Planning Board Minutes
Planning Board
April 2, 2019
Final
Approved May 21, 2019
Members Present: Bruce Healey, Chair; Michael Beaton, Vice Chair, Regina Cockerill, Bill Weiler, Richard Wright, Members; Deane Geddes, Alternate; Ken McWilliams, Advisor; Russell Smith, Ex-officio Member.
Mr. Healey called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.
Conservation Commission:
Katheryn Holmes, Eric Unger and Bob Stewart represented the Conservation Commission.
A draft of shoreland restoration provisions were made available by Conservation to the Planning Board prior to the Board’s meeting but at the start of the meeting a new document was handed out by Conservation together with adopted rules by DES for shoreland restoration. The meeting worked with these two documents.
Mr. McWilliams made some general comments on how they should approach the proposed zoning ordinance. He suggested that the Board should focus on identifying questions or issues with the draft and then wordsmith and refine the draft at a later time.
Ms. Holmes asked if the Planning Board will consider making the proposal given by the Conservation Commission an article. Mr. McWilliams said it is up to the Board members after this discussion. Mr. Wright explained this is a process.
Ms. Holmes asked why this proposal has to be approved by the Planning Board, but other amendments only have to be approved by the Selectboard.
Mr. Weiler said that due to the subject matter, the town attorney has stated that the proposed amendment has to be approved by the Planning Board, rather than the Selectboard.
Mr. McWilliams said that if the Planning Board does not approve this amendment, the Conservation Commission can still file a protest petition and receive 25 registered voter signatures.
Mr. Stewart explained the background of the Newbury ordinance concerning the shoreland district and that the town adopted the shoreland regulations in 2008 due to the Shoreland Protection Act. In 2012, the state actually funded that law in order to make a shoreland bureau and for people to apply to the shoreland bureau to do work in the shoreland. Since then, there has been rule changes within the state that have watered down the original rules. He would like to propose that people need to follow two sets of rules when applying to do work in the shoreland. He said basically, one of the differences is it takes more trees to make your point count in Newbury, than it does according to the state regulations. So when someone wants to cut in the buffer zone, they find they have stricter rules to follow in Newbury than with the state of New Hampshire. Mr. Stewart said the point with this is that there might be a violation on the town level but not the state level. Because of this, the state cannot enforce our rules, because our rules are more stringent than the state’s rules. This is the reason the Conservation Commission came up with this proposal for shoreland restoration.
Mr. Wright said if we adopt this, that it needs to be similar to the same regulations of the state. Mr. Stewart said their proposal is very similar to the state enforcements.
Ms. Cockerill asked if they had copies of the state’s rules. Mr. McWilliams said the Board members should receive copies of the state rules so they can see how they compare to Newbury’s rules. Copies were made and distributed.
Mr. Healey said there are some restoration already in the shoreland section of the zoning ordinances. He said if you go to 7.12.2 under impervious surfaces, it talks about restoration. Ms. Holmes said it does not say ‘restoration’. Mr. Weiler said it says ‘planted’. Mr. Healey said it does give reference to restoration and it also should not belong under this section. Mr. Stewart said there is no oversight in this at all and it is inadequate.
The Board reviewed the state’s regulations.
Mr. McWilliams said that on 1.2 whether you need to say “the more stringent standard shall control”. Mr. McWilliams said that he thinks it is just assumed. Mr. Stewart doesn’t think it hurts.
Mr. Weiler said he would like to go through the proposal paragraph by paragraph.
1.1 Mr. McWilliams asked about the timeframe that was discussed in paragraph 1.
Mr. Stewart said the state requires plans within 30 days, and then by a certain date they want to see when restoration should begin and also when it should end. Mr. Stewart said these are not in the state regulations, they are pointed out in the enforcement letters. Mr. McWilliams would like Mr. Stewart to add timeframes in this paragraph. Mr. Stewart will get back to the Planning Board and compare major and minor infractions.
Mr. Healey said he feels that Conservation Commission still owns this document and needs to continue to update the document as the Planning Board gives suggestions.
1.2 Mr. Stewart stressed that these regulations are for the waterfront buffer as well as the woodland buffer. Mr. Healey said he would like Mr. Stewart to add a planting matrix for the woodland buffer.
Mr. Beaton asked what enforcement will take place with cuts without a permit but they are still meeting the town requirements. Mr. Stewart said he is not sure because he does not know what happens now.
Mr. Beaton asked about the timeframe. If someone did something 3-4 years ago, will the Conservation Commission go after them? Mr. Smith said it would be tough going after people because maybe property owners may change hands. Mr. McWilliams said if we are not currently going after the current offenders, then how can we go after the past offenders. He said the town could legally, but that would be a lot of time and money to do that.
1.4 Mr. Weiler asked where the information in 1.4 Definition is referring to. It was determined that it should be listed in article 2 definitions.
Mr. Weiler had some questions about what was meant about the word ‘mat’. Mr. Wright explained that it is a type of ground cover. Mr. Weiler said that the ordinances have to be written for the average person to understand and to comply. Mr. Healey said to put the definitions at the bottom of the document. Mr. Weiler also did not know what a gallon shrub was. Mr. Stewart explained that is how a nursery sells plants.
1.5.5 Mr. Wright suggested using the word ‘restore’ vs ‘revert’. Mr. Stewart agreed.
1.5.8 Mr. McWilliams moved the Waterfront Buffer description to the back of the document. Mr. Healey suggested leaving it in both places.
1.6 Planting Matrix – change from sapling point score to sapling score.
1.6.2.2 – Mr. Stewart will put the definition for ground cover in the end of the document. Mr. Beaton asked Mr. Stewart about ground cover. Mr. Stewart explained it needs to be part ground cover and part trees when restored.
1.7.3 – Mr. McWilliams explained why it said ‘to the extent possible’. Mr. Stewart will take this out.
1.8 – will be struck.
Mr. Weiler does not want the Selectboard to be the governing board on these. He wants it to read:“The Selectboard shall approve a restoration plan based on a detailed report from the Conservation Commission.” Mr. Wright thought this was a good idea.
Mr. Weiler suggested they should add June – September for the time to submit annual photographs. The Board decided the dates would be from June 1 – August 31.
Mr. Stewart thanked the Board members for their time. Mr. Stewart will send McWilliams the next draft and he can make some notes. And when finished, Mr. McWilliams will distribute to the rest of the board members. Mr. Healey thinks this can be finished in a Planning Board meeting. Mr. Healey asked when they think they will be ready to review again. It will be reviewed at the May 21 meeting.
Mr. Healey asked where this will be placed. He thinks it should be placed under 7.14. Everyone agreed this is where it will be placed.
Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Beaton seconded the motion. All in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna S. Long
Recording Secretary
2 | Page