NEWTON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING
FEBRUARY 26, 2013
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 and Michael Blanchette; Alternates Sandra Estabrook, Jim Holland, and Fred Gabriel; and Circuit Rider Planner Jennifer Rowden. Minutes were transcribed by Administrative Assistant Rick Milner with the assistance of Vice Chairman Doggett.
White appointed Holland to stand in for Miller.
White appointed Gabriel to stand in for Miles.
2. Charles Zilch of S.E.C. and Associates, Inc. in Plaistow, NH on behalf of RTW, LLC (c/o Bill Bartlett) in Plaistow, NH requests a public hearing for a proposed 3 building duplex cluster development at 129 North Main Street. The application is being submitted per the regulations found within Section XXXI Residential Open Space-Cluster Development of the Town of Newton Zoning Ordinance. The property is referenced as Tax Map 9, Block 6, Lot 7-1.
White opened the public hearing.
Doggett read the abutter list. Several abutters indicated their presence at the hearing.
Applicant Bill Bartlett was present at the hearing. Charles Zilch was present to represent the applicant.
Mr. Zilch stated that RTW, LLC was proposing to build an open space cluster development called Kinsley Corner on the lot referenced as Tax Map 9, Block 6, Lot 7-1. The lot within Residential Zone A contains approximately 29.8 acres with 150 feet of frontage on the easterly side of North Main Street and abuts the northerly side of Kerry Drive. Wetlands cover approximately two-thirds (2/3) of the property’s acreage. There is approximately 10 acres of uplands on the property where the developed area will be located.
Mr. Zilch further stated that the proposed development will apply Section XXXI Residential Open Space-Cluster Development of the Town of Newton Zoning Ordinance to build three six-bedroom duplex units (total of 18 bedrooms for the development). Mr. Zilch noted that:
a. The total number of bedrooms is below the 24 bedroom limit allowed by the density requirements of the zoning ordinance.
b. Each unit will be supported by its own individual septic system. There will be one well to supply water for all three units.
c. The units will be accessed by a 50 foot wide public right of way to be known as Kinsley Drive.
d. The amount of dedicated open space (26.8 acres total with 6.5 acres of uplands) greatly exceeds the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance.
James Hanley of Civil Design Consultants, Inc. presented a drainage report for the development intended to bring the development into compliance with the town’s ordinances and regulations regarding drainage and minimize adverse drainage impacts on the wetlands areas.
White asked for abutter comments.
Brian Allen of 135 North Main Street stated his concerns regarding the effect of the development on water levels within abutters’ wells. He stated that water and drainage conditions on the property have significantly changed over the years. He suggested a site walk on the property to confirm that the area proposed for the septic systems does not have an adverse impact on local water.
Deidre Ventura of 126 North Main Street asked the following questions:
a. Is this development considered workforce housing?
Mr. Zilch responded that this development is not considered workforce housing.
b. Has a traffic study been conducted for the development?
Mr. Zilch responded that a traffic study has not been completed. The State of NH will not require a traffic study be completed.
Ms. Ventura also stated her concerns regarding the adverse impact that the duplex units will have on local wildlife, the value of her home, her septic system, and traffic.
Gregory Colson of 133 North Main Street stated the following concerns:
a. Drainage off of the proposed development when water levels are high may flood the rear portion of his property.
b. He has a shallow, dug well which may be adversely impacted by this development.
George Twiss of 131 North Main Street stated his concerns regarding how the development will adversely impact already poor water drainage. He also asked if a tree line buffer could be retained to protect natural views from his home.
Mr. Hanley responded that the proposed development will have a culvert with a larger pipe downstream from other smaller culverts in the area. This will prevent water backing up to the land upstream. This will ensure that the development will not make any already existing poor drainage conditions worse.
William O’Meara of 127 North Main Street stated his concerns regarding the possible adverse impact of the development on his septic system and water level in his well.
Ted St. Germain of 6 Kerry Drive stated his concern that the development was too much building too close to the wetlands that would adversely affect abutters.
Jennifer Hever of 4 Kerry Drive stated the people who performed tests for this development did not perform the tests at the right time of the year. They performed the tests when the area was very dry. There are other times of the year when the area gets very wet. Her property always floods during rain storms. She also has concerns about natural springs that bubble up through the land getting covered up by the development. This could back water up to other areas. The water levels are already high in the area.
Kim Logsdon of 11 Kerry Drive stated her concern that the development may increase water levels on other properties. She is also not in favor of duplex units.
Mr. Zilch stated, in response to the abutter comments, that the abutter concerns were considered during the planning of this development. He noted several aspects of the plan which addressed the abutters’ concerns.
Sandra Estabrook presented a review of the development from the Conservation Commission. She stated that Mr. Zilch met with the Conservation Commission to review the plan for this development. She read a letter from the Conservation Commission which included the following comments:
a. Natural tree buffer be kept at the back of the lots abutting Kerry Drive.
b. The open space of approximately 26 acres should be clearly defined as such and be included on any condominium agreements, deed restrictions, or organizational provisions for a homeowner’s association as stated in the Newton Zoning Ordinance.
c. Language stating no further development of the open space area. No structure/buildings of any kind should be erected. The parcel should be kept as a natural zone.
d. Walking trail shown on the plan should be made in the least harmful way to the environment. Only enough vegetation should be cleared to support the trail.
e. Concern regarding access road to shared well. The proposed gravel road will infringe on the wetlands. A protective barrier (silt fence) should be used to prevent any contamination.
f. Will there be disturbance or filling of area to construct access road to shared well?
g. Will access road to shared well be plowed? No material should be used during snow removal that could leach into the wetlands. There should be no snow storage in this area.
Rowden stated that the plan seems to meet all of Newton’s subdivision requirements. She suggested that:
a. Lines separating the land for each unit are noted on the plan as arbitrary lines to avoid misinterpretation of these lines as lot lines.
b. The area of the conservation land should be clearly delineated on the plan if the land is not taken by the homeowners’ association.
Doggett asked for clarification of how the development and its common land will be classified and specifics regarding ownership of the units and common land.
Mr. Bartlett responded that the units would be sold individually. He suggested that, on the deed for each individual unit, there could be language which stated that each property owner within this development would own an equal share of the common land and would have equal rights to use the land. There could be language prohibiting building structures or cutting trees within the area of the common land.
Doggett suggested that specifics regarding the distribution of land and comments made by the Conservation Commission be noted on the recorded page of the plan and within any condominium association documents. He also suggested that an undisturbed natural tree buffer be maintained between the development and the abutting properties.
Mattie Colson of 133 North Main Street stated her concern that a section of North Main Street near the development has a dangerous curve.
Doggett noted that North Main Street (Route 108) is a state road. The Town of Newton has no jurisdiction over the permitting of access to and from Route 108.
Doggett moved to continue the public hearing to March 26, 2013. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Town of Newton, NH review of construction site visit report for Puzzle Lane commercial subdivision project Lot 27-4, Phase I, Building #2.
Coleman McDonough of Rt. 125 Development NH Corp stated that he has a company interested in occupying Building #2 on Lot 27-4. He is coming before the Board to address issues noted in the Town Engineer’s site visit report of January 31, 2013 in order to gain Planning Board approval for occupancy of the building.
Philip Henry of Civil Design Group, LLC addressed the Board. Mr. Henry stated that his company has been retained by Mr. McDonough to address issues with Phase I and future plans for Phase II of Lot 27-4 development. Mr. Henry presented a document detailing communication between the Town Engineer and his company which attempts to resolve issues with site work on Phase I of the project. Mr. Henry indicated that he had no problem with the Town Engineer’s comments and committed to working through the problems to come to a satisfactory resolution for the Board and Mr. McDonough.
Mr. Henry requested that the Planning Board consider approving occupancy for Building #2 within the constraints of a plan that completes some site construction requirements of the plan now and provides bonding for site construction requirements to be completed in the future. This request was necessary due to the following factors:
a. There was a company interested in occupying the building in the near future.
b. Some construction items cannot be completed in a timely manner because of current weather conditions.
Doggett stated his concerns that:
a. The turnaround for Building #2 has not yet been completed.
b. Items not indicated on the original approved plan and modifications to the original approved plan have been constructed without notification to and the approval of the Planning Board.
Doggett further stated that construction non-conformance to approved site plans is a recurring issue with the Puzzle Lane project. The Board should be reluctant to issue an occupancy approval until conformance to the approved site plan can be shown.
Gibbs stated that the Town Engineer should have been called prior to any changes to the approved plan being constructed. He further stated that any changes (such as the retaining wall behind the building) should be taken down and re-built so that the Town Engineer can certify the validity of the construction.
White noted that a developer cannot decide on his own to construct an item that is not on an approved plan. The proper procedure is to obtain approval for a change to the approved plan from the Planning Board prior to constructing any modification to the approved plan.
Doggett stated that the building must be in compliance with the approved site plan prior to the Planning Board approving an occupancy certificate for the building.
Doggett moved that the Lot 27-4 Phase I site be built according to the specifications noted in the original approved plan. Second by Holland. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Other Board business.
a. Acceptance of minutes.
Gibbs moved to accept the minutes of the February 12 meeting. Second by Blanchette. Motion carried unanimously.
b. Manifests.
White presented a NPREA manifest to the Board. The invoice reflected payment to the Town Engineer for construction observation at Sargent Woods and Puzzle Lane.
Doggett moved to pay the NPREA manifest in the amount of $657.13. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
5. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 8:58 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rick Milner
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
