Planning Board Minutes
Planning Board
May 19, 2020
Approved June 16, 2020
Board Members Present through Microsoft Teams Teleconference: Bruce Healey, Chair; Michael Beaton, Richard Wright, Christopher Hernick, Darren Finneral, Members;Russell Smith, Ex-Officio Member, Deane Geddes, Alternate.
Public Present through Microsoft Teams Teleconference: Robert Scott, Olivia Uyizeye, Ivor Freeman, Judy Healey, Elissa Panella, Scott Rielly.
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-not present
Mike Beaton
Darren Finneral
Deane Geddes, Alternate
Chris Hernick
Russ Smith, Selectboard Ex-officio
Dick Wright
Bruce Healey
SupportKen McWilliams, Board Advisor-not present
Tiffany Favreau, Meeting Coordinator/Recording Secretary
Mr. Healey appointed Deane Geddes as a full voting member for tonight’s meeting replacing Ms. Lord.
Mr. Healey said that this will be the last meeting that Mr. McWilliams will be the Board’s advisor. Mr. Healey continued that he has been in contact with the Executive Director of Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission to make arrangements for a member of their staff to advise the Board. Olivia Uyizeye will be the Board’s advisor. Mr. Healey asked Ms. Uyizeye to join the meeting and introduce herself to the Board and answer any questions the Board may have.
Ms. Uyizeye introduced herself and said she is looking forward to working with the Board. Ms. Uyizeye continued that she has been with UVLSRPC for about two years, she has a master’s degree in Sustainable Development and Climate Change from Antioch University in Keene NH. Ms. Uyizeye said that during her time with UVLSRPC she has worked with Claremont on a regulatory review in regard to their housing goals and various watershed management activities.
Mr. Healey asked if there were any questions for Ms.Uyizeye. Mr. Healey continued that he would distribute contact information for Ms. Uyizeye and finalize the agreement with UVLSRPC to retain Ms. Uyizeye’s services to begin at the Board’s meeting on June 16th.
7:09 p.m. – Public Hearing-Proposed amendments to the Planning Board’s regulations for Site Plan Review identifying when a Major Site Plan Review is required, when a Minor Site Plan Review is required, when NO Site Plan Review is required and Application requirements for a Minor Site Plan Review.
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, May 19, 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 include identifying when a Major Site Plan Review is required, when a Minor Site Plan Review is required, when NO Site Plan Review is required and Application requirements for a Minor Site Plan Review.
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 hearing no public input stated that the Rules of Procedure require the public hearing to be suspended for 30 minutes if there is no public input or until such time that there is public input.
Minutes:
The Board reviewed the minutes of April 21, 2020.
Mr. Wright stated that after Mr. Freeman’s presentation he had made some comments that were not reflected in the minutes. Mr. Wright asked who transcribed the minutes and how did his comments all of a sudden disappear in the entire document. Ms. Favreau said that she did the minutes and she would put his comments in the minutes. Mr. Wright asked where Ms. Favreau gets the authority to eliminate a public document presentations. Ms. Favreau said she does not have the authority and that is why the Board reviews the minutes. Ms. Favreau continued that the minutes are not transcribed word for word. Mr. Wright said to eliminate portions of it for expedience of time or convenience violates the Right to Know law.
Mr. Healey said that the Board never puts into the minuteseverything that is said, it is a best effort of the recording secretary to record the meeting. Discussion followed.
Mr. Wright made a motion to not review the minutes until they are complete. Mr. Beaton seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote:
Mike Beaton-Aye
Darren Finneral-Aye
Deane Geddes-Aye
Chris Hernick-Aye
Russ Smith-Aye
Dick Wright-Aye
Bruce Healey-Nay
The April 21, 2020 minutes were not reviewed, and the recording secretary will make requested amendments.
7:15 p.m. Case 2019-004-Continued Final Approval-Minor Subdivision- Bell, Scott & MacNaughton (owners), - for property located on Old Post Rd., Newbury, NH Tax Map 032-037-333.
Mr. Healey called the hearing to order at 7:20 p.m. and stated that this was a continued final approval for a minor subdivision and the only notice that is given is to the abutters.
Mr. Healey read into the minutes:
March 20, 2019
Robert Scott
PO Box 992
New London, NH 03257
RE: Application for Final Approval - Minor Subdivision
The Newbury Planning Board, at their meeting held on March 19, 2019, voted to find your Application for Final Approval – Minor Subdivision incomplete and based on your request, voted to continue the hearing to: September 17, 2019 at 7:15pm.
Materials not submitted with your application as required included:
Section 9.4.4 – Building Envelope and associated Form Factor as required by Section 10.5.3
Section 9.2 - Soils Report.
As discussed, the Board accepts the soils information on the Plan of Subdivision as a Soils Map. However, you must provide a Soils Report that describes all soil types, properties and classification. Soils classifications seemed to be labeled (380B, 380C, 380D & 415B). Further, the report should describe the soils suitability in the proposed areas of development for building foundations, on-site wastewater disposal and the proposed driveway from the road (Old Post) to the building envelope.
The Board also requested the following:
A more detailed plan as well as the topography for the location of driveway access to each lot and driveway pathway to the building envelope. Please also include assurance that the proposed driveways will be in complete compliance with RSA 236:13.
On the Plan of Subdivision, make the delineation of wetlands and any natural steam flows whether intermittent or continuousmuch clearer.
Very truly yours,
Bruce Healey, Chair
Newbury Planning Board
Mr. Healey invited Mr. Scott to speak to the Board on his subdivision plans. Mr. Scott said he would go through the requirements as specified in the Newbury Land Subdivision Control Regulations listed on page 26 in Table 8.1 for final approval. Mr. Scott continued item number one required is the application form, next is the abutter list and application fees which was given to Ms. Favreau. Next is a written authorization for agent, which is not required because I am one of the owners. Mr. Scott said the next document was the density report whichall the land area numbers were supplied from the licensed surveyor. The density report shows a maximum number of 3 dwelling units allowed and we are applying for three lots. Mr. Scott continued the next item is the subdivision plan. The plans were created by a licensed surveyor and an engineer and includes items from 9.4 that are required to be on the plan. Mr. Scott said the form factor values as calculated by the surveyor and engineer are on the plan in the top center. Lot 3 for lot boundary is exempt because it is over 10 acres and the building envelopes were constructed to meet form factor is every case.
Mr. Healey explained the concept of form factor which is to help avoid lots being configured in a way that does not make sense such as too long or narrow. Mr. Healey continued that if you look at lot 2 it almost reaches the form factor criteria which is that it is narrow and long. The form factor calculation is 25 and lot 2’s form factor calculation is 24.18. Mr. Healey said lot 1 is exempted from form factor because it has 301’ of frontage and lot 3 is exempted from form factor because it is over 10 acres. Mr. Beaton asked if there is a minimum buildable acres per lot that the Town requires. Mr. Healey answered 1 acre and all three lots have an identified building envelope over 1 acre. Lot 1 has1.9-acres, lot 2 has 2.7 acres and lot 3 has 1.17 acres of building envelope. Mr. Scott said the building envelope has its own requirements of staying away from wetlands and steep slopes and also side and front setbacks.
Mr. Scott said there were concerns that the wetlands were not shown well enough on the original plan and we have darkened that line up a bit. Mr. Scott continued there are no wetland areas, but there are a couple of streams, one that runs almost the entire length of lot 3 and a shorter one
near the southern border. There are no streams on lot 2 and lot 1 has two streams that run to the west. In all these cases the streams are very small, and you can step across them almost everywhere and the building envelopes stay 75’ away from these streams.
Mr. Beaton asked how close the driveways will be to the wetlands. Mr. Scott said the driveways in all cases stay 75’ away from the wetlands. Mr. Scott continued that both of the drivewayentrances were chosen so that the large boulders along Old Post Road are not disturbed.
Mr. Scott said the next item on Table 8.1 is the topographic map, which is part of the plan, the topo lines are on the drawing.
Mr. Scott said the next item is the soils report. Mr. Scott continued that the soils are marked on the plan and there is also a 2-page soils report completed by a soils scientist who is also a wetland scientist and surveyor. Mr. Scott said there were a couple of questions about the soils report that came to me after review from the Board chair and advisor about an apparent disagreement within the report itself. Mr. Scott continued that at the top of page two of the soils report it states that these three soil complexes are well drained and these three complexes include the one soil type 380D and at the bottom of page two it says soils with D are soils that have a very slow infiltration rate when fully wet. Mr. Scott said it appeared that those two statements are in opposition. Mr. Scott continued the definitions in the report of the soil groups and soil types are highly controlled and even though the soil has a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet it still is a well-drained soil. Mr. Scott said when you look at the entire parcel to be subdivided, there is one section in the western half that is the 415B soil type and that is a poorly drained soil and not suitable for development. Mr. Scott said another part of the soils report is the wetlands report, which was provided by a wetland’s scientist and his field inspectionidentified the streams that are on the plan.
Mr. Scott said the next item on Table 8.1 is the subdivisions located in within Special Flood Hazard areas. Mr. Scott continued that included in the Newbury Master Plan is the 100 Year Floodplain map for the Town of Newbury. Mr. Scott said there are no floodplain areas within almost a mile of the subject area and more importantly downhill.
Mr. Scott said we get to the agency or permit approvals, a site specific approval from the NH DES for land disturbance in excess of 100,000 square feet does not apply, a Dredge and Fill permit from the NH Wetlands Board is not needed because there is no crossing the streams or within 75’ of wetlands. Mr. Scott continued that they will be seeking driveway permits from the Highway Administrator after conditional subdivision approval from the Board. Mr. Scott said the next item is approval of Water Supply Systems and/or Subdivision Approval Onsite Sewage Disposal from NH DES and that is completed and has been submitted to the Board for lot 2. Lots 1 and 3 did not require State Subdivision approval because they are over 5 acres. Mr. Scott said that completes the list of items in Table 8.1 and the only outstanding item is the driveway permits.
Mr. Healey asked for Board questions or comments for Mr. Scott. Mr. Finneral said the driveways on the plan before the subject property are quite long and steep and asked if the subdivision driveways would be similar. Mr. Scott said that is not their plan. Mr. Scott continued that they would build the first 50 or 100 feet of the driveway to get into the building envelope and after that the buyers would need to come to the Town where they are sighting the house. Mr. Scott continued that the building envelopes do not extend as high as some of the other driveways and also one of the reasons they like the driveway design, so you don’t come straight down a steep hill to a T right away at the road, but you traverse across the property and then in the last 40 feet or so you turn onto the road.
Mr. Healey said one of the things in review of the subdivision plan lot 3 has a common driveway that will service lot 2 as well. Mr. Healey continued that one of the things that the Planning Board does when presented with a common driveway is to have a recorded common driveway access easement that protects both the owners of lot 2 and 3. Mr. Healey said from prior Planning Board work he drafted up three conditions precedent that are required for a common driveway access easement for final approval of this application. Mr. Healey stated the conditions:
1. The Subdivision Plat to be recorded shall be amended to add the location and boundaries of the common driveway serving Lots 2 and 3.
2. The Subdivision Plat to be recorded shall be amended to add the following note:
Lots 2 and 3 in this subdivision are served by a common driveway off Old Post Road. The common driveway access point onto Old Post Road is off Lot 3. Access to Lot 2 is provided off the common driveway and is not permitted directly off Old Post Road. As shown on the subdivision plat, there is a Common Driveway Access Easement identifying the location and boundaries of the jointly used portion of the common driveway to ensure access in perpetuity to Lot 2 via the Common Driveway and to address shared maintenance responsibility for the common driveway between the owners of Lots 2 and 3. The Common Driveway Access Easement is recorded in the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds.
3. The Common Driveway Access Easement, as approved by the Planning Board Chair, which shall identify the location and boundaries of the jointly used portion of the common driveway to ensure access in perpetuity to Lot 2 via the Common Driveway and which shall address shared maintenance responsibility for the common driveway between the owners of Lots 2 and 3. The Common Driveway Access Easement shall be recorded in the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds when the final subdivision plat is recorded with all recording fees to be paid by the applicant.
Mr. Healey proposed 60 days for Mr. Scott to submit the amended subdivision plat and Common Driveway Access Easement. Mr. Healey said that this is a Board decision and the conditions were taken from prior Board work, but it needs to make sense to all Board members. Mr. Healey said that he had sent the conditions to Mr. Scott, as a courtesy, for his review and Mr. Healey asked if Mr. Scott was okay with the conditions. Mr. Scott asked if the shared driveway on the plat meets the condition of defining where the driveway goes. Mr. Healey said he was not sure of what exactly a Common Driveway Access Easement says about its location and boundaries. Mr. Healey asked Mr. Scott if the driveway’s location is identified. Mr. Scott said yes, they can get numbers on the drawing as it exists on the computer, that will allow us to identify the distances from the boundary pin to the driveway edge and then how far it extends into lot 3, so we would define the easement area as larger than what the driveway is shown on the plan. Mr. Healey said he was sure that was fine and asked the Board members if they were okay with what Mr. Scott was saying. Mr. Geddes said he did not have any issues with that and that usually in his experience when he sees easements they are very well identified and over a larger area then what ends up getting used. Mr. Geddes asked why the owner or surveyor selected this particular location to go through the stone wall, was there an old gate there or are the rocks there much smaller. Mr. Scott said that rocks being disturbed there are none of the large boulders and that particular location has good site distance in both directions. Mr. Geddes asked if the line of site measurements is something the Highway Administrator speaks to. Mr. Healey said the driveway permits are issued by the Highway Administrator and he has his criteria.
Mr. Healey clarified with Mr. Scott what the Board was asking for was the 3 conditions set forth above with the Common Driveway Access Easement being a separate document and the 4th condition precedent being driveway permits issued by the Highway Administrator.
Mr. Healey made a motion that the Planning Board have the following four conditions set precedent for final approval:
1. The Subdivision Plat to be recorded shall be amended to add the location and boundaries of the common driveway serving Lots 2 and 3.
2. The Subdivision Plat to be recorded shall be amended to add the following note:
Lots 2 and 3 in this subdivision are served by a common driveway off Old Post Road. The common driveway access point onto Old Post Road is off Lot 3. Access to Lot 2 is provided off the common driveway and is not permitted directly off Old Post Road. As shown on the subdivision plat, there is a Common Driveway Access Easement identifying the location and boundaries of the jointly used portion of the common driveway to ensure access in perpetuity to Lot 2 via the Common Driveway and to address shared maintenance responsibility for the common driveway between the owners of Lots 2 and 3. The Common Driveway Access Easement is recorded in the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds.
3. The Common Driveway Access Easement, as approved by the Planning Board Chair, which shall identify the location and boundaries of the jointly used portion of the common driveway to ensure access in perpetuity to Lot 2 via the Common Driveway and which shall address shared maintenance responsibility for the common driveway between the owners of Lots 2 and 3. The Common Driveway Access Easement shall be recorded in the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds when the final subdivision plat is recorded with all recording fees to be paid by the applicant.
4. Driveway permits issued by the Highway Administrator.
Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote:
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. Healey opened public input.
Mr. Rielly, an abutter, asked when they would start clearing and the hours of the equipment operation when this all gets approved. Mr. Scott said they will not be building homes in there, we will be marketing these lots to individual owners-they might sell in a few months they may not sell for a few years and then the owners would be responsible for any construction that goes on. Mr. Scott continued that they will probably punch in the driveways. Mr. Rielly said that he noticed one of them had already been punched in that they did not receive any notice and it popped up over the holiday that is why they were listening in. Mr. Scott said that they had to take an excavator in for the test pits as required for the State.
Mr. Healey closed public input.
Mr. Healey asked Mr. Scott what he had said about the septic design approval for lot 2. Mr. Scott said you don’t have an approval on the septic design because the number of bedrooms is not known. Mr. Scott continued that what you have to do to get DES subdivision approval is provide test pit and location of test pit on lot where the soil is suitable for a leach field and you also have to locate a well with a radius of 75’. Mr. Scott said the septic system design process is started by the builder or owner of the lot. Mr. Healey clarified that the septic system design is not a requirement of DES at this time. Mr. Scott said correct.
Mr. Healey closed the public hearing.
Mr. Finneral made a motion to approve the final minor subdivision application with four conditions set precedent. Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote:
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. Healey advised the applicant that he or any party directly affected by this decision may appeal to the proper Board of Superior Court within 30 days of this decision.
7:09 p.m. – Public Hearing-Continued-Proposed amendments to the Planning Board’s regulations for Site Plan Review identifying when a Major Site Plan Review is required, when a Minor Site Plan Review is required, when NO Site Plan Review is required and Application requirements for a Minor Site Plan Review.
Mr. Healey re-opened the public hearing. No public input. Mr. Healey asked if there was any Board discussion on the proposed amendments. No Board discussion.
Mr. Healey made a motion to accept the proposed amendments to the Planning Board’s Regulations for Site Plan Review to be considered including identifying when a Major Site Plan Review is required, when a Minor Site Plan Review is required, when no Site Plan Review is required and Application requirements for a Minor Site Plan Review. Mr. Geddes seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote:
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 asked if the Board had to decide if the amendments were more stringent. Mr. Healey said no because it wasn’t a Zoning Ordinance.
Discussion – whether & how to proceed with potential zoning amendments to support new housing alternatives.
Mr. Healey said the final topic tonight, which the Board started discussion at their last meeting, is whether and how to proceed with potential Zoning amendments to support new housing alternatives. Mr. Healey continued why this is a potential topic for the Planning Board is because in the Master Plan of 2017this was a topic that was addressed many times and many ways by the community. Mr. Healey said he searched the word housing in the Master Plan, and it was used 85 times. Discussion followed. Mr. Healey said housing received the highest priority for both the SelectBoard and the Planning Board to work on and address, so that is why Mr. Healey brought it forward but there still needs to be interest and support from the Board members. Mr. Healey asked for Board discussion.
Mr. Wright said Mr. Freeman had made a reference to building smaller houses because of the lot size and the cost to a developer to build roads to town specifications knowing that eventually the developer would want to turn the roads over to the Town. Mr. Wright continued that he didn’t think the Town should be in the business of making it cheaper for developers to buy land. Mr. Wright said he was concerned with communal septic systems and wells. Mr. Wright said the zoning currently allows Cluster development and we should not be facilitating a developer at the expense of the taxpayers with higher taxes because of more support service needs. Mr. Wright made the suggestion to work with a developer to identify an overlay district where the Town can control the extent of the development. Discussion followed. Mr. Wright is concerned about opening the Town up to crowding little areas in sections, and feels the Board needs to look at this
very carefully. Discussion followed. Mr. Finneral said it was not the Town’s responsibility to find cheap land for people to buy houses. Discussion followed. Mr. Hernick said he looked at the Innovative Land Use Planning Techniques handbook referenced at the last Planning Board meeting and lot size averaging stood out for him. Mr. Hernick continued that any development has toaverage our two-acre lot size but could include a mixture of smaller and larger lots. Mr. Hernick said that the handbook gives Lyme, NH as an example and maybe the Board could take a look at their Zoning Ordinance and see how they have accomplished that. Discussion followed.
Mr. Healey said this process could take a year or more and generally when the Planning Board takes on a big project like this and is successful is when they create a subcommittee. Mr. Healey continued that 2 to 3 Board members would be on the subcommittee plus reaching out to residents interested in the topic who would like to be a part of the subcommittee. Mr. Healey said the subcommittee does all the work, study and evaluation and reports back to the full Planning Board periodically. Mr. Healey said that the most the Board can decide at this time, is whether there are Board members who would like to take this project on.
Mr. Wright said he would work on the subcommittee. Mr. Hernick said he would be interested. Mr. Smith suggested asking Ms. Lord if she would be interested. Discussion followed. Mr. Healey said the Board would re-visit this topic in future meetings.
Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Geddes seconded the motion. All in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 8:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tiffany A. Favreau
Recording Secretary
6 | Page