NEWTON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
APRIL 24, 2012
1. Call to Order: Chairman Barbara White called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. In attendance were: Chairman Barbara White; Vice Chairman Jim Doggett; Planning Board members Frank Gibbs, Ann Miles, and Michael Blanchette; Alternate Sandra Estabrook; BOS ex-officio Charles Melvin; and Circuit Rider Planner Brian Groth. Minutes were transcribed by Administrative Assistant Rick Milner.
White appointed Estabrook to stand in for Miller.
2. Town of Newton, NH Town Engineer review of site work at the Sargent Woods condominium community.
Joshua Manning was present to represent Lewis Builders.
Town Engineer Michael Vignale presented to the Board his review of the site conditions at the Sargent Woods condominium community as they relate to the amount of disturbed acreage, erosion control, stabilization, and the requirements of the project's erosion control performance guarantee. Mr. Vignale presented the following site conditions:
a. The area within Phase 1 is stabilized.
b. Within the areas of Phases 2A, 2B, 3, and 4, there is approximately 7.5 acres of disturbed land. This amount exceeds the 5 acre limit for disturbed land stated in the erosion control performance guarantee.
c. The developer, Lewis Builders, has reclaimed approximately 1.7 acres within Phases 3 and 4 by adding loam, seed, and hay to some areas. The areas are not stabilized. However, grass is growing. The areas should be stabilized in the near future.
d. Lewis Builders has taken other steps to stabilize disturbed areas. Once the reclaimed areas are stabilized, there will be approximately 5.3 acres of disturbed land.
Mr. Vignale made the following recommendations to the Board:
a. Lewis Builders should not proceed with further development that would increase the amount of disturbed land above the 5 acre limit. Building permits for three houses not yet built in Phase 2A should not be issued until the total amount of disturbed land falls below the 5 acre limit.
b. The Board should use the conditions stated in the NHDES alteration of terrain permit to determine if an area of land has been stabilized.
c. The amount of funds in the erosion control bond is adequate to protect the Town's interests. The Board should not increase the amount of the bond to cover the amount of disturbed land over the 5 acre limit. The Board should focus on getting the amount of disturbed land under the 5 acre limit and maintaining that limit.
Milner noted that the Board's previous request to have the language of the erosion control bond revised to cover all phases of the project and reference the Town Engineer's March 2, 2012 memo has not yet been completed.
Mr. Manning stated that Lewis Builders will make this revision.
Doggett asked if the roads were included within the calculation of the 5 acre limit for disturbed land.
Mr. Vignale stated that the roads are included in the calculation for disturbed land. The current erosion control on the roads is doing well.
Doggett moved to send a memo to the Building Department requesting that no building permits be issued for units 46, 47, and 48 within the Sargent Woods condominium community until the Planning Board receives confirmation from the Town Engineer that the total amount of non-stabilized site disturbance area (as it relates to the erosion control bond) does not exceed five (5) acres. Second by Estabrook. Motion carried 6-1 with Miles opposed.
Doggett moved to revise the language of the erosion control bond to cover all phases of the project and reference the Town Engineer's March 2, 2012 memo. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Town of Newton, NH preliminary consultation and pre-application review of proposed changes in land use.
a. Eric Chinburg, Chinburg Builders, Inc., on behalf of Dawn Dutton and Paula Barlow – 16 Thornell Road. Proposed cluster development.
Mr. Chinburg addressed the Board. Mr. Chinburg stated that Chinburg Builders had an agreement to purchase the 50 acre lot at 16 Thornell Road. He wanted to discuss with the Board the following options for developing the land:
a. use a portion of the lot to build a 25 unit cluster development or
b. add six (6) frontage lots along Thornell Road.
Mr. Chinburg stated that he preferred to create a cluster development, rather than six frontage lots. According to his review of the Town's cluster development ordinances, he calculated that the development yield (prior to any possible density bonus) for the property would be 25 units within a cluster development. Approximately 37 acres would be open space. The proposed development would be on an 1180 foot cul-de-sac road that would approach the top of the hill. However, the top of the hill would not be impacted.
Mr. Chinburg asked the Board for a preliminary opinion regarding three anticipated waivers that the cluster development would need to meet the requirements of the Town's regulations. The three (3) waivers are as follows:
a. waiver to 1000 foot limit on length of a dead end road (1180 feet)
b. waiver to one (1) percent grade limit within the first 100 feet of the intersection of the cul-de-sac entrance and Thornell Road (up to 2% for first 50 feet and then increase to the 8% maximum for remainder of road)
c. waiver to lot shape requirements for existing house lot (allow irregular shape to provide more open space acreage).
Estabrook asked if each unit within the cluster development would have individual wells and septic systems or share a common system.
Mr. Chinburg responded that each unit would have its own well and septic system.
Miles asked for clarification regarding the intended use of the undeveloped land as open space or conservation land and possible connections to a trail system.
Mr. Chinburg showed area left undeveloped to access the open space and trail system. He was not sure at this time as to the nature of the ownership of the open space. He would entertain a variety of options (such as conservation easements, etc.) for the open space. The area would be open to the public for pedestrian access.
Miles noted that there are tax implications that are dependent on how the open space is classified.
Miles asked if the developer would explore a community well system.
Mr. Chinburg responded that, for such a small number of lots, the cost and regulatory process for a community well system is prohibitive. Also, prospective buyers prefer their own individual utilities.
Gibbs asked how many bedrooms would be in each unit.
Mr. Chinburg responded that there would be 2, 3, or 4 bedrooms.
Gibbs noted the possible large tax impact for Newton residents due to the possible influx of families into this development.
Mr. Chinburg asked the Board to give a preliminary opinion regarding his waiver requests.
Miles stated that she has no problem with the length of road waiver. She has problems with the individual water and septic designs on ½ acre or less lots.
White asked Groth for comment.
Groth stated that the developer is feeling out the Board to determine the feasibility of this type of development in Newton. At this point, it is a Board decision to determine feasibility. With regards to waivers, some of these waiver requests have been common in the past few years.
Doggett stated that he has the following concerns:
a. the irregular shape of the lot for the existing home;
b. the large slope on the property. He would like to see the engineering specifics regarding the placement of the homes on the hill; and
c. the placement of wells and septic systems on such small lots.
White asked what would be the size of the lots.
Mr. Chinburg responded that the lots would average approximately ½ acre (some lots slightly smaller, some slightly bigger).
White suggested that the Board offer a non-binding preliminary opinion regarding the anticipated waiver requests.
The Board voted 6-1 to issue a non-binding preliminary opinion in favor of a waiver for the length of the roadway as presented.
The Board voted 3-3 with one abstaining to issue a non-binding preliminary opinion in favor of a waiver for the roadway grading limit as presented.
The Board voted 1-6 to issue a non-binding preliminary opinion in favor of a waiver for the irregular lot shape of the existing home as presented.
Miles asked Groth for his opinion regarding the waivers.
Groth stated that, since he is not a Board member, he cannot offer his opinion. However, these waivers have all been granted in the past.
4. Other Board business.
a. Review of Planning Board regulations and procedures.
Groth presented to the Board revisions for the Town of Newton Planning Board Subdivision Regulations, Site Plan Regulations, and Roadway Acceptance Procedure to clarify the roadway acceptance procedure and the process for bonding roads to be accepted by the town. The revisions are as follows:
i) The current language of Section 9.3 of the subdivision and site plan regulations states that the Town will require a maintenance guarantee for roads to be accepted by the Town covering maintenance of public roads and public improvements for a period of two (2) years from the date of completion. The revised language will state that the maintenance guarantee will cover maintenance of public roads and public improvements for a period of two (2) years from the date of acceptance as a town-maintained road.
Groth noted that, after reviewing the language of the ordinance and regulations in total, the intent of the word 'completion' is completion of the acceptance process.
The revision is not a change in the regulation, but a point of clarification. The revised language is standard protocol in every town that he has worked.
Doggett moved to schedule a public hearing on May 22, 2012 to revise the language of Section 9.3 of the subdivision and site plan regulations as presented to the Board. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
ii) Roadway acceptance procedure revisions.
Groth noted that the revisions to the roadway acceptance procedure were improvements to the language and provide consistency with other sections of the regulations.
Milner noted that the revisions were clarifications to match the written procedure to how the actual roadway acceptance process is performed.
Groth asked the Town Engineer for comment on language that pertained to his duties in the acceptance process.
Mr. Vignale suggested that the language requiring Town Engineer review of the road within thirty (30) days after an application for acceptance should be revised to allow for circumstances that might delay his review such as inclement weather, snow cover, etc. Otherwise, the document was fine.
Groth suggested the addition of the following language: "or at a time mutually agreed upon by the Planning Board and the applicant."
Doggett suggested moving the step requiring payment of invoices after the step securing a maintenance guarantee since the invoice for the maintenance guarantee review will be generated after the maintenance guarantee is established.
Doggett moved to schedule a public hearing on May 22, 2012 to revise the language of the roadway acceptance procedure. Second by Gibbs.
Discussion of motion – Miles asked if the revisions to the regulations and procedures were reviewed with other town departments.
Milner responded that the revisions were discussed with the Road Agent, Town Administrator, Circuit Rider Planner, and Town Engineer.
White asked the Town Engineer for comment.
Mr. Vignale responded that he had discussed the proposed revisions with the administrative assistant. The revisions clarifying the language regarding the bonds are a good thing. The revisions provide less room for interpretation of the language and put the town in a stronger position regarding bonds.
Motion carried unanimously.
b. Review of Puzzle Lane excavation site.
The Board reviewed the report submitted by the Town Engineer regarding his site walk with the Conservation Commission at the Puzzle Lane excavation site.
Gibbs noted that the hole had not yet been filled.
Mr. Vignale responded that the hole had not yet been filled. He expected the hole to be filled within the next two weeks.
Doggett asked if the Town Engineer will be present to ensure that the appropriate material will be used to fill the hole.
Mr. Vignale responded that the developer is aware that the Town Engineer must be present to monitor the filling process.
c. Sustainable Communities Initiative Grant.
Groth informed the Board that the State of New Hampshire has grant money available through the sustainable communities initiative to aid towns with planning functions. He suggested that the Planning Board should apply for a grant to create accurate parcel mapping for the Town of Newton. Newton is the only town in the region that does not have an accurate parcel map.
Milner presented a letter from the RPC asking the Planning Board to sign a partnership agreement in connection with the sustainable communities initiative.
Miles moved for the Chairman to sign the partnership agreement on behalf of the Planning Board. Second by Doggett. Motion carried unanimously.
d. Acceptance of minutes.
Doggett moved to accept the minutes of the April 10 meeting. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
e. Manifests.
White presented an operating budget manifest to the Board. The invoice reflected payment for office supplies.
Gibbs moved to pay the operating budget manifest in the amount of $84.64. Second by Melvin. Motion carried unanimously.
f. Correspondence.
White presented a letter of resignation from alternate member Chuck Whitman.
Doggett moved to accept with regret the resignation of alternate member Chuck Whitman. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
White asked Milner for an update on the Board's advertisements for its open alternate member position.
Milner notified the Board that he had received only one letter of interest for the alternate member position from James Holland of Bootland Farm Road.
Doggett moved to appoint James Holland as an alternate member of the Planning Board for a term to expire on April 12, 2013. Second by Melvin. Motion carried unanimously.
5. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rick Milner
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
