Planning Board Minutes
Planning Board
March 19, 2019
Final
Approved April 16, 2019
Members Present: Bruce Healey, Chair; Howard Maurer, Vice Chair; Bill Weiler, Richard Wright, Michael Beaton, Members; Deanne Geddes, Alternate; Russell Smith, Ex-officio Member; Ken McWilliams, Advisor.
Mr. Healey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Healey appointed Deanne Geddes as a voting member for this meeting, replacing Regina Cockerill.
Administrative Business:
Election of Planning Board officers:
Mr. Healey turned the meeting over to Ms. Favreau for Chair election. Ms. Favreau asked for motions for Chair.
Mr. Wright made a motion for Bruce Healey for Chair, Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Healey asked for motions for Vice Chair.
Mr. Beaton made a motion for Howard Maurer for Vice Chair. Mr. Geddes seconded the motion. All in favor.
Minutes:
The Board reviewed the minutes from February 20, 2018. Corrections were made.
Mr. Wright made a motion to accept the minutes as corrected. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
The Board reviewed the minutes from February 19, 2019. Corrections were made.
Mr. Wright made a motion to accept the minutes as corrected. Mr. Geddes seconded the motion. All in favor.
Public Hearings:
7:15 p.m. – Case 2019-002 – Final Approval - Lot Line Adjustment – Bell, Scott &
MacNaughton (owners), – for properties located on Meadow Rd., Newbury, NH Tax Maps 042-643-438, 041-623-034 & 041-615-010.
Mr. Healey read into the record the following Public Notice: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an Application For Final Approval - Lot Line Adjustment from Bell, Scott & MacNaughton (owners), for properties located on Meadow Rd., Newbury, NH, Tax Maps 042-643-438, 041-623-034 and 041-615-010 on Tuesday, March 19, 2019, at 7:15 p.m. in the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH. If the application is accepted as complete, a public hearing on the application will commence at the same meeting. Copies of the plan are available for public review at the Town Office Building during regular business hours. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend the public hearing and express their views. Signed written comments will be accepted during business hours at least one (1) business day prior to the meeting at the Land Use Office. Business hours are as follows: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday from 8am to noon.
Mr. Healey reviewed the application for completeness. Mr. Smith made a motion to accept the application as complete. Mr. Wright seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Healey asked if there were any outstanding financial obligations on the properties. Robert Scott said that there were none.
Mr. Scott presented to the Board that they would like to change the interior lines of the three lots. The lots are all under the same ownership, so no other parties are involved. The road frontage of each lot would remain the same, but some land would move from one lot to another in three locations. A form factor calculation sheet was submitted for one of the lots and meets the requirements.
Mr. Wright asked why. Mr. Scott said that these lots have existed since 2002 and throughout the year’s clients have chosen to purchase other lots. Mr. Scott continued that through conversations with clients we’ve learned what they would like to see in these lots, so we have changed the lots to approximate what the clients tell us they are looking for.
Mr. Wright asked if there were certain geographical features that drive this desire for the lot change. Mr. Scott said that it was house sites Mr. Scott continued that when clients go to the house site on the lots, they say they would like the house site “over there” and that is over the line, so we have moved the property lines in hopes of enticing someone to buy. Mr. Wright asked if the setback requirements would still be met. Mr. Scott replied yes.
Mr. Healey opened the hearing to public input. There was no public input.
Mr. Healey asked if Mr. Scott had brought a plat with him. Mr. Scott said that he did not have a plat because two new pins would have to be set. Mr. Scott asked for acceptance contingent upon the installation of the two boundary markers. Mr. Scott continued that the mylar would be brought to the Board after the pins were set with the surveyor’s seal to prove it had been done. Mr. Healey asked if he knew when that would be. Mr. Scott replied that it would be a number of months. There was discussion as to putting a time frame on when the plat would be brought back to the Board for signature after the pins were set. Mr. Healey asked Mr. McWilliams to write the condition precedent so that it could be included in the motion.
Mr. Beaton asked about the new deeds. Mr. Healey said that there are no deeds because the same owners own the property.
Mr. Weiler made a motion that the property listed in Case 2019-002 be approved with the condition precedent that all pins are set, and plat submitted with surveyor’s signature within 120 days. Mr. Wright seconded the motion. All in favor.
7:30 p.m. Case 2019-003 – Final Approval – Annexation – Bell, Scott & MacNaughton
(owners), - for properties located on Old Post Rd.& Meadow Rd., Newbury, NH Tax Maps 032-037-333 & 041-623-034.
Mr. Healey read into the record the following Public Notice: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an Application For Final Approval - Annexation from Bell, Scott & MacNaughton (owners), for properties located on Old Post Rd. & Meadow Rd., Newbury, NH, Tax Maps 032-037-333 & 041-623-034 on Tuesday, March 19, 2019, at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH. If the application is accepted as complete, a public hearing on the application will commence at the same meeting. Copies of the plan are available for public review at the Town Office Building during regular business hours. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend the public hearing and express their views. Signed written comments will be accepted during business hours at least one (1) business day prior to the meeting at the Land Use Office. Business hours are as follows: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday from 8am to noon.
Mr. Healey reviewed the application for completeness. Mr. Smith made a motion to accept the application as complete. Mr. Maurer seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Scott presented to the Board that as in the previous case, they would like to make this change in response to prospective clients over the years voicing interest but wanted the lot to be bigger.
Mr. Beaton asked if Mr. Scott could explain what they were doing. Mr. Scott stated that Lot 51 was one of the lots in the previous lot line adjustment hearing and is the property they are talking about in the annexation hearing. Mr. Scott continued that Lot 51’s current size is 6.7 acres and they want to annex 3 plus acres from an abutting 25-acre parcel, which they also own, to Lot 51. Mr. Scott clarified that the frontage for the 25-acre lot is on Old Post Road and will not create an access for Lot 51 from Old Post Road.
Mr. Wright clarified that area D on the plan goes into Lot 51. Mr. Scott said that was correct. Mr. Scott noted that they called it area D so there would be no confusion with area A, B, and C that was in the lot line adjustment drawing.
Mr. Scott said that at an earlier conceptual meeting they had this annexation as part of another drawing and was asked to separate it and make it a separate step.
Mr. Healey said that he assumed that the plat situation would be the same as in Case 2019-002. Mr. Scott agreed and stated that there would be two pins that needed to be set. Mr. Healey stated that the same condition would apply to this Case.
Mr. McWilliams noted that Lot 51 on this plan is the reconfigured lot from the last application that is on hold for up to 120 days, so we can’t move on this until that one gets recorded. Mr. Healey asked if that would just be a procedural thing where the Board doesn’t sign the plat until the lot line adjustment plat has been signed and recorded. Mr. McWilliams said that he thought it was just a sequence thing where the Board could not do the annexation plat first. The Board discussed that both plats could be brought in and signed by the Board at the same time, and then recorded in the correct sequence.
Mr. Healey opened the hearing to public input.
Jim Schultz from 317 Old Post Road said that he and his wife had looked at the case plans earlier in the week, he asked if the narrow piece of the property from Meadow Road that comes down to Old Post Road is part of this annexation and would that create an access on Old Post Road. Mr. Scott said that Lot 51, which is receiving land in the annexation will not have access on to Old Post Road.
There was some discussion while referencing the plat, and it was found that the piece of land Mr. Schultz was asking about was owned by the Christies.
Sarah Christie from 316 Old Post Road asked how close the property line was going to be to the back of their property. Mr. Scott said that it was over 500 feet. Mrs. Christie asked if that area was buildable. Discussion followed that there was steep slopes and wetlands. Mr. Scott stated that there was already a driveway to that point routed through another lot from Meadow Road. A wetland crossing was approved and built 20 years ago. More discussion followed on building envelope placement on the lot.
Mr. Healey closed the public input.
Mr. Geddes made a motion that the application be approved with the condition precedent that all pins are set, and plat submitted with surveyor’s signature within 120 days. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Healey advised Mr. Scott that any party directly affected by the decisions for the two previous applications may appeal to the proper Board or Superior Court within thirty (30) days of the decisions.
7:45 p.m. Case 2019-004 – Final Approval – Minor Subdivision – Bell, Scott & MacNaughton (owners), - for property located on Old Post Rd., Newbury, NH Tax Map 032-037-333.
Mr. Healey read into the record the following Public Notice: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an Application For Final Approval – Minor Subdivision from Bell, Scott & MacNaughton (owners), for property located on Old Post Rd., Newbury, NH, Tax Map 032-037-333 on Tuesday, March 19, 2019, at 7:45 p.m. in the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH. If the application is accepted as complete, a public hearing on the application will commence at the same meeting. Copies of the plan are available for public review at the Town Office Building during regular business hours. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend the public hearing and express their views. Signed written comments will be accepted during business hours at least one (1) business day prior to the meeting at the Land Use Office. Business hours are as follows: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday from 8am to noon.
Mr. Healey reviewed the application for completeness. Mr. Healey informed the Board that he did not find the application complete and had emailed Mr. Scott the reasons as a courtesy. Mr. Healey continued that this does not happen often, and it is the Chair’s job to advise the Board whether it finds the application as complete or not. Mr. Healey stated that it was the Board’s decision because he would request a motion. Mr. Healey noted that the property in this application looks very challenging. There is a lot of steep slope, the elevation on Old Post Road is roughly about a 1000, but it climbs to 1400. There is a 400-foot climb in less than 2000 feet. Mr. Healey continued that there was a lot of stone and ledge and you wonder how well this land will be developed.
Mr. Healey cited the reasons he found the application to be incomplete: In Section 9.4.4 a subdivision plan requires that a building envelope and the associated building envelope form factor be shown on the plan. The building envelope and the form factor is not shown on the plan. Mr. Healey stated that the plan shows an arrow pointing to a general area where the building envelope is likely to be placed and the approximate acreage. Another missing requirement is submission of a soils map and report. Mr. Healey also noted that he had a concern about the driveway paths to the proposed building envelopes and how they were going to traverse the steep slopes. Mr. Healey asked that a more detailed plan as well as the topology for the location of the driveway access for each lot and the pathway to the building envelopes be provided. Mr. Healey also asked that the driveways be in complete compliance with RSA 236:13.
Mr. Healey stated that he believes, and Mr. McWilliams agrees, that because he has reviewed the application, the Board can continue this application to a later date at a Planning Board meeting that is acceptable to Mr. Scott when he can provide the information that is missing.
Mr. Beaton said that he thought the driveway was bad precedent. Mr. Beaton said that it was not really up to us to tell him where to have his driveway as long as he meets the regulations. Mr. McWilliams disagreed and said that they have to show the location, that they have a safe site distance and they have to show how they can safely access the buildings.
Mr. Maurer said that the plan of subdivision was confusing to read and asked when the plat was revised if they could work on the line weights a little bit to show what was being looked at. A discussion ensued about the lines on the plat and what can be done to help clarify what was being looked at, engineer and State requirements and how to make the plan clearer.
Mr. Scott noted that there were lines on the map with symbols for soil types. Mr. Scott continued that they might not look familiar because there is a whole new soils designation list, with over 200 types rather than several dozen. Mr. Scott stated that this was the soil map and it does have on it the “modern” soil designation. Mr. Smith noted that the key was kind of there but asked if we needed to know what type of soils they were talking about. Mr. Wright said that it could be relevant. Mr. Healey said that the report would be where the soil type would belong. Mr. McWilliams said that the report should address the suitability of the various soils for the type of development being proposed (septic, roads, foundations, and house sites) Mr. Scott asked if the plan meets the soil map requirement. Mr. Wright said that he thought it would if you give a description of what each of the soil types are. Mr. McWilliams said that would be in the report.
Mr. Scott said that he wanted to state his position, but he doesn’t want it to sound like he is disputing what the Board is saying-the driveways are actually on the drawing but because of line clarity it’s not obvious. Mr. Scott said that it was obvious to them because they make the drawings, but it is not obvious when you look at the drawing. Mr. Healey stated that Planning Board has the right to ask for any additional information and he has concerns about the slope factor of the driveways. Mr. Scott said that they will provide a more blown up topo of the driveways as requested.
Mr. Smith made a motion to find the application for Final Approval-Minor Subdivision incomplete. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Smith made a motion to continue the public hearing until September 17, 2019 at 7:15 p.m. Mr. Wright seconded the motion. All in favor.
Other Business:
Shoreland Restoration Amendment
Katheryn Holmes, Newbury Conservation Chair and Sue & Steve Russell, Newbury Conservation Commission members presented to the Board. Ms. Holmes stated that this was a process she has been involved with for two years with Conservation. She continued that she has talked with a DES person about this restoration plan and why it is important for municipalities to take on a restoration plan. One of the reasons is that DES rules change faster than town rules, and as you know we have the Shoreland Protection Act of 2008 as part of our regulations. In the past there was an egregious cut, where a bank had been clear cut, and we had to figure out how to restore this property. The SelectBoard at that time required restoration. So, with that in mind we felt it might be helpful. Ms. Holmes said that they had come into talk to the Planning Board, but it seemed like a far-out thing to do, then on the Board’s advice I took it to the SelectBoard and then Bart Mayer, town counsel, advised that I take it back to the Planning Board.
Ms. Holmes passed out two restoration plans, one copy with tracking and one is the final (attached after the minutes).
Ms. Holmes said that what was important about this for the Board to understand is that throughout the State people clear cut in the shoreline and they put the fine into their plan.
A discussion followed about details of the cut that was talked about in Ms. Holmes presentation.
Ms. Holmes asked if the Selectmen’s ordinances were passed by the Planning Board. Mr. Healey said no. Ms. Holmes said that maybe this was a Planning board issue, maybe you will take it up, maybe you won’t. Ms. Holmes continued that she and the Conservation Commission were just trying to help the SelectBoard have a document they can fall back on to get restoration.
Mr. McWilliams asked Ms. Holmes if she was proposing the shoreland restoration to be an addition to the enforcement provisions under the Zoning Ordinance, if somebody violates and cuts the shoreland are you looking at enforcing through the provisions that are already in the Zoning Ordinance, or are you looking at doing this in lieu of, in substitution of doing enforcement. I am not sure what your approach is. Mr. McWilliams continued that what he heard Ms. Holmes saying earlier was it was a recommendation which is different than a Zoning Ordinance, which is a requirement. Ms. Holmes said that restoration is not a recommendation, it should be a zoning reg. or something where the Selectmen could say you need to have a restoration plan. Discussion followed.
Mr. McWilliams asked if this was to replace the enforcement that’s provided in the ordinance so if somebody violates the ordinance, they can do this restoration instead of getting fined. Ms. Holmes said that it was in concert with it. Ms. Holmes also said that they should get both fined and the restoration plan. Mr. Wright said that fines were not a deterrent. Mr. McWilliams asked what if they ignore that as well. Mr. Wright said they may ignore it, but if they get caught, they have to put it back.
Mr. Wright said that if you have more hanging over their head, they might take a closer look at what they do on their property. Ms. Holmes said that part of this was also an educational process for the property owner to become a good steward. Discussion followed.
Mr. McWilliams asked why you couldn’t have a restoration requirement if a property owner violates the ordinance, the restoration plan is that he has to replant so he is back in compliance with the ordinance. Mr. McWilliams continued that you have standards in the ordinance. Mr. McWilliams said that it seems to him that this will make it very difficult for the Town to administer and figure out the difference between the restoration plan and what is already in the Shoreland Ordinance. Mr. McWilliams continued why not just stick with what you have in the ordinance now for standards, why do you have to come up with a whole new set of standards for somebody who’s cut the shoreland and all of a sudden, your saying now you have to replant to a much higher standard. Mrs. Russell said that the way she read it, it has to go back to what it was. Mr. Weiler said that he didn’t think you can say restore that to what it was, because nobody knows what it was. Mr. Weiler continued that it was there in front of you, you see it every day, but when it is gone you don’t remember what it was, so we should have standards, so if you don’t remember, this is what should be planted.
Mr. Weiler asked Ms. Holmes what she was going to do after she had a plan. Are you going to enforce it? Ms. Holmes said yes, the code enforcement officer will. Mr. Weiler said that when you talk about this, talk about that the owner has to come up with a plan and execute it.
Mr. Healey said that to him, in many ways the zoning regs already have a relatively very clear explanation of what’s supposed to be there and what you can do to it. Mr. Healey continued that when he looked at the plan it references what is already in the zoning regs, however in a couple of places, additional requirements were added, so what he would say is put those into the regulations. Ms. Holmes said that was what the Board can do. Mr. Healey said that if what is already in the zoning regs defines what Ms. Holmes would like to see, if you write a separate plan, you wind up having two sets of regulations. This creates a problem as far as knowing what the rules are, although, generally it is the one that is most restrictive.
Mr. Healey said that another way of approaching this is to make sure that all of the criteria in Article 7 is reasonable and then what we add is a section that simply says if you violate the requirements, you are required to restore it as laid out by those criteria, and you don’t have to go through and respell it out. Discussion followed. The Board decided to continue the discussion in a work session on April 2, 2019 at 7 p.m.
Subdivision Regs-Proposed amendment #1
Mr. Healey said that last time he proposed a bunch of amendments to the Subdivision Regs., most of them were categorized as being administrative and there were a few that were important to correct. Mr. Healey said that last time there was only one issue which had to do with the change from Selectmen to SelectBoard. Discussion followed on administrative vs. substantive changes.
Mr. Healey stated that Mr. Weiler had questioned the authority to make the change from Selectmen to SelectBoard. Mr. Healey continued that with a little bit of research he found that in 2008 the legislature added the following provision to the RSA, “The words selectwoman, selectperson and selectboard may be used interchangeably with selectmen in all instances where appropriate.” Mr. Healey asked permission to change Selectmen to SelectBoard. The Board was fine with the change. Discussion followed on individual changes to the Subdivision Regs. A public hearing will be scheduled for the Planning Board meeting in April.
Merger of lots
Mr. Healey informed the Board that he had signed a voluntary merger of lots for two narrow lots owned by the same owner on Summer St.
Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Maurer seconded the motion. All in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 9:24 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tiffany A. Favreau
Recording Secretary