Planning Board Minutes

Planning Board

August 18, 2020

Final

Members Present:  Bruce Healey, Chair; Michael Beaton, Vice-Chair; Darren Finneral, Christopher Hernick, Joanne Lord, and Richard Wright, Members; Russell Smith, ex-officio member.

Public: Mr. and Mrs. Mark Hilton, Katheryn Holmes, Ted Dawson, Steve Russell, Roger Robbins

Mr. Healey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Minutes:

The Board reviewed the minutes of July 21, 2020. Corrections were made.

Mr. Healey made a motion to accept the minutes.  Mr. Smithseconded the motion.  All were in favor.

The Board reviewed the minutes of July 28, 2020 Joint Board Meeting. Corrections were made.

Mr. Healey made a motion to accept the minutes.  Ms. Lord seconded the motion.  All were in favor.

7:05 p.m. – Public Hearing – Proposed Amendment to the Planning Board’s regulation for Site Plan Review to be considered pertain to new provisions for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Resources.

There being no public present, Mr. Healey suspended the hearing for at least 30 minutes to allow public to arrive.

Mr. Healey distributed the amendment. 

Mr. Wright made a motion to accept the proposed amendment. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Hernick was in favor. Mr. Smith was in favor. Mr. Healey was in favor. Mr. Beaton was NOT in favor. Mr. Finneral was in favor. Ms. Lord was in favor. Mr. Wright was in favor. 

7:15 p.m. – Case 2018-010– Earth Excavation Permit – Mark and Anne Hilton (owners) for property located at 274 South Road, Newbury, NH. Tax/Map #045-382-409 – proposing excavation and reclamation plans for hay fields and horse paddocks.

Mr. Healey read the public notice.

Mr. Healey opened the public hearing.

Mr. Healey made a motion to find the application complete. Ms. Lord seconded the motion. All were in favor.

Mr. Hilton said he wants to remove some gravel and make a hay field.

Mr. Healey asked if there were any questions by the Board.

Mr. Finneral asked how much he can remove at a time according to the state. Mr. Hilton said that he has to close as he moves. He can only open 1 or 2 acres at a time.

Mr. Healey showed a map of the property to the Board members.

Mr. Healey asked if it will be about 7 acres that will be affected. Mr. Hilton said it is actually a bit more than 6 acres.

Mr. Healey said the Hiltons have agreed to put in a permanent drainage basin with the intent to control all flow of water toward the drainage basin rather than going to Gillingham Pond.

Mr. Healey said he wants to excavate 5.5 acres that are left. 

Mr. Healey asked about the abutter that were concerned about the length of time this project will go on and the noise factor. Mr. Hilton said they live across the lake. Mr. Healey asked what the agreement was they made with these neighbors. Mr. Hilton said he told them they would not do work all weekend long. 

There were no concerns by the Board. 

Mr. Healey asked if they understood the fact that they need to set up an escrow account for reclamation. This is considered a savings account in case he does not reclaim.

Mr. Healey explained that as he reclaims, he can get money back from the escrow account. 

Mr. Hilton asked if he has to reclaim the area that he did not touch and was already done. Mr. Healey said yes because it is part of the 7 acres he has requested to reclaim. 

Mr. Healey said they have to find an independent contractor to quote how much it would cost and to protect the land that is in land use. The state says you must bond that particular project so reclamation does not occur. 

Mr. Healey said it is a safety net for the community.

Mr. Healey said this is a major project that has the potential of moving 600,000 cubic yards.

Mr. Healey said there are two choices. We could continue the hearing and get a bond estimate or he needs to put aside no more than $1,000 for an estimate and would agree to sign a letter of credit with the town of Newbury. 

Mr. Healey asked Mr. Hernick if he thought an estimate could be done for under $1,000 and Mr. Hernick said yes, he believed so.

The maximum time frame they can issue is 5 years. The permit will only last for 5 years from the date it is issued.

Mr. Healey asked that the town does an annual site visit as well as a condition. He thinks it should be visited by the Newbury Conservation Commission. Mr. Smith thinks it should be the Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Hilton said that would be acceptable to him. Mr. Smith said he does not agree that there should be a site visit every year. Mr. Wright suggested having Mr. Hilton could come in on a yearly basis through a letter with the annual status and some pictures.

Mr. Healey said the conditions for the approval are as follows:

Mr. Hilton will:

1. be responsible to hire the independent contractor not to exceed $1000 

2. set up an escrow account

3. receive an annual report with pictures

Mr. Beaton asked about the topsoil. He said it will be about 4,000 yards of topsoil to surface the seven acres.

Mr. Healey opened up for public hearing.

There being none, Mr. Healey closed the public hearing. 

Mr. Hilton asked what happens if he decides not to do anything. 

Mr. Hernick made a motion to proceed with the above conditions. Ms. Lord seconded the motion. All were in favor.

Mr. Healey will find an independent contractor to come up with an estimate.

8:00 p.m. – Case 2020-004 – Conditional Use Permit – Theodore M. and Trina K. Dawson (owners), for property located at 156 Chalk Pond Road., Newbury, NH – Tax/Map #028-369-268 for land disturbance in the wetland buffer concerning placement of a proposed driveway, 24’ x 24’ one family dwelling, septic system and drilled well.

Mr. Healey found the application complete. Mr. Healey made the motion to accept the application as complete. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All were in favor.

Mr. Healey asked Mr. Dawson to make a presentation to the Board.

Mr. Dawson said he would like to build a 2-bedroom house, a driveway and a two-bedroom septic on this lot.

Mr. Healey said that a conditional use permit has three standards. Each one has to be voted on independently. If any one of the three fails, the permit fails.

The three standards are:

1. The use cannot be implemented by outside of the wetland buffer.

2. The location in the wetland buffer will cause the least impact.

3. The method of implementation will minimize the impact to the wetland buffer.

Mr. Healey said most conditional use permits include a wetland buffer.

Mr. Healey said this is a non-conforming lot due to the road frontage.

Mr. Healey asked to have the following letter put into the minutes: 

Letter from abutter Roger Robbins – 

My wife and I have lived on Chalk Pond Road for 21 years. Our home is at 142 Chalk Pond Road and we own lot #10, which borders on the lot seeking a Conditional Use Permit. We have studied the proposed changes to lot #369/268 and we are concerned about those changes, both in terms of the environment and in the value of our property at #10.

In Newbury, wetlands are protected by a 75-foot buffer. My wife and I always felt the small lot in question was safe from development because it was nothing but wetland, especially with the two streams. In the winter and spring, that piece of land is often flooded. The stream that comes through the culvert gushes water that overflows its small banks and spreads out over the lowland.

Over the years, other owners have attempted to develop this piece of land but with no success: a conditional use permit was denied; a standard dredge and fill application was denied. A previous owner even attempted to scare us into a hasty purchase by saying he might just build a “spec house” and sell it to who knows whom.

The Dawsons are the latest to try this land. It was cheap and for that reason: it is impossible to build on without tossing the environmental safeguards that protect the land and the people who live around it. As Peter Blakeman, and engineer involved with previous issues concerning this property, was paraphrased, “There is no area on this lot that is not within the 75 ft. wetland buffer.”

Earlier this year, we bought the lot that abuts Lot #369/268. Ours is a substantial property with development potential that cost nearly three times the price of the Dawson lot. It is a significant investment for us. Now, the Dawsons are proposing to build a house 10-15 feet from our boundary line with the culvert stream in between us. In additional, there is a planned retaining wall which will extend from the house to within a few feet of the culvert stream. It is our fear that should this move be allowed; the full force of the stream will be diverted onto our land in a way that has never been done before. They also plan to put a well within a few feet of our property line.

The Dawsons admit they cannot do as they wish outside the wetland buffer, but, they offer, “we feel good that it is the best possible plan for this lot.” Best plan for them. It is not the best plan for the wetland buffer and for those streams. It is not a best plan for my wife and I with the proposed house and well parked on our toes. The Dawsons speak of permits and proposals and all the particulars of construction. But nowhere is there an analysis of the site and the proposed building plan by a wetland specialist.

For you, the Planning board, this is a tipping point in your stewardship. It is one thing to approve a wetland or buffer infringement of a few feet here or there, but this is not that. If you vote to dismantle protection for a property that is 91% wetlands, then a precedent will be set that may be irreversible. Do environmental rules or profit matter? In this case it is one for the other. 

Sincerely, 

Roger E. Robbins

142 Chalk Pond Road

Mr. Healey said a conditional use permit should have a two-year expiration on it.

Mr. Healey said a wetland delineation plan was issued in 2008. The original report said 91% of this property is wetlands. 

Mr. Dawson explained what the project would entail. He said most of the major components are the same.

Mr. Hernick said it is literally impossible to build outside of the wetlands. Mr. Healey said he agrees with this.

Mr. Healey opened up the hearing to the public.

Mr. Robbins said this property is flooded in the winter. He said showed his concern with the proposed project. 

Mr. Healey asked how far would the house setback be from property line. Mr. Dawson said approximately 15 feet. 

Mr. Smith asked Mr. Robbins if the setback of the well affects his property. 

Mr. Smith proposed a site visit of this project. Mr. Dawson said he does not have a problem with that. Mr. Healey said the hearing would be continued next month and the site visit will take place within the next 30 days.

Mr. Healey is in support of a site visit. 

Mr. Wright would like four stakes in to show the boundaries of the house. Mr. Dawson said that he would be willing to move the house. Mr. Robbins said he would be happy with if he moves the house. Mr. Dawson said he would actually prefer to move the house but was actually just staying with the proposed site.

Mr. Healey said he would like to put in a condition to move the house 10’ to the east. Mr. Dawson said he would like it to align with the edge of the driveway.

Mr. Healey asked if he has the state approval for the state in which Mr. Dawson answered yes.

Mr. Healey asked Mr. Dawson to give us a copy of the new plan.

Mr. Beaton said he thinks we should vote after they see the new plan.

Mr. Wright said he thinks we could just make a condition precedent on the project.

Mr. Healey asked to submit another plan in 30 days as a condition.

Mr. Healey went through the three standards:

1. The use cannot be implemented outside the wetland buffer – all agreed

2. The location in the wetland buffer will cause the least impact – all agreed

3. The method of implementation will minimize the impact to the wetland buffer – all agreed

Mr. Healey stated the conditional use permit will be valid if used within two years of the issue. The building will move to the east to align with the northeast side of the driveway. Mr. Dawson said he will submit a new plan within 30 days to the land use coordinator.

Mr. Wright made a motion to approve the plan with the above mentioned conditions. Ms. Lord seconded the motion. All were in favor.

Other Business: 

Joint Board Meeting Recap - 

Mr. Healey felt a lot of these topics were administrative. Mr. Finneral agreed and wondered if this should be held twice a year. 

Mr. Wright brought up the topic of affordable housing. He does not think we should be getting rid of the 2-acre minimum in town. 

Mr. Healey said we should get in front of the tiny house issue.

Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Beaton seconded the motion.  All in favor.

The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Donna S. Long

Recording Secretary

5 | Page