NEWTON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING
JANUARY 17, 2012
1. Call to Order: Chairman Jim Doggett called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
In attendance were: Chairman Jim Doggett; Vice Chair Barbara White; Planning Board members Ann Miles, Frank Gibbs, and Robert Miller; Alternates Sandra Estabrook, Charles Melvin, and Chuck Whitman; BOS ex-officio Trisha McCarthy; and Circuit Rider Planner Brian Groth. Minutes were transcribed by Administrative Assistant Rick Milner.
Doggett appointed Melvin to stand in for Vaillant.
2. Town of Newton, NH requests a second public hearing to review proposed amendments to zoning ordinances for inclusion on the Town Warrant.
Doggett opened the public hearing.
a. Minor changes in zoning ordinance language to correct previous editorial mistakes that do not change the meaning of any particular ordinance. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to make the zoning ordinances more organized and more accurately reflect the decisions of the townspeople.
Doggett presented the warrant article language for the first proposed amendment regarding editorial changes to the zoning ordinances.
McCarthy moved to place the first proposed amendment on the Town Warrant. Second by White.
Doggett asked for comment from the public and Board members. No comments were made.
Motion carried unanimously.
White moved for the Planning Board to recommend acceptance of the first proposed amendment. Second by Miller. Motion carried 6-1 with Miles opposed.
b. RSA 674:43, Power to review site plans. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to indicate power granted by the State of NH within the Town's zoning ordinances.
Doggett presented the warrant article language for the second proposed amendment regarding the Planning Board's site plan review authority.
White moved to place the second proposed amendment on the Town Warrant. Second by McCarthy.
Doggett asked for comment from the public and Board members. No comments were made.
Motion carried unanimously.
White moved for the Planning Board to recommend acceptance of the second proposed amendment. Second by Miller. Motion carried unanimously.
c. Home occupations and Home based businesses. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to define the process for classifying an activity as a home occupation or a home based business.
Doggett presented the warrant article language for the third proposed amendment regarding the classification of an activity as a home occupation or a home based business.
McCarthy moved to place the third proposed amendment on the Town Warrant. Second by Melvin.
Doggett asked for comment from the public and Board members. No comments were made.
Motion carried 6-1 with Miles opposed.
McCarthy moved for the Planning Board to recommend acceptance of the third proposed amendment. Second by White. Motion carried 6-1 with Miles opposed.
d. Establishment of zones. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to specifically define areas of zones.
Doggett presented the warrant article language for the fourth proposed amendment to specifically define the areas of zones by map/block/lot and eliminate the definition of zones by vague zoning map references.
McCarthy moved to place the fourth proposed amendment on the Town Warrant. Second by Miller.
Doggett asked for comments from the public and Board members.
Estabrook asked if a map representing the zones could be viewed.
Milner responded that the detailed map/block/lot listings and revised map of the zones was available at the Planning Board office for viewing by residents.
Miles asked if future zoning will also be defined by map/block/lot or will other criteria such as buffer areas be considered. It is important that a plan be developed for proper zoning of the Town of Newton in the future.
Milner responded that there are several ways to establish zones besides lot designation. Each method of establishing zones should be evaluated by the Planning Board on a case by case basis to determine which method best fits the circumstances at that time. The current lot designation method is being used to clearly define the current zones and establish a foundation for future zoning efforts.
Doggett stated his support of the proposed amendment because it established clearly defined boundaries and eliminated arbitrary lines drawn on a map.
Motion carried unanimously.
Miller moved for the Planning Board to recommend acceptance of the fourth proposed amendment. Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
Doggett closed the public hearing.
3. Paul and Dawn Doyle of Newton, NH on behalf of People's United Bank request a public hearing for a site plan review (proposed Equestrian center) of property located at 6 Sarah's Way. The property is referenced as Tax Map 10, Block 2, Lot 10-6.
Applicants Paul and Dawn Doyle, People's United Bank Vice President Paul Galanes, Realtor Lynne Bartlett Merrill, and Engineer David Leach were present.
Doggett opened the public hearing.
Melvin stated that he was a friend of the applicants and had conducted real estate transactions with the applicants. He asked the Board members to determine if he could sit on the Board for discussion of this application due to possible conflict of interest.
The Board came to a consensus without objection that Melvin did not have a conflict of interest regarding this application.
Groth asked that the property owner's authorization for the Planning Board to proceed with this application be presented.
Milner presented a letter from People's United Bank authorizing Paul and Dawn Doyle to act as its agents with regards to this application. Paul and Dawn Doyle stated that they authorized David Leach to act as their agent with regards to this application.
Mr. Leach addressed the Board. He presented an existing conditions site plan for the property located at 6 Sarah's Way to the Board. The plan showed a single family home, two barns/equestrian buildings, paddocks, trails, and a parking area at the front of the Residential A zoned property. Mr. Leach noted that the existing conditions plan conforms to the recorded plan for the property. Also, all physical features such as wetlands, topography, and a gas line easement are noted.
Mr. Leach explained that the applicants intended to use the property for horse training, boarding, and lessons. The property had been used in the same manner previously for at least 10 years. There would be no changes.
Mr. Leach stated that he addressed on the site plan the following issues raised in Groth's site plan review letter:
- The existing lighting is typical residential lighting that is pointed away from other properties. There would be no changes in the lighting.
- A note was added to the plan that stated that best management practices (BMP's) for manure disposal would be followed.
- The applicants are aware of the best management practices and the Town's zoning ordinances. They intend to conform to the rules and regulations.
Melvin asked why the manure storage area was not indicated on the plan.
Leach responded that a specific area has not been determined at this time. Best management practices suggest rotating manure storage areas. The primary concern was to keep manure away from wetlands and surface water areas.
Melvin stated that the manure storage area should be noted on the plan in order to evaluate if the manure will affect abutters.
Doggett asked the Board if it wished to take jurisdiction of the application.
Gibbs moved for the Planning Board to take jurisdiction of the application for a revised site plan review (proposed Equestrian center) of property located at 6 Sarah's Way. Second by Melvin. Motion carried unanimously.
McCarthy stated that the applicants had a previous complaint on another property concerning a paddock area in the wetlands area. She suggested that the applicants meet with the Conservation Commission regarding manure storage.
Mr. Leach stated that the plan references BMP's document for manure storage and the applicants' compliance with these practices.
Doggett asked for comments from the public and Board members.
Abutter Michael Cushing asked if all possible locations for manure storage should be indicated on the plan and how many horses the site is fit to handle.
Mr. Doyle stated that there were currently facilities to accommodate seventeen (17) horses. There would be no expansion of the facilities to accommodate more than seventeen (17) horses.
Whitman suggested that places where the manure cannot be stored may be indicated on the plan. This method would allow for rotating manure storage areas.
Abutter Sandra Hodge stated her support for the application.
Doggett asked the applicants if the space in one of the buildings labeled as office space would possibly be used as living space.
Mr. Doyle responded that the space would not be used as living space. The space would only be used by the applicants as an office to conduct the business of the equestrian facility.
Melvin moved to continue the public hearing until a revised plan indicating a manure storage area is presented to the Board. Second by McCarthy.
Discussion of motion – Mr. Leach suggested that setbacks for manure storage (50 foot setback from the property line and a 75 foot setback from wells and wetlands) be added to the plan.
Melvin stated that adding setbacks would be acceptable if a horse authority specialist provided written approval of the plan.
Abutter Michele Shepherd stated that the state guidelines for manure storage should be sufficient. The Planning Board does not need to impose further restrictions on the applicants.
Doggett suggested that the application could be approved with conditions for addition of manure storage setback lines to be indicated on the plan. Melvin and McCarthy accepted Doggett's suggestion.
Melvin and McCarthy rescinded the motion to continue the public hearing until a revised plan indicating a manure storage area is presented to the Board.
Melvin moved to conditionally approve the non-residential site plan application for a revised site plan (proposed Equestrian center) of property located at 6 Sarah's Way with the following conditions:
- Applicants add notes to the plan denoting setbacks for manure management.
- Applicants provide a letter from a horse care authority approving of the plan's adherence to best management practices for manure storage.
Second by McCarthy. Motion carried unanimously.
Doggett closed the public hearing.
4. Richard Thomas of Newton, NH requests a public hearing to obtain a conditional use permit for a home based business (firearms dealer) at 11 Kenwood Drive. The property is referenced as Tax Map 7, Block 3, Lot 22-12.
Doggett opened the public hearing. Doggett announced that Mr. Thomas could not attend the hearing due to a family matter. Doggett suggested continuing the hearing to the next available meeting date.
White moved to continue the public hearing at the January 31, 2012 Planning Board meeting. Second by Melvin. Motion carried unanimously.
Groth released at 8:10 pm.
5. Town of Newton, NH review of performance guarantees connected to the Sargent Woods condominium community project.
Joshua Manning of Lewis Builders addressed the Board. Mr. Manning presented a memo from the Town Engineer recommending a reduction in the Sargent Woods project performance guarantee amount for work completed on Phase I and adding funds to the performance guarantee amount for work to be done in Phase II A. Mr. Manning asked why such a large portion of the performance guarantee for contingency and engineering fees is non-reducible and when it could be refunded.
Doggett responded that the Planning Board regulations state the amount to be retained for contingencies. The Board cannot change that amount at this time. The non-reducible portions of the performance guarantee would be returned when the project for which it is assigned is deemed 100% complete.
Gibbs moved to reduce the performance guarantee for the Sargent Woods project by $13,337.00 for work completed in Phase I of the project. Second by Melvin. Motion carried unanimously.
White moved to increase the performance guarantee for the Sargent Woods project by $29,260.00 for work to be done in Phase II A. Second by Miles. Motion carried unanimously.
Miller moved to allow one financial account be maintained for all performance guarantee requirements connected to separate phases of the Sargent Woods project. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Other Board business.
a. Acceptance of minutes.
White moved to accept the minutes of the December 27 meeting. Second by Miller. Motion carried unanimously.
b. Manifests.
Doggett presented a NPREA manifest to the Board. The invoices reflected payment to the Town Engineer for construction observation on three ongoing projects.
Gibbs moved to pay the NPREA manifest in the amount of $1832.23. Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
Doggett presented an operating budget manifest to the Board. The invoices reflected payment of a telephone bill and a legal advertisement.
Gibbs moved to pay the operating budget manifest in the amount of $226.24. Second by Melvin. Motion carried unanimously.
c. Correspondence.
Doggett presented the 2012 RPC circuit rider planner contract to the Board. Doggett noted that he had negotiated a reduction in the circuit rider planner fee based on the actual hours used by the circuit rider planner in attending Planning Board meetings. The reduction saved the Town of Newton approximately $2,500.00.
Miles stated that the Planning Board should be careful when considering budget cuts connected to professional consultants. Services provided by professional consultants are a wise investment.
Miles moved for the Planning Board to authorize the Chairman to sign the 2012 RPC circuit rider planner contract. Second by Miller. Motion carried unanimously.
7. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rick Milner
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
