Planning Board Minutes
Planning Board
April 21, 2020
Approved June 16, 2020
Board Members Present through Microsoft Teams Teleconference: Bruce Healey, Chair; Michael Beaton, Richard Wright, Christopher Hernick, Darren Finneral, Joanne Lord,Members; Russell Smith, Ex-Officio Member, Deane Geddes, Alternate; and Ken McWilliams, Consultant.
Public Present through Microsoft Teams Teleconference: Ivor Freeman, Ed Wollensak, Jim Lord, Judy Healey, Gayle Beaton.
Mr. Healey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Healey read into the minutes the following meeting preamble due to the current Covid-19 emergency to be in compliance with RSA 91-a: Good Evening, as Chairman of the Town of Newbury Planning Board, I am declaring that an emergency exists and I am invoking the provisions of RSA 91-A:2, III (b). Federal, state, and local officials have determined that gatherings of 10 or more people pose a substantial risk to our community in its continuing efforts to combat the spread of COVID-19. In concurring with their determination, I also find that this meeting is imperative to the continued operation of Town government and services, which are vital to public safety and confidence during this emergency. As such, this meeting will be conducted without a quorum of this Board physically present in the same location. We are utilizing Microsoft Teams for this electronic meeting. We previously gave notice to the Board members and public of the necessary information for accessing this meeting.
At this time, I welcome members of the Board and public accessing this meeting remotely. Even though this meeting is being conducted in a unique manner under unusual circumstances, the usual rules of conduct and decorum apply. I ask that each Board member or public who wishes to speak, please state your name each time prior to speaking. Further, any person found to be disrupting this meeting will be asked to cease the disruption. Should the disruptive behavior continue thereafter, that person will be removed from this meeting. Please note, this meeting is being recorded and that all votes that are taken by the Board during this meeting shall be done by Roll Call vote. Let’s start the meeting by taking a Roll Call attendance of Board & Board Support members. When each Board member announces their presences, also please state whether there is anyone in the room with you during this meeting, which is required under the Right-to-Know law. I will announce the Board member & Board support names:
Members:Joanne Lord
Mike Beaton
Darren Finneral
Deane Geddes, Alternate
Chris Hernick
Russ Smith, Selectboard Ex-officio
Dick Wright
Bruce Healey
SupportKen McWilliams, Board Advisor
Tiffany Favreau, Meeting Coordinator/Recording Secretary
Election of Board Officers:
Mr. Healey turned the meeting over to Ms. Favreau who asked for nominations for Planning Board Chair. Mr. Smith motions his nomination of Mr. Healey for Planning Board Chair; Mr. Wright seconds the motion.
Roll Call Vote:
Chris Hernick-Aye
Russ Smith-Aye
Mike Beaton-Aye
Joanne Lord-Aye
Darren Finneral-Aye
Dick Wright-Aye
Deane Geddes-Aye
Bruce Healey-Aye
All in favor: Mr. Healey is Planning Board Chair.
Mr. Healey thanks the Board for electing him Chair and states that he does not take the position for granted and he will do his best to fulfill his role to the Board.
Mr. Healey asked for nominations for Planning board Vice-Chair. Mr. Smith motions his nomination of Mr. Beaton for Planning board Vice-Chair; Mr. Wright seconds the motion.
Roll Call Vote:
Joanne Lord-Aye
Mike Beaton-Aye
Darren Finneral-Aye
Deane Geddes-Aye
Chris Hernick-Aye
Russ Smith-Aye
Dick Wright-Aye
Bruce Healey-Aye
All in favor: Mr. Beaton is Planning Board Vice-Chair.
7:08 p.m. – Public Hearing-Proposed amendments to the Planning Board’s regulations for Site Plan Review pertaining to zoning amendments applying to Personal wireless Service Facilities in Newbury’s Zoning Ordinance approved by ballot in March 2020.
Mr. Healey read the public notice into the minutes:
Notice is hereby given that the Newbury Planning Board will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 7:05p.m., by utilizing teleconferencing. Directions to enter the teleconference will be available on the Planning Board page of the Town’s website. The purpose of the public hearing is to receive public input on Planning Board proposed amendments to the regulations for Site Plan Review.
The proposed amendments to be considered all pertain to amendments for regulations applying to Personal Wireless Service Facilities in Newbury’s Zoning Ordinance approved by ballot in March 2020.
Copies of the full text of the amendments proposed by the Planning Board are available on the Planning Board page of the Town of Newbury website, newburynh.org.
Mr. Healey opened the public hearing for public input and stated that the Rules of Procedure require the public hearing to be suspended for 30 minutes if there is no public input. Ivor Freeman said that he was a member of the public. Mr. Healey asked if Mr. Freeman wanted to speak to the amendments. Mr. Freeman stated that he approves the amendments. Mr. Healey said that he would take that as public input if it was acceptable to the Board. Mr. Wright said that Ed Wollensak is also on the call and asked what he thought. Mr. Wollensak that he would agree with the amendments. The Board was acceptable to the public input and Mr. Healey closed the public input of the public hearing and opened it up to Board discussion.
Mr. Healey asked Mr. McWilliams to speak about the amendments and the reason the public hearing was being held. Mr. McWilliams explained that the process was started in January 2019 when the Planning Board formed a subcommittee to make recommendations on amending the Personal Wireless Service Facilities article in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. McWilliams continued that through the subcommittee effort’s the Zoning Ordinance amendments were approved at the March 2020 Town Meeting. Mr. McWilliams said that during the 15 months process the subcommittee drafted several versions and then with the Planning Board’s involvement several more versions were drafted with the final amendments presented for voter approval. During the process of the Zoning Ordinance amendments, there were companion amendments to the Site Plan Review Regulations. Unlike the Zoning Ordinance that must be taken to Town Meeting, the Planning Board, by majority vote and a duly noticed public hearing can amend and adopt the Site Plan Review Regulations. Mr. McWilliams said that this public hearing will complete the process. Mr. Healey asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board for Mr. McWilliams.
Mr. Finneral clarified that this public hearing was in regard tothe Personal Wireless Service Facilities Site Plan Review amendments. Mr. McWilliams said yes and continued that the amendments made to the Zoning Ordinance in March consisted of a completely re-written Personal Wireless Services Facilities Article and in the process of developing that Article the Planning Board realized that there needed to be amendments to the Site Plan Review to make sure that they were all working in concert and that is what these amendments tonight are about.
Mr. Healey motions to adopt the proposed amendments to Newbury’s Site Plan Review Regulations. Ms. Lord seconds the motion.
Roll Call Vote:
Joanne Lord-Aye
Mike Beaton-Aye
Darren Finneral-Aye
Deane Geddes-Aye
Chris Hernick-Aye
Russ Smith-Aye
Dick Wright-Aye
Bruce Healey-Aye
All in favor: The proposed amendments to Newbury’s Site Plan Review Regulations are adopted.
Ivor Freeman’s Letter to the Board:
Mr. Healey said that he had sent an email out to the Board with an attached letter from Ivor Freeman asking for the opportunity to talk with the Board.
Dear Mr Healey and members of the Planning Board,
New Housing alternatives
The need for new housing alternatives are mentioned several time in the town’s Master Plan (pages 3, 5, 7, 18.)
Newbury has no houses into which residents can downsize and stay in the town. Thus, we have lost many valuable people who have had to move away; there comes to mind Betsy Soper who recently died, Tom & Claire Vanatta, Bob Caia and recently Nancy Marashio. All of them were a real loss to our community. Probably there are many more names.
Similarly, there have been no new units for workforce people as is required by State law. There has been one development of Affordable Housing for the elderly but that is not the same. For these reasons, I am keen for the Town of Newbury to allow and enable construction of smaller habitations.
The Zoning regulations were amended some time ago to allow Cluster Development which was intended to allow a more efficient use of land as well as smaller lots and houses. The present regulations give an incentive to cluster development of only 10% of density so that instead of needing 2 acres per unit a cluster must have 1.8 acres to a unit. As no cluster developments have been built and no smaller houses constructed since that regulation was approved, that incentive does not achieve its objective. It seems that a major flaw is the amount of land required. Land is expensive and developers need to maximize its value. In addition, infrastructure, such as the construction of town quality roads, is expensive
So it seems that the Zoning regulations need to change. I am not able to suggest wording for regulations but no doubt the experts can do that once the new principles are agreed. I would make the following suggestions to outline what could work.
1. There should not be a requirement for fronting onto a town road. So long as the access road can accommodate 2 cars wide and safety service vehicles. Thus, less expensive but useful back land could be used and the character of the town would not visibly change.
2. A smaller lot size per dwelling should be permitted if there is a communal septic system and well or wells. The habitable space should be determined by a formula rather than set in stone and it should consider restrictions already set by our zoning ordinances such as wetlands, steep slopes, deer yards, historic stone walls, etc. The septic and well may be located within the 60% required open space.
3. Building size could be determined by the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the buildings in relation to the remaining land space.
4. A second and more flexible new way to look at this would be to describe the habitable space. For example, if a site has (after the set asides) 4 buildable acres, it could be allowed to build, say, 1,200 square feet footprint per acre so it could have 4,800 square feet lot coverage footprint plus maybe a second storey. That could be 4 single storey units of 1,200 Sq Ft each (4,800) or 8 units with a footprint of 600 sqft (4,800) plus a second storey. (that way they would exceed the town’s minimum house size of 800 sq ft. Attached and detached units could be permitted. We might even consider a multi-family unit in certain locations in town. Existing height restrictions would apply. The goal is that future development could serve various populations.
5. I believe you will find that there are very few sites in town that are suitable for this type of development and so very few would be built. So there is no fear of destroying the character of the town.
I would be happy to work with you to progress and hopefully achieve this change.
Sincerely,
Ivor Freeman
Mr. Healey asked Mr. Freeman to explain his letter. Mr. Freeman said that it has been some time since the Town’s acceptance of the Master Plan and since then no cluster developments. Mr. Freeman continued that the NH population was aging and the workforce was going down because it was difficult to find affordable housing. Mr. Freeman said that he was proposing two things, 1)the possibility of smaller houses for the workforce and 2)the possibility of larger houses for people to be able to down size. Mr. Freeman said that there have been residents of the Town that were not able to downsize within the Town and had to leave. Mr. Freeman stated that he did not want to change the rural character of the Town but as he sees the new lots opening up on 103A he feels that the development might not be in the rural character Newbury has had. Mr.
Freeman said that we need to have developments that are closer to existing properties.
Mr. Freeman proposed that by using backland which doesn’tneed to have a big frontage it would be cheaper for developers to buy. Mr. Freeman continued that if we change from merely describing the cluster developments benefits-the 10% improvement and an FIR situation-it does not give the flexibility that really is needed. Mr. Freeman said that he didn’t think there were many sites within the Town that could accommodate thissort of development because of slopes and the nature of the Town so there isn’t a chance that a maximum of half a dozen developments would change how the Town looks. Mr. Freeman said the situation should be looked at in a different way-take the buildable area as defined in existing regs and instead of saying 1.8 acres is needed for any unit, take a look at footprint square feet that are available. Mr. Freeman said the Planning Board can decide if that would be 1,200 or 1,000 square feet per acre. This would give a developer an opportunity to build more luxurious properties around 1,200 square feet or smaller properties around 650 square feet. This would give a flexibility that is needed for this situation. Mr. Freeman said that he is not in the position to say how it would be worded, but the principles would have to be agreed on and the Planning Board and its advisors can write the appropriate wording.
Mr. Healey asked if Mr. McWilliams wanted to comment about his experience with the Cluster Development Article since he has been the advisor for Newbury for more than 25 years. Mr. McWilliams said that he first started working with Newbury when the Blye Hill development occurred and it pre-dated any cluster development ordinance. Mr. McWilliams continued at that time the Town had very little subdivision regulations or any control at all. After a negative reaction to a very large plume of sediment that ended up in Lake Sunapee, Nancy Marashio, chair of the Planning Board and Mr. Albro, chair of the SelectBoardwent to the Regional Planning Commission asking for help. When Mr. McWilliams started working with the Town the entire set of regulations was no more than 16 pages, which included Zoning, Subdivision, Site Plan Review and Building Regulations. The Town had virtually nothing to address developments coming their way.
Mr. McWilliams said that Town started working on various sets of regulations and Mr. McWilliams was the principal author of the Cluster Development Ordinance. Mr. McWilliams continued that at the time of drafting that ordinance he had to fight quite hard to even get the 10% bonus in for the affordable housing and he looked at it as a foot in the door, so if in the future the need for some alternative housing arises, that provision can be amended. If there is enough public support for making a substantial amendment to that Ordinance, that could be a substantial benefit to a developer who wants to do that type of housing.
Mr. McWilliams said that as Mr. Freeman has pointed out, twoof the major costs are land and infrastructure, primarily roads in these developments. Mr. McWilliams continued that if you are able to find a way for the developments that you want to provide incentives for to reduce the land costs and reduce the road infrastructure costs, you can provide strong enough incentives that those types of projects will occur. There was not enough support at the time the Ordinance was developed and put in place to do anything more than put those placeholders there and if you look at those, they will provide you with a lot of opportunity to get where you want to go in terms of density of development to be able to get developers to come and do the projects you want.
Mr. McWilliams commented that some of the things that Mr. Freeman has come up with are different and not things that have been kicked around by the Planning Board a lot since he has been there. Mr. McWilliams said they are good ideas and should get some more air time with the Planning Board to see if they make sense for Newbury. Mr. McWilliams continued that he thought the Cluster Development Ordinance was a good place to start, to use it as a basis and amend it as you need to, to implement what you want to accomplish in alternative housing. Mr. McWilliams noted that the Cluster Ordinance allows for all types of housing-single family, duplexes, multi-family residential, so it’s a matter of providing enough incentives for someone to use it. The current incentives are not enough for someone to use it. Discussion followed. Mr. Wright is concerned that added incentives for developers will throw out a lot of the Town’s regulations where the Town has tried to control uncontrolled growth, such as building on a non-Town road. Mr. Wright continued that the mandate of the State is to encourage affordable housing but opening up the Town to building anywhere a developer can squeeze in, by lowering the lot size will not necessarily reduce the land cost. Mr. Wright discussed Willow Pond and the site suitability to alternative housing. Mr. Wright noted that communal septic’s and wells bother him, and the Town should discourage anything like that. Discussion followed.
Mr. Healey said that one of the key things as it relates to theactivity of the Planning Board and any zoning amendments or new zoning that it writes is that it is supposed to mirror the Master Plan. Newbury’s Master Plan was finished in 2017. Mr. Healey continued that a Master Plan is really of no value without community input and outreach and a lot of time was spent on that and from a community perspective, alternative housing options was a big topic. Mr. Healey continued that when a community expresses a need it winds up getting put as action items for the community. One of the highest priority action items that was given to the Planning Board was to look at how and whether we could work toward providing alternative housing options. Mr. Healey asked if the Board concurred with this need and does the Board want to spend the time and effort to work on this topic.
Mr. Healey stated that currently the only flexibility Newbury offers in the residential district for subdivision is one dwelling unit per two acres unless it is part of a cluster development. Mr. Healey continued that the State has encouraged municipalities to use a wide range of options to shape land development in a way that reflects the vision of the Master Plan. State regulations are called Innovative Land Use Controls and they encourage land use flexibility within zoning ordinances.
Mr. Healey said that cluster development, as a concept, was developed a long time ago, but over the last 20 years or so, how you do subdivisions have changed and he suggests that the Board get some education about the various subdivisions and what they are all about. Mr. Healey continued that an even better way to do this, if the Board agrees that this is a really important matter that they should be addressing, is to develop a subcommittee-a group of the Board that are interested in studying this topic. Mr. Healey said that subcommittees are much more flexible and likely to get to a point of recommendation, rather than the whole Board trying to work on it.
Mr. Healey suggested that each Board member think about this topic and whether to approach it or not and to make a decision at the next Planning Board meeting to deal with the topic, and if yes, how will the Board deal with it. Mr. McWilliams noted that the Department of Environmental Services has put out a handbook about Innovative Land Use Controls in NH that is a very good educational tool. Discussion followed. The Board agrees that they will put the topic of reviewing land use controls/affordable housing on the May meeting agenda.
Status of Agreement with UVLSRPC circuit rider services:
Mr. Healey said that Mr. McWilliams, our Board adviser, is retiring to Alaska, but until he is able to drive through Canada, he will continue advising the Board. Mr. Healey continued that this was good news as Steve Schneider, the Board’s tentatively agreed on circuit rider from UVLSRPC, has taken a new job and UVLSRPC was not in an immediate position to provide services to Newbury. Mr. Healey stated he wrote a letter to UVLSRPC letting them know that Mr. McWilliams would be able to stay as the Board’s advisor for several more months and that hopefully in June or July they would be in a position to provide Newbury with services. UVLSRPC agreed to that.
Minutes:
The Board reviewed the minutes of February18, 2020. Corrections were made.
Mr. Healey made a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Ms. Lord seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote:
Joanne Lord-Aye
Mike Beaton-Aye
Darren Finneral-Aye
Deane Geddes-Aye
Chris Hernick-Aye
Russ Smith-Aye
Dick Wright-Aye
Bruce Healey-Aye
All were in favor to accept the February 18, 2020 minutes as amended.
New Fire Station:
Mr. Healey said that construction of the new fire station on the Town owned Bald Sunapee/Camacho lot was approved at Town Meeting. Mr. Healey continued that the lot is a 3.4 acre lotcomprised of the 1.8 acre Bald Sunapee parcel purchased in 2005 and the abutting 1.6 Camacho parcel purchased in 2007. Mr. Healey continued the playground and the Vet’s Memorial are already on the lot and there is some land reserved for a proposed library expansion.
Mr. Healey said that if this was a commercial project in the Town, they would be required to seek Site Plan Review approval from the Planning Board, however, because this is a Town project, the Town is exempt and the only requirement is to meet with the Board as a courtesy. Mr. Healey continued that there is a committee that is overseeing the construction of the fire station and Ken Holmes, a committee member has spoken with Mr. Healey to say the committee has every intention to meet with the Board but are waiting on plans which won’t be available much before July or August. Mr. Healey stated however the site work will be begin very soon, with tree cutting, hillside excavation, removal of old garage and things of that nature. Mr. Healey stated that the construction oversight committee will visit with the Board once they have plans to show. Mr. Healey clarified with Mr. Smith, who is also on the construction oversight committee that what he just stated was correct. Mr. Smith said yes it was.
Mr. Beaton asked that even though the Board will be shown the plans, the Board will have no input or approval. Mr. Healey said correct. Mr. Smith said the design of the fire station is not changing and is what was shown at Town Meeting. Discussion followed.
When Site Plan Review is Required:
Mr. Healey said the last topic for tonight were the amendments to Site Plan Review, specifically when Site Plan is required. Mr. Healey continued that Mr. McWilliams took it upon himself to draft these amendments based on the difficulty the Board has had in past meetings to determine how to handle a Site Plan. Mr. Healey asked Mr. McWilliams to talk through the amendments with the Board.
Mr. McWilliams said that the amendments should really have two titles, one, when Site Plan Review is required, and the second part is application requirements for a Minor Site Plan Review.
Mr. McWilliams said that for some time, the Planning Board has really struggled with deciding the issue of whether a Major Site Plan is required for a particular proposal or whether the Planning Board would accept a Minor Site Plan application for that proposal. Mr. McWilliams continued that there were not clear enough guidelines in the regulations to assist the Board in making those decisions. And further the application requirements for Minor Site Plan Review, as outlined in the Ordinance, needed to be amended to closer reflect the decisions the Board had been making on recent applications. Mr. McWilliams said that virtually every Minor Site Plan application that came in, the Board would be confronted with a raft of waiver requests because the Minor Site Plan application requirements were fairly strenuous for that type of application.There was a lot of wasted time at Board meetings trying to decide what type of application was applicable and if the Minor Site Plan was applicable, then a whole debate about what would be the application requirements for that application.
Mr. McWilliams said that he took the initiative and drafted the amendments to try to bring some clarity to this issue. Mr. McWilliams continued that using his 45 years of experience of working in local land use planning he started out looking at how other communities were addressing these issues, what theirOrdinances say and provide and most importantly, listening closely to what the Board members had been saying, what kind of things they had issues with, and what things in the Minor Site Plan Review application the Board was willing to look at differently.
Mr. McWilliams said that in January or February he came to the Planning Board with concepts that the Board received well and wanted to be moved forward. Mr. McWilliams continued that the drafted amendments were the concepts put into writing. The first half of the proposal really deals with trying to provide a transparent set of criteria that can be used in deciding what type of Site Plan Review application is required, if any. Mr. McWilliams continued that these criteria would provide guidance for everyone involved in the process, the Planning Board, applicants, land use coordinator, abutters and the general public.
Mr. McWilliams said that this proposal breaks it down into three categories; 1) when a Major Site Plan Review would be required, typically for if a new shopping center came in, 2) when a Minor Site Plan Review would be required, typically a change of use, and 3) where no Site Plan Review is required at all, and example of that would be a home occupation. Mr. McWilliams continued that by clearly breaking out these categories and providing criteria for each it would help a lot.
Mr. McWilliams said the second half of the proposal deals with outlining the revised application requirements for a Minor Site Plan Review. Mr. McWilliams continued that what existed before, in a lot of cases was too onerous and too costly a requirement for a Minor Site Plan Review. Mr. McWilliams gave some examples 1) requiring a boundary survey in all instances is not needed, 2) requiring detailed wetlands mapping is probably not needed unless you can identify a wetlandimmediately adjacent to what you can see in a site walk. Mr. McWilliams continued that a number of these existing requirements can be toned down and replaced with a more friendly set of requirements that gets the information the Planning Board needs while still having the flexibility to require more information in the instances where needed. Mr. McWilliams said the Board will find that the amended re-written application requirements will be much more user friendly and the criteria and break out of the Site Plan Review categories will be a benefit to all involved in the process. Mr. McWilliams strongly encouraged the Board, as soon as they feel comfortable, to move forward with this form or an amended form of Site Plan Review regulations.
Mr. Healey thanked Mr. McWilliams and asked the Board for any comments. Mr. Geddes thanked Mr. McWilliams for concisely drafting these amendments that he was able to understand easily. Mr. Healey said that for the new Board members and a reminder to the other Board members that Site Plan Review was originally written that everything was a Major Site Plan Review and there was no such thing as a Minor Site Plan Review or a No Site Plan Review required. Discussion followed. Mr. Healey said that he would really love the Board to consider adopting this work that Mr. McWilliams has drafted especially before Mr. McWilliams retires to Alaska. Board members thanked Mr. McWilliams for his hard work on these amendments. Discussion followed.
Mr. Healey said he would like to set up a public hearing as soon as the next Planning Board meeting and that the Board members would be able to comment and if needed could continue the public hearing to the next meeting. Mr. McWilliams pointed out that if there are minor amendments during the public hearing not requiring a re-draft, those amendments could be adopted at the public hearing. Mr. Healey agreed that administrative amendments could be adopted, but any significant change would require a continuation of the public hearing. Mr. Healey asked the new Board members if they felt forced into something, they have not had time to review. Ms. Lord said she was okay with them and they made sense. Mr. Finneral said it makes sense to him. Mr. Hernick said they were well written and make sense to him and thanked Mr. McWilliams for the clarity. Mr. Healey said that a public hearing would be set.
Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Lord seconded the motion. All in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tiffany A. Favreau
Recording Secretary
6 | Page