the proper building locations is to require that the foundation certifications reference conformance with the approved site plan.
Mr. Manning stated that he could reference conformance to the site plan on the foundation certifications.
Mr. LeMere stated that strict guidelines and tolerance thresholds need to be developed by the Planning Board to give the Building Department clear guidance as to what does and does not conform to the site plan.
Doggett stated that, since guidelines and tolerances have not been established, the current threshold is zero tolerance.
Mr. Manning stated that, as a licensed land surveyor, he is performing his duties in an ethical manner and is conforming to the Town's regulations. He cannot be held responsible for the movement of a structure by the builder during construction after he, as a surveyor, has certified its location prior to construction.
3. Henry Olshefsky of Danville, NH continuation of a public hearing for a minor non-residential site plan review (proposed addition of outdoor deck for Hen House Sports Bar & Grille) at 85 South Main Street. The property is referenced as Tax Map 13, Block 2, Lot 24.
Melvin stepped down from the Board.
Doggett appointed Whitman to stand in for Melvin.
Henry Olshefsky and Nick DeRoche were not able to attend the meeting.
Doggett presented the proposed deck plan to the Board and asked for abutter comment.
Abutter Charles Melvin requested that the Board continue the public hearing to a later date because the applicants were not present to answer questions about possible issues with the site (such as lighting and noise).
Doggett explained that the applicants had answered questions regarding lighting and noise at previous meetings. If it so desires, the Board may proceed with approval of the amended plan.
Miles moved to accept the amended site plan for the proposed addition of an outdoor deck at the Hen House Sports Bar & Grille. Second by Allen.
Discussion of motion – Miles stated that the Board should proceed with approval since the property is commercially zoned and is in compliance with the commercial zoning regulations. It is not necessary to require a continuance of the hearing.
Gibbs suggested the following condition of approval:
- a note will be added to the plan and the notice of decision stating that there will be no increase in seating capacity as a result of the deck approval.
The Board came to a consensus without objection to add the seating capacity note to the amended site plan and the notice of decision.
The motion carried 5-2 with Whitman and Gibbs opposed.
Doggett closed the public hearing.
Melvin returned to the Board.
4. Joshua Manning of Atkinson, NH on behalf of Lewis Builders Development, Inc. requests a public hearing for a minor site plan review (amended site plan for structure and driveway reconfigurations) at the Sargent Woods condominium community located on Bootland Farm Road off of Smith Corner Road. The property is referenced as Tax Map 8, Block 3, Lot 11.
Joshua Manning and Robert Levine were present to represent Lewis Builders.
Doggett opened the public hearing. Doggett presented the amended site plan indicating the structure and driveway reconfigurations at the Sargent Woods condominium community and notes added as the result of the Conservation Commission's site walk.
Gibbs stated that the note indicating the entrance to the Trolley Track Trail will be made accessible to the neighborhood for pedestrian use could be misinterpreted to allow the public to pass on private property.
Mr. Manning responded that the note refers to residents of the Sargent Woods neighborhood only.
Gibbs moved to make the following changes in note # 4 on the amended site plan:
- add the words "Sargent Woods" prior to "neighborhood" and
- change the name "Peanut Trail" to "Trolley Track Trail."
Second by Melvin. Motion carried 5-2 with Miles and Estabrook opposed.
Doggett suggested that a note be added to the amended site plan indicating that the building foundation certifications will include language specifying the approved amended site plan.
Gibbs moved to add the following note to the amended site plan:
"7. The foundation certifications will specifically reference the approved amended site plan for foundation locations."
Second by Melvin.
Discussion of motion – McCarthy suggested that, since Mr. LeMere may be charged with ensuring that the building locations conform to the amended site plan, Mr. LeMere should provide input for the language included in the note before the Board passes specific language.
Groth suggested the following language: "The foundation certifications shall indicate adherence to the site plan."
Mr. LeMere asked the Board for direction regarding the tolerance level for building locations adhering to the amended site plan.
Doggett stated that there would be a zero tolerance level. The buildings must be located exactly according to the amended site plan.
Mr. Manning requested that an allowable tolerance level for moving a building would be that 50% of the constructed building would fall within the building footprint indicated on the site plan. This would help overcome obstructions that naturally occur in the field.
Doggett responded that such a tolerance level was not acceptable.
Gibbs stated that Mr. Manning's scenario was reasonable.
Mr. Manning asked the Board for specifics regarding the process for determining if the building location adheres to the amended site plan within the zero tolerance level.
Doggett explained that the process is still being discussed by the Board. The process has not been determined. Doggett asked Mr. LeMere if the Building Department will be looking at foundation locations in its current inspections.
Mr. LeMere explained that the Building Department will perform soil and footing inspections after the hole for the foundation is dug. The Building Department will not be looking at the foundation location. It will be the responsibility of the surveyor to certify that the foundation meets the requirements of the zoning ordinances.
Miles stated that the buildings should be located as indicated on the plan. It is not difficult to place the buildings within a couple of inches of the location indicated on the plan.
Mr. Manning stated that the issue is not the ability to match the actual building location to the location indicated on the site plan. The issue is what should be done when field conditions or a natural obstruction prohibits the placement of the building exactly in conformance to the site plan.
Mr. LeMere stated that in order for him to develop a building location verification procedure, the Board must provide a specific tolerance threshold for determining what is an allowable minor change in building location or an unallowable substantial change in building location.
Allen suggested a maximum tolerance level of two (2) feet.
Doggett stated that the Planning Board is trying to maintain consistent procedures with all developers. The Board cannot make exceptions because it is holding other developers to strict conformance to their site plans.
The Board came to a majority consensus to establish a two (2) foot tolerance threshold (while still meeting all required setbacks) for determining an allowable minor change from the approved site plan for a building location.
Mr. Manning stated that he is comfortable with a zero tolerance threshold as long as there is a process in place to approve changes on site when obstructions occur. He would like to avoid having to develop an amended site plan every time a site obstruction occurs.
Miles, Melvin, and Whitman stated their support for a zero tolerance threshold.
Melvin and McCarthy stated that there should be a zero tolerance threshold with the Building Inspector having the authority to allow up to a two (2) foot variance if an issue develops with a particular foundation.
Doggett suggested that the language for the note be revised as follows:
"7. The foundation certifications will adhere to the site plan with zero percent tolerance. The Planning Board authorizes the Building Inspector to accept up to a two (2) foot variation for due cause. Any variation without cause or in excess of two (2) feet must come before the Planning Board for approval."
Gibbs approved of the friendly amendment to his motion.
Motion carried 6-1 with Miles opposed.
Allen moved to accept the amended site plan for structure and driveway reconfigurations at the Sargent Woods condominium community conditioned upon the notes required by the Board being added to the mylar for recording. Second by Melvin.
Discussion of motion – Miles stated that accepting the amended site plan is a disservice to the Town of Newton and the review process that established the original site plan. The developer should have built according to the original plan that they purchased. The Planning Board should not agree to change the process that was previously established.
Motion carried 6-1 with Miles opposed.
Allen moved to send a memo to the Board of Selectmen, Building Department, Town Engineer, and Rockingham Planning Commission notifying the departments of the tolerance thresholds determined by the Board and asking the departments to provide input regarding the building location verification process. Second by Melvin. Motion carried 6-1 with Miles opposed.
Doggett closed the public hearing.
Groth released at 9:25 pm.
5. Town of Newton, NH review of Walnut Farm Road for acceptance as a town road.
Attorney Jeffrey Merrill was present to represent Maplevale Builders.
Doggett presented a letter from Mr. Merrill requesting that the Town of Newton accept Walnut Farm Road as a Town road. Doggett also presented letters from the Town Counsel, the Town Engineer, and the Town Road Agent recommending acceptance of Walnut Farm Road.
Allen moved to send a memo to the Board of Selectmen recommending acceptance of Walnut Farm Road as a Town road. Second by Miles. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Other Board business.
a. Acceptance of minutes.
Allen moved to accept the minutes of the November 8 meeting. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried 6-0 with Miles abstaining.
b. Manifests.
Doggett presented an operating budget manifest to the Board. The invoice reflected payment of telephone bill.
Gibbs moved to pay the operating budget manifest in the amount of $57.15. Second by Melvin. Motion carried unanimously.
Doggett presented a NPREA manifest to the Board. The manifest reflected refunds of unused NPREA fees approved by the Board at the previous meeting.
Gibbs moved to pay the NPREA manifest in the amount of $553.21. Second by Melvin. Motion carried unanimously.
7. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 9:28 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rick Milner
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
