Rye Planning Board Tuesday, April 8, 2014 Rye Town Hall 7:00 p.m. MINUTES OF THE MEETING

Transcription

1 Rye Planning Board Tuesday, April 8, 2014 Rye Town Hall 7:00 p.m. MINUTES OF THE MEETING Members Present: Chairman William Epperson, Vice-Chair Phil Winslow, Clerk Ray Tweedie, Mel Low, Jerry Gittlein, Keriann Roman, Selectmen s Rep Priscilla Jenness, Alternates Jeffrey Quinn, Anne Crotty and J.M. Lord. I. Call to order and Pledge of Allegiance Chairman Epperson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. II. Designation of sitting alternates - Action Required None III. Appointment of Officers- Action Required Chairman; Motion by Mel Low to nominate Bill Epperson as chairman to the Planning Board. Seconded by Ray Tweedie. All in favor. Vice-Chairman; Motion by Mel Low to nominate Phil Winslow as vice-chairman to the Planning Board. Seconded by Ray Tweedie. All in favor. Clerk Motion by Bill Epperson to nominate Ray Tweedie as clerk to the Planning Board. Seconded by Priscilla Jenness. All in favor. 1

2 IV. Approval of March 4, 2014 meeting minutes Action Required The following corrections were noted: Page 3, 3 rd bullet at top should read: Increased the storage depth for the four bay bays of the gravel wetland, Page 3, 3 rd paragraph from bottom 2 nd sentence should read: Water that by-pass by-passes the catch basins will continue to run down Wallis Road. Page 4, 1 st paragraph, 2 nd sentence should read: In regards to the drainage study, he continued that they modeled to the edge of the wetlands and conveyed through the wetlands two to define reaches. Page 13, middle of page it should read: Chairman Low Epperson asked what is in the little shed. Page 14, 3 rd paragraph from bottom, 1 st sentence should read: Chairman Epperson replied that it is going to be left the way it was written. Page 17, 2 nd paragraph from bottom, 10 th sentence from bottom should read: She thinks this has been a very biased processed process. Page 15, 2 nd paragraph from bottom, 1 st sentence should read: Member Tweedie commented that this would be a procedure for the Board, not necessarily something that would be put into the document. Page 16, 5 th paragraph, 2 nd sentence should read: He continued that he thinks this has been address addressed to some extent in Chapter 6. Motion by Ray Tweedie to approve the March 4, 2014 minutes as amended. Seconded by Phil Winslow. All in favor. V. Public Hearings Action Required: 1. Minor Two-Lot Subdivision for property owned by Shoals Realty, LLC and located at 493 Central Road, Tax Map 8, Lot 1 and 495 Central Road, Tax Map 8, Lot 2 to relocate the lot line to make lot 2 a conforming lot. Property is in the Single and General Residence Districts. Case #: Attorney Patricia Weathersby, representing the applicants, spoke to the Board. She explained that this is essentially a lot line adjustment but because of the characteristics of the property, it has to be treated as a subdivision. The two lots are located on Central Road at 493 and 495. She pointed out that lot 493 has about 20ft of frontage on Central Road. The lot at 495 2

3 3 Unapproved minutes of 4/08/14 Central Road has 465ft of frontage. Each of the lots has a dwelling on it. Lot 1, 495 Central, has an old schoolhouse and parcel 2 has a building that straddles the two parcels. It is an old wooden structure that was converted into a dwelling. She continued that there is a shared driveway that comes in off of Central Road. The lots also span two zones; the Single Residence District and the General Residence. The Single Residence is more strict in the requirements. The lots have been configured to meet the stricter requirements. She stated that they are requesting to take a triangular piece from parcel 2, 495 Central, and moving it over to be part of parcel 1, 493 Central, so both lots will conform to all zoning and be considered a buildable lot. Vice-Chair Winslow asked about the frontage for each lot. Attorney Weathersby explained that if the application is approved, one lot will have ft of frontage and the lot with the schoolhouse will have ft of frontage. Both will conform to the Single Residence requirement. She pointed out that there are some things that need to be added to the plans. The frontage is one of them. She continued that both of the lots will have adequate frontage and adequate square footage. Parcel 2 will have 88,443sf and parcel 1 will have 68,650sf. Chairman Epperson asked Attorney Weathersby to speak to the driveway issue. Attorney Weathersby explained that there is a shared asphalt driveway. The proposal is to abandon the driveway, remove the asphalt and to reseed the area. There will be two separate lots, unconnected to each other. (She pointed out the new driveway locations for the lots.) She stated that the driveway permits have been obtained from DPW. The intent is to renovate the schoolhouse and the location of the driveway for that lot has yet to be determined. Chairman Epperson asked how the driveway permit was issued if the location is unknown. James Verra, Verra & Associates, explained that they submitted a plan to the Road Agent and worked with him to get the permit. Member Tweedie asked if there will be any issues with going over on the impermeable coverage, once the location of the driveway is determined. Attorney Weathersby denied. Referring to the utility right-of-way on lot 1, Chairman Epperson asked if the calculation of the square footage includes the right-of-way. Attorney Weathersby confirmed. There are two easements on the lot. There is a 100ft utility easement through lot 2 and there is an easement that goes along the stonewall. That is a 12ft wide easement for the abutting neighbor to get to their back land. The utility easement is going to stay the way it is. The easement for the abutting parcel will be abandoned and a new easement, in a better location, will be formed. The neighbors are agreeable. This could be a condition of the plan.

4 Member Gittlein asked if the easement has a driveway access. Unapproved minutes of 4/08/14 Attorney Weathersby noted that it is just so the neighbors can cross the property to the back land. Selectmen s Rep Jenness commented that she thinks it is fantastic that the schoolhouse will be saved. That has been a fear for a long time by a lot of people. She noted that there was some logging a couple of years ago, where people went in the PSNH right-of-way and up the far wall and logged into the top of that field. She assumes it was just by permission. Attorney Weathersby explained that Mr. Splaine acquired the property late last year. Selectmen s Rep Jenness commented that there were a lot of logs removed. Along the back there is a lot of wetland that drops into swamp almost immediately. There is a very sharp drop off in the back. She also pointed out that she does not think that anyone has used the right-ofway along the stonewall, in a considerable number of years, to get to the back land. Attorney Weathersby noted that test pits have been done and there are designated leaching areas that have been approved. They do have State subdivision approval. She also noted that there is adequate water to the properties, as confirmed by Aquarion Water. Alternate Anne Crotty pointed out that there is a vernal pool. She asked if that will be subject to wetland setbacks. Attorney Weathersby confirmed. Mr. Verra pointed out that the setback to the vernal pool is 100ft and is shown on Sheet 1. Chairman Epperson opened to the public for comments or questions. David Dugan stated that he and Bill Hodgeman owns the back land. They have no disapproval of what Mr. Splaine is proposing. The only question they have is about the maintenance of the right-of-way and who is to maintain it. Chairman Epperson asked if the right-of-way requires maintenance. Mr. Dugan stated that the shrubs and trees may need to be trimmed in order for access to the back. Member Tweedie asked if he was speaking about the new right-of-way on 495 Central. Mr. Dugan confirmed. 4

5 Mr. Splaine stated that it is able to be mowed and has been in the past. It could be written in that the maintenance would be taken care of by the owner of that property. Chairman Epperson noted that this could be made a condition of approval. Hearing no further comments or questions, Chairman Epperson closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Motion by Ray Tweedie to take jurisdiction over the Minor Two-Lot Subdivision, Case Number Seconded by Priscilla Jenness. All in favor. Motion by Ray Tweedie to approve the Minor Two-Lot Subdivision for property owned by Shoals Realty, LLC and located at 493 Central Road, Tax Map 8, Lot 1 and 495 Central Road, Tax Map 8, Lot 2 to relocate the lot line to make lot 2 a conforming lot. Property is in the Single and General Residence Districts, Case Number , with the following conditions; Easement on 495 Central Road, to be drafted and reviewed by Counsel, so it is maintained by the owner of that property; The abandonment of the driveway to be noted on the plan. It should be noted that it will be seeded over and the gravel removed; The line of site measurements to be noted on the plan for the new driveway for 495 Central Road. The trees and shrubs to be removed shall be noted and applicant will work with Road Agent to make sure it is done correctly; The frontage for 493 and 495 Central Road to be noted on the plan; and The old right-of-way to be reviewed for proper recording. Seconded by Jerry Gittlein. All in favor. 2. Lot Line Adjustment for property owned by 84 Washington LLC located at 84 Washington Road, Tax Map 17, Lot 4 and property owned by Dana and Nancy Heaney located at 25 Lamer Drive, Tax Map 13, Lot 46 for each property to acquire an equal amount of 1,555 S.F. Properties are in the Single Residence District. Case # Steve Oles, MSC Engineering, presented to the Board. He explained that the proposal is for a minor lot line relocation between the two properties. Both lots are non-conforming in regards to the lot area. He pointed out that 1,555sf will be exchanged between the two lots so neither lot will be changing square footage wise. Currently, the lot line is 25ft off the back of the Heaney s house. The proposal will relocate the lot line to allow approximately 64ft off the back of the house. The utilities come off of Washington Road and there will be no change to utilities. 5

6 Chairman Epperson asked why this is being done. Mr. Oles explained that it is to make the Heaneys lot more conforming. Right now there is 25ft in the rear and the requirement is 30ft. Member Tweedie asked if this will give the Heaneys the opportunity to expand. Mr. Oles explained that it will give them more of a backyard to use. Right now they do not meet zoning and can only look at a fence out the back window. Member Tweedie asked if the abutters were notified. Mr. Oles confirmed. Member Tweedie commented that the proposal appears to make sense and seems reasonable. Chairman Epperson opened to the public for comments or questions. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Motion by Ray Tweedie to take jurisdiction over the Lot Line Adjustment Application, Case Number Seconded by Mel Low. All in favor. Alternate Crotty commented that it makes sense. Member Roman stated that the goal is to always make non-conforming lots more conforming. It makes a lot of sense. Motion by Ray Tweedie to approve Lot Line Adjustment for property owned by 84 Washington LLC located at 84 Washington Road, Tax Map 17, Lot 4 and property owned by Dana and Nancy Heaney located at 25 Lamer Drive, Tax Map 13, Lot 46 for each property to acquire an equal amount of 1,555 S.F.; properties are in the Single Residence District, Case Number , as submitted. Seconded by Phil Winslow. All in favor. VI. Non-Public Hearing: 1. Conceptual Consultation by Susan Sawtelle and Conrad Desosiers for property owned and located at 60 Elwyn Road, Tax Map 24, Lot 12 for the purposes of discussion on dividing the property into two (2) lots so that each may have a single family dwelling. Property is in the Single Residence District. Case # Marc Batchelder, Ambit Engineering, presented to the Board for the Applicants. He explained that this is a large parcel of land on Elwyn Road. There is a small portion that is actually in Portsmouth. The proposal is for a two lot subdivision. There is not enough frontage on Elwyn Road to comply. They have come up with a few concepts that would work within the Town Ordinances. He pointed out that the first sheet is the existing conditions. The second sheet is the 6

7 concept. There is an existing family plot that will require a 25ft setback. He continued that Concept A creates a Town maintained road 24ft wide and creating new lot lines that would provide the 200ft of frontage. Concept B is a similar situation with a Town maintained cul-desac and the lot line adjustment would create the 200ft of frontage. Concept C is the preferred concept. This is a shared driveway with a lot line adjustment running down the center of the driveway. The front portion of the driveway would be 24ft wide. It would go to a standard 14ft width where the driveway separates. The lot lines would be utilized to make up the 200ft required frontage for each property. Vice-Chair Winslow asked if Concept C would be private and not maintained by the Town. Mr. Batchelder confirmed. Chairman Epperson asked the length of the driveways. Mr. Batchelder stated that the one on the left already exists and is about 450 to 500ft long. The one on the right would be a little bit shorter. Member Tweedie commented that his worry is that there needs to be a way to get emergency apparatus in and out of the property without a problem. It appears that with the existing structure there may be a little bit of room for turning around; however, he would like to see something to help the vehicles get in and out. Mr. Desosiers stated that currently delivery trucks and large vehicles come into the property and turn around just fine. They would incorporate that concept into the design of the second home. He continued that the plan is for the current home to be sold to one of their children. They are planning to build a retirement home for themselves on the other parcel. Eventually, if they were to leave the property, their second child would have that house. Vice-Chair Winslow noted that this would have to go before the Police and Fire Department so they could review and provide their comments as well. Member Roman stated that having the lot line go through the middle of the driveway may be a little bit of an issue. She suggested that having the line on one side or the other of the driveway and giving the other lot an easement to use the driveway may make more sense. This way each lot is responsible for one half of the driveway. Member Tweedie commented that right now it is family; however, someone could sell. He would like to see a maintenance agreement between the properties as to who is to take care of the driveway. Member Tweedie asked if a good portion of the land is wet. 7

8 Mr. Desosiers confirmed. Member Tweedie asked if they took that into consideration when planning the driveways and buildings. Mr. Batchelder stated that they have done an on-site observation of the property. They have not surveyed or delineated exactly where the wetlands are located. He pointed out that the proposed building will be close to the southwest because of the wetlands to the east. Mr. Desosiers stated that the intent is to be furthest to the west on the 9 acre parcel as possible. Member Tweedie asked if they found a reasonable building envelope. Mr. Batchelder confirmed. Chairman Epperson asked if there are any septic issues. Mr. Batchelder commented that when they move forward on the design they will dig a little deeper to get that information. They do not anticipate any issues. Chairman Epperson asked where the utilities come in. Mr. Desosiers replied that the utilities come in off the existing driveway. Member Roman pointed out that it looks like there is a division on the Existing Conditions Plan. Mr. Desosiers explained that many years ago someone made an attempt to subdivide the property into multiple house lots. That did not go forward. Chairman Epperson stated that this is just a consultation. Any comments the Board gives is unofficial. He continued that some of the concerns would be the way the driveway is constructed. The graveyard will need the 25ft easement. He pointed out that Member Roman made a good point about the lot lines. Member Tweedie stated that he is inclined to like the plan marked C-4. He agrees with Member Roman s comments about the lot line not being in the middle of the driveway. He would like to see a good maintenance agreement that is referenced in the deed. He continued that he would be inclined to oppose all the impervious coverage that comes along with putting in a town road. As long as there is a maintenance plan, and emergency vehicles can get in and out, he likes that plan the best. Selectmen s Rep Jenness stated that the wetlands need to be delineated. All of the wetlands that flood that area, funnels across this property to the where the round-a-bout is now. 8

9 Vice-Chair Winslow commented that this is making minimum use of the land. This is preserving the wildlife and maintaining the rural character. He would support that. Speaking to the applicants, Chairman Epperson asked when they would be moving forward. Mr. Desosiers replied that they will probably be starting the planning this spring and construction would start next year. Payment of Escrow to AMEC from the Changing Places Escrow in the amount of $1, Motion by Ray Tweedie to approve the payment of $1, to AMEC from the Changing Places Escrow. Seconded by Phil Winslow. All in favor. VII. Sub-Committees Updates and Election of Committee members and Chairs: TRC Member Tweedie noted that there was one application before TRC for 493 and 495 Central Road. Rules and Regulations Member Roman noted that she will schedule a meeting in the near future. VIII. Communications/Miscellaneous/Other See Memo from Bill Epperson Long Range Planning Chairman Epperson asked the members to read his memo, regarding a plan for the next revision of the Master Plan. Member Tweedie stated that he liked the plan. He would like to reach out to some consultants to find out what some of the costs are in order to plan. The Board may want to draft a letter to the Board of Selectmen to let them know it should be part of the budget process. Chairman Epperson explained that he is suggesting that they accrue a certain amount of money per year so there will be enough money to go through the revision in a more timely and accurate manner. 9

10 Selectmen s Rep Jenness commented that the Board would need to know the approximate amount of money that will be needed. Member Tweedie commented that he thinks the first step would be a meeting with consultants to get an idea of what the costs will be. It should then be broken apart and put into a budget. Selectmen s Rep Jenness asked if they are talking about a whole revision of the Master Plan, starting with the Visioning. Chairman Epperson confirmed. He explained that the last visioning session was in 2008 and it needs to be more current than that. If the Board comes to the consensus that this is what they want to do, he would ask Long Range Planning to get in touch with RPC and take a look at what it will cost to do this long term. The money can then be accrued so the money will be available to do the revision. Alternate Quinn stated that one suggestion that came forward was to have the planning addressed yearly one chapter at a time. That would not be a good plan if the goal is to have a unified approach because there are several authors written at several different times. He does not think that lends itself to a unified document. Having someone oversee the writing of it makes a whole lot of sense. Chairman Epperson agreed. Vice-Chair Winslow stated that he is more interested in content than style. The Board should balance the cost with what the results would be. He agrees that it would be a nice thing to have but at what cost and at what time constraints. Member Low stated that people have criticized the work. He takes exception to a lot of that. The planning that has gone on in the Town has been based on what the citizens have wanted. The Board has done a good job without professionals so far. This Town is so far ahead of other towns. Chairman Epperson stated that this is the beginning of a conversation that the Board should have. He thinks it should be concise and should follow chapter to chapter. The chapters should look the same, regardless of the content. Selectmen s Rep Jenness commented that part of the problem is that the Master Plan has become too big. Trying to put in everything that everyone wants will sink the ship. Chairman Epperson pointed out that if a roadmap is laid out for future boards, it will avoid the fire drill that happened the last time. There was some discussion on Workforce Housing. 10

11 Alternate Crotty stated that she talked with Marty Chapman, who is the Executive Director of a Workforce Housing Project. She asked him to speak to the Board about why he cannot do a project under the Town s current Workforce Housing. She looked at Sam Winebaum s memo and he had some relevant points. The way the Town s Workforce Housing is drafted, under the N.H. Tax Credits, it does not work. She pointed out that Marty would be a good person to come and educate the Board about why it does not work. Also, Ben Frost from N.H. Housing is very knowledgeable. Chairman Epperson commented that he would love to hear from them. Alternate Crotty commented that she did invite Mary and share Mr. Winebaum s concerns. It is important to encourage another Workforce Housing project because of the aging community. It is great concern for Rye. After some discussion, Chairman Epperson summarized action items for the Board; 1. Review his memo and come back with some recommendations; 2. Reach out to Marty Chapman and Ben Frost for information and a possible meeting with the Board; and 3. Find consultants for information on budgeting. Committee Members: Long Range Planning Anne Crotty/Mel Low Co-Chairs Bill Epperson Ray Tweedie Jerry Gittlein Rules & Regulations Keriann Roman Chair Ray Tweedie Bill Epperson J.M. Lord TRC Ray Tweedie Chair Jeffrey Quinn J. M. Lord CIP Phil Winslow will remain the representative for the Planning Board. 11

12 Rules of Procedure: Chairman Epperson stated that it came to his attention that the Rules of Procedure that the Planning Board is governed under was really not being followed to the law. What the Board was doing was really not reflecting what the old rules said. He pointed out that Member Tweedie has reviewed the Rules of Procedure to bring it up to date. Member Tweedie submitted his changes to the Board for their review. Motion by Keriann Roman to consider for review the proposed changes for Rules of Procedure to be adopted at the next meeting with any edits the Board desires to make at that time. Seconded by Jerry Gittlein. Rules of Procedure automatically tabled until the May 2014 meeting. IX. Adjournment Motion by Ray Tweedie to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. Seconded by Jerry Gittlein. All in favor. *All corresponding paperwork, documents and files may be viewed at the Building Inspector s Office, Rye Town Hall. Respectfully Submitted, Dyana F. Ledger 12