PLANNING BOARD Town of Greenland Greenland, NH Portsmouth Avenue PO Box 100 Phone: Fax: Website: greenland-nh.

Transcription

1 PLANNING BOARD Town of Greenland Greenland, NH Portsmouth Avenue PO Box 100 Phone: Fax: Website: greenland-nh.com MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING Thursday, November 21, :00 p.m. Town Hall Conference Room Members Present: Chair Stu Gerome, Chip Hussey, John McDevitt, David Moore, Paul Sanderson, Selectmen s Rep Mo Sodini, Rich Winsor, Alternate Steve Gerrato Staff: Dylan Smith RPC Circuit Rider Chair Gerome opened the Planning Board meeting at 7:03 p.m. A roll call was taken by the Chair; he announced a quorum was present and the meeting was being recorded. 1. Subdivision of Land: 945 and 1031 Portsmouth Avenue [Map R10, 30; Map R10, 31A] Owners: Troy and Diane Thibodeau; Brian Beck Applicant: Ambit Engineering The owners and applicant are proposing to consolidate 945 and 1031 Portsmouth Avenue, and to develop the combined lot as a Conservation Subdivision. John Chagnon, Ambit Engineering and representing the owners, addressed the Board. Also in attendance were Brian Beck and Troy Thibodeau (owners), and Karyn Forbes (Counsel, Shaheen and Gordon, PA). Mr. Chagnon updated the Board on plan revisions and possible well locations. He also brought the Board up-to-date regarding the ongoing zoning violation with stockpiling of materials. Materials have been removed; revised plans were submitted November 12, The Building Inspector has verified the piles were removed and there were no issues relative to zoning on the site. Permits received: AOT, NHDES Wetlands, NHDES Subdivision, and NHDOT Driveway. Mr. Chagnon addressed the review from Altus (on file). Stamps will be on the mylars; the Town Engineer requested the cost estimate for bonding be broken down further and that will be done. Wing walls will be installed on the main crossing culvert that will be bridging the wetlands, as shown on Sheet 17 of the most recent plans. Although the Town Engineer concurred that the guard rail is not warranted under AASHTO guidelines, his review indicates he may want to revisit that during construction; they are concerned with the vertical distance down at the culvert crossing. Mr. Chagnon stated they are proposing a crossing with 3:1 side slopes going away from the shoulder, and they are below the cross hatch area where guard rails are warranted. The remaining issue was how to address restoring the stockpile area. DES has approved installing 4 of bark mulch over the entire area and letting it grow back naturally. The owner has re-graded the steeper slope and repaired the silt fence. A Conditional Use Permit is required as part of the approval process. Mr. Chagnon told the Board that they have met with the Conservation Commission. They reviewed the plans, and found no problems with the final engineering or impact to the wetlands. The only direct wetland impact is the road Planning Board Public Hearing Minutes - Page 1 of 7

2 crossing, which is customary and necessary to access the upland portion of the site where the development will occur. Mr. Chagnon addressed the review by the Circuit Rider (on file). He asked if, based on Item 3 recommending that the Town Engineer review and ensure all construction activity, was taking it to another level. Mr. Chagnon stated that the Town has a competent Building Inspector and there was no need to have an extra layer of oversight. Mr. Smith responded that it was not intended for the actual building of homes, but more for aggregate of the whole (density bonuses, stormwater detention, rain gardens, filter ponds, trails, parking area, buffering, recreational improvement, etc.). Mr. Smith suggested that loam and seed be used in the stockpile area to restore it to the condition prior to disturbance. He continued that if the Board granted a Conditional Use Permit, consideration should be given to the Town Engineer reviewing a wide swath of the construction activity on the site. When asked about the filter pond, Mr. Smith felt there was adequate distance for more infiltration and treatment prior to it going into the filter pond when it s located lower on the hill. Mr. Chagnon added it gives more buffer treatment. Visually from Rt. 33, it would be less impairment with the filter pond being located closer to the wetlands setback area rather than up on the hillside. Pre-treatment prior to entering the filter pond is a major benefit, and the Conservation Commission doesn t have a problem with the integrity of the wetlands in that area. Mr. Hussey, speaking on behalf of the Conservation Commission, agreed they didn t see a problem with what the applicant proposed. He continued that the reason for buffers was to treat stormwater: it s being utilized for what it s designed to do. Mr. Winsor asked for the square footage impact of the rain garden and filter pond. Mr. Hussey thought the impact was 11,000 sq. ft. less than the original proposal. Mr. Winsor questioned how much space now being used in rain gardens and filter ponds would become wetlands. Mr. Chagnon responded none ; they don t become wetlands, they re filter ponds and the water doesn t sit long enough. Mr. Sanderson stated that the use of the buffer for the installation of this facility is a good use of the buffer, and has been appropriately designed. He continued that he couldn t understand why people believe that a buffer has to be untouched by human hands. The buffer zone is being highly engineered to be more functional, which is a much better use of the buffer. Mr. Sanderson also addressed the comments about the stockpile area and that the 4 of bark mulch would not provide remediation. What else could be achieved by a similar method that couldn t be achieved using bark mulch? Mr. Smith responded that looking at the pictures given out by Mr. Chagnon there was a question with the slope shown before where bark mulch would not stabilize the slope; what shows now adds a different element. Bark mulch doesn t allow for the regrowth of trees or grasses; bark mulch is generally used to not allow growth. The area should be restored to its natural state. When asked for his thoughts on the impact number, Mr. Sanderson felt it wasn t an issue; the whole function of the impact was to treat stormwater better. Chair Gerome was concerned that issuing a Conditional Use Permit without the impact numbers may set a precedent. Roadway impact is 8,210 sq. ft. plus 5,000 sq. ft. buffer on either side of the road = 13,210 sq. ft. plus 28,000 sq. ft. of an LID technique as shown on the plan = 41,210 sq. ft. of total impact. All buffer impacts are for filter ponds and rain gardens. Chair Gerome has asked that the Town Engineer review and confirm. Mr. Sanderson noted that the ordinance doesn t require the computation of impact, but it probably should. Mr. Chagnon suggested it be part of the application. Planning Board Public Hearing Minutes - Page 2 of 7

3 Mr. McDevitt questioned Mr. Chagnon regarding the possible well locations in case of individual well failure. The homeowner documents have been revised; if the homeowner has a problem with their well, they can drill another in the open space area for themselves with the approval of the Homeowners Association. The association could also dictate the well is set up so others could tie into it if needed. Mr. Sanderson asked if there was a provision in the documents giving the Town executory privileges if the HOA were to go out of existence. Attorney Forbes stated that there are provisions for the Town to take over maintenance, which is not an obligation on the part of the Town. The Town Attorney requested that it be worded so the Town is not required to take over the maintenance. If the Town needs to enforce maintenance, the homeowners would be billed. Chair Gerome opened the hearing to public comments regarding the request for a Conditional Use Permit. Deborah Beck, 1039 Portsmouth Avenue, addressed the Board. Ms. Beck owns the property west of the proposed road. There is a spring behind her house as well as Hyrdo 1 soils to the left of her lot. She stated that years ago the property was not wet; the State actually created it. The proposed road is going through the wettest part of the property. There is an existing access; the road was created to manipulize the ordinance and take advantage of the land to be able to produce the most amount of lots on the property. Ms. Beck continued, comparing the proposed development to that of Mr. Falzone. She stated that this development is an engineering illusion; it will be a nightmare for her and the Town. No open space will be left; the field will be wet. If there is another storm, the water will go over the road. It will be a drainage nightmare with stormwater runoff from the houses on 10,000 sq. ft. lots. Ms. Beck stated that if there is a well failure, there will be wells on Town property. She continued that the subdivision is put together by someone who does not know how to develop property. It s a capitalization on the ordinance and the property. She told the Board that they have been more than lenient with the applicant; now it s time to say no. A Conditional Use Permit has to be because there is no other alternative, and a better alternative exists. Traffic will also be an issue. She concluded by stating it was not reasonable to grant the Conditional Use Permit. Liz Cummings, 40 Nantucket Place, addressed the Board and apologized for losing her temper at a previous meeting. She sees this not as a person who doesn t know how to do a development and it s a knock on the engineering firm, and it s not deserved. An individual should have the right to develop their property. It was her feeling that the Planning Board, on this particular development, had gotten into areas of the Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer. The Board has to trust that he will do his job; the developer also has to be trusted that he will not build ugly houses to be sold. She also spoke to how the development will look from Rt. 33. People will not be looking at the development; they will be more concerned with traffic backing up on Rt. 33. The field has been wet in the past, but it has also been very dry. There are 10 houses on Nantucket, and there have been no problem with wells. Mrs. Cummings continued that what is being done on the development meets the criteria in the ordinance, and the applicant has gone overboard for the Board. Given the length of time that this has been in process, it s time to decide one way or the other. In the ordinance that was submitted and approved by the Town, the Board has given itself huge decision-making powers; with that authority comes responsibility. It s time for the Board to exercise its responsibility to both the applicant and the Town. The applicant has done their due diligence; it s now the Board s turn to do theirs. There being no further comments, Chair Gerome closed the public hearing and returned to the Board for discussion. MOTION: Mr. Sanderson moved to approve the requested Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Section 18.6 of the ordinance, to allow impacts within the wetlands buffer for the purpose of filter ponds and other storm control facilities and roadways in the locations and sizes with the configuration as shown on the plan Proposed Open Space Subdivision 945 and 1031 Portsmouth Avenue, Greenland, Planning Board Public Hearing Minutes - Page 3 of 7

4 NH, as revised on November 12, 2013, shown as the Conceptual Grading Plan Sheet C2. Second Mr. Sodini. DISCUSSION: For clarification purposes, the Conditional Use Permit is for construction in the wetland and buffer zone. Mr. Sanderson further clarified that the intent of his motion was to grant a Conditional Use Permit for the installation of roadways and improvements in accordance with the C2 plan. Chair Gerome expressed his personal concerns that the design is not a proper use of the ordinance; other areas could have been moved for less impact. MOTION: Mr. Sanderson moved to approve the requested Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Section 18.6 of the ordinance, to allow impacts within the wetlands buffer for the purpose of filter ponds and other storm control facilities and roadways in the locations and sizes with the configuration as shown on the plan Proposed Open Space Subdivision 945 and 1031 Portsmouth Avenue, Greenland, NH, as revised on November 12, 2013, shown as the Conceptual Grading Plan Sheet C2. Second Mr. Sodini; five (5) in favor, two (2) against (Chair Gerome and Mr. Winsor). MOTION CARRIED Discussing the project itself, Mr. Smith stated that the area of the loam piles should be satisfactorily covered and returned back its original form, and not promote siltation into the wetlands. He didn t feel bark mulch was an adequate cover for ensuring erosion doesn t happen during rain events. The Board needs to decide what they feel is adequate for that area as it relates to the 4 of bark mulch or to the loam or seeded form. The slopes have been fixed somewhat; will that cause erosion issues within that area during a storm event? Mr. Smith didn t feel bark mulch was a solution. Mr. Winsor asked if 4 of bark mulch and appropriate seeding be a more suitable remediation for the area. Mr. Smith responded that it would be. Mr. Hussey added that grass was not going to grow now, and something needed to be done for winter. He suggested temporarily covering the area with bark mulch; in the spring the bark mulch could be recycled on the trails and the area reseeded. Mr. Chagnon reviewed Sheet D1, Winter Notes with the Board. The intent was to return to trees. The concern of some Board members was the gestation period. The portion of the property in question is open space that will be deeded to the Town. Mr. Sodini reminded the Board that the Town doesn t have a plan for the property, and it should be stabilized for now. Mr. Winsor stated that he didn t feel the Town should have the responsibility to manage restoring the area. Mr. Chagnon told the Board when they did the site walk the area was cleared but not stumped. Mr. Thibodeau added that the stock piles were in place when the walk was done. He proposed hydro-seeding the bank with a winter rye and bark mulching the flat area for the winter; Mr. Chagnon suggested adding hay to the slope. The Board was agreeable to Mr. Thibodeau s proposal, adding that when the property is turned over to the Town it was the applicant s responsibility the area was not mud. Homeowner improvements are listed under Note 8 on Sheet 5, and will be recorded. Mr. Chagnon gave the Board additional items to be included in the Conditional Approval. The grading plan was discussed. Individual lots may require different grading due to the septic plan. Chair Gerome s concern was that the grading on the rear elevations could be a lot steeper than what is shown or ends up being done. He wants it to be designed correctly, with the least slope possible. Mr. Winsor added that part of the conservation subdivision is the maintenance of the aesthetic appeal. He continued that part of the quid pro quo is for the applicant to provide some control to the Board as to the architectural look, and to make sure it s maintaining the architectural appeal of the village or neighborhood. Mr. Chagnon stated the minimum grade coming off the septic is a 3:1 slope from the edge of the fill area to the existing ground. He added that where the fill hit the ground, a wall could be added. Planning Board Public Hearing Minutes - Page 4 of 7

5 Chair Gerome opened the hearing to public comments regarding the application. Deborah Beck, 1039 Portsmouth Avenue, reiterated that this was not a conservation subdivision, nothing was being conserved and it was capitalization of the land. She was concerned who was going to develop the property, put the road in and babysit them throughout the process as well as protect abutters and the Town. She continued that there are compliance issues before ground is even broken. She told the Board they were doing a great job, but obviously it has to do with who has experience in developing and who doesn t have experience. Not a subdivision; this is a conservation subdivision and a major development. Ms. Beck stated that she respects the Board s vote and wants to be on record for her issues and what she needs to deal with in the future to protect her interests. Liz Cummings, 40 Nantucket Place: Mr. Thibodeau cut the trees down in the area of the dirt piles three (3) years ago. She also commented on how the 4 of bark mulch will impede. If 4 of bark mulch is put down, within 1.5 years weeds will be growing. Mrs. Cummings also commented the proposed cul-desac appears large enough to accommodate a large fire truck. The rain gardens will work; the rain gardens at the Town Hall work. Her concern is the houses emptying onto Rt. 33; unfortunately, the Winnicut Road light has made things difficult at certain times of the day. She also commented that Board would have to allow that the engineers and builders will following the building code. There being no further comments, Chair Gerome closed the public hearing and returned to the Board. MOTION: Mr. Sodini moved to approve the subdivision of Map R10 Lots 30 & 31A into a total of 20 lots in accordance with the plan by Ambit Engineering dated November 04, 2013, revisions dated November 12, 2013 (Sheets C1, C2), subject to the following conditions. Second Mr. Hussey. - No building permit shall be issued until the mylar is signed. - Any and all state and/or federal permits shall be obtained and made part of the file. - No occupancy permits shall be issued until such time as the requirements of the fire protection system have been installed, tested and accepted in accordance with the Site Plan Review Regulations. - Any and all fees due the Town of Greenland and its consultants must be paid before the mylar is signed and recorded. - Boundary monumentation must be included in the construction estimate. - A road construction security and inspection agreement must be completed with the Town of Greenland before the mylar is signed and recorded. - The Town Engineer can agree to minor road plan adjustments in the field. All such agreements are to be reported to the Planning Board. All other changes must be referred to the Planning Board with the proper request and revised plans. - The applicant must provide the Town of Greenland with as built plans for the construction of the roadway, all drainage facilities and utilities prior to the release of the road construction security and inspection agreement. - For the duration of the roadway construction phase of the project, the applicant shall be required to maintain construction warning signs notifying motorists of construction in progress. This must be coordinated with the Greenland Police Department. - Police Chief s review and written comments prior to approval. - Fire Chief s review and written comments prior to approval. - A pre-construction meeting must be held with the Building Inspector prior to any building permits being issued. - A post-construction meeting must be held with the Building Inspector prior to any occupancy permits being issued. Planning Board Public Hearing Minutes - Page 5 of 7

6 - The Town Engineer, paid for by the applicant, must inspect the installation of erosion and sedimentation control measures, septic or sewer system installations and stormwater drainage systems to ensure compliance with the approved plan. - A stamped Certificate of Monumentation must be received for the file prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit. - Any variance or waivers granted must be keyed to the final plan. - No changes to the approved plan(s) can be made without appearing before the Planning Board. - The mylar must include a note requiring that street numbers for new houses be assigned by the appropriate Town of Greenland official, and must be visible from the road. - Erosion control measures must be in place and maintained throughout the duration of project construction. - The applicant must submit a final full plan set (22 x34 ) and an 11 x17 plan copy as part of the Planning Board file. - The applicant must submit a digital copy (CD ROM or thumb drive) of the final full plan set as part of the Planning Board file. - Due to the unique conditions (specific building envelopes, septic system/well placement, erosion control measures, stormwater devices, road construction, tree planting/buffering, improvements based on the density bonuses awarded and general total lot construction sequencing) Altus shall review and ensure all construction activity as laid out in the final approved plan set are completed as conditionally approved by the Board, with the exception of home construction and individual lot grading. - The stockpile area is to be stabilized by hydro-seeded winter rye on the slope and 4 of bark mulch on the flat surface area. - The mylar shall include a note that all lots within the subdivision shall be subject to, and receive, the benefit of all restrictions and obligations as found in a Declaration of Easements, Covenants, Restrictions of the Homeowners Association. - The Town of Greenland shall review and approve the cistern easement deed conveying the easement to the Town. - The applicant shall deed and convey Open Space Area B to the Town of Greenland. - The additional buffering shown on the Jordan Associates plan dated August 29, 2013 shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Lot 20. DISCUSSION: Chair Gerome stated for the record that he does not support the project; he doesn t believe it s a conservation subdivision. Most importantly, it s not even remotely close to any kind of Town industry or State standard for building that has been done in the last years. Mr. McDevitt concurred; the subdivision did not meet the spirit of the ordinance. They have taken the lot for the purpose of maximizing the number of lots they can get out of the land vs. making more it aesthetically pleasing per the ordinance. He continued that this has been the hardest subdivision that he has had to deal with, and he dealt with Packard Development. However, they met the letter of the ordinance. Mr. Sanderson agreed with Mr. McDevitt: it meets the letter of the ordinance. If you re voting no, you re saying that the ordinance is drafted poorly. They are in compliance with the ordinance, and the Board would be remiss in not voting for approval. Mr. Moore agreed, adding he didn t like how the conservation subdivision became how many houses can be crammed onto the lot and for profit. They did meet the letter of the ordinance; the ordinance should be looked at and changed in the future. MOTION: Mr. Sodini moved to approve the subdivision of Map R10 Lots 30 & 31A into a total of 20 lots in accordance with the plan by Ambit Engineering dated November 04, 2013, revisions dated November 12, 2013 (Sheets C1, C2), subject to the conditions listed above. Second Mr. Hussey; five (5) in favor, two (2) against (Chair Gerome, Mr. Winsor). MOTION CARRIED Planning Board Public Hearing Minutes - Page 6 of 7

7 Mr. Winsor addressed the Board and quoted Article of the Zoning Ordinance. That was drafted specifically with the intent it was may and not a foregone conclusion. He continued that as a group they had learned a lesson: many approached the vote with this is a foregone conclusion rather than may. Quoting Article 26.6, Mr. Winsor stated that was included as a safety valve to prevent what was just allowed to happen. Mr. Sanderson responded, stating he disagreed. There was very significant expert opinion regarding each and every aspect; that, to him, is what was controlling. He continued that the Board would be making a very grave mistake if they allowed their view of concept to overcome expert opinion and evidence. That wouldn t be adjudication; that would allow the elected members of the Board to decide aesthetics. They are in compliance because of all the expert opinion and all the issues having been reviewed carefully by the Board. Because of the expert opinion and level of scrutiny and review, the Board was mandated to do this. 2. Approval of Minutes: Thursday, October 17, 2013 and Thursday, November 07, 2013 MOTION: Mr. Hussey moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, October 17, Second Mr. Sodini; all in favor. MOTION CARRIED MOTION: Mr. Hussey moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, November 07, Second Mr. Sodini; six (6) in favor, one (1) abstain (Mr. Moore). MOTION CARRIED 3. Topics for Work Session: Thursday, December 05, 2013 Topics were reviewed. 4. Other Business - Mr. Sanderson told the Board that there were major changes in the federal law regarding telecommunications. There are currently provisions in the ordinance that have been superseded by the FCC; the Board will need to update those. - The life of variances will need to be reviewed and incorporated into the Ordinance based on the new RSA. - Mr. Sanderson updated the Board regarding the proposed Sea-3 expansion. 5. Adjournment MOTION: Mr. Sodini moved to adjourn at 9:00 a.m. Second Mr. Winsor; all in favor. MOTION CARRIED NEXT MEETING Tuesday, December 03, :00 p.m., Town Hall Conference Room, Work Session Respectfully Submitted: Charlotte Hussey Secretary to the Boards Approved: Thursday, December 05, 2013 Planning Board Public Hearing Minutes - Page 7 of 7