Planning Board, May 26, 2015
PLANNING BOARD
May 26, 2015
TOWN HALL MEMORIAL HALL
Members Present: William Ritter, Tina Stratis, John Michalak, David Lindberg, Otto Lies, Scott Carlson
Members Absent: Scott Carlson, Jeff Head
Others Present: Pam Harding, Town Planner, Elizabeth Fotos, Recording Secretary
7:01PM Meeting called to order by W. Ritter
SUBDIVISION CONTROL REGULATIONS
W. Ritter asked P. Harding to begin the conversation on the Subdivision Control Regulations so the Planning Board could prioritize the changes and work on the regulations over the coming months. He asked P. Harding to give the Board the overview of each of the regulations so they could see where they stand and what needs to be done.
- Required Roadway Widths
P. Harding told the Board that DPW is recommending a road width of 24FT and the Fire Department is currently reviewing the recommendation. She stated that the Police Department was not as concerned as the Fire Department.
J. Michalak asked if that was for every type of roadway. P. Harding replied that it was for the local roadways which were the majority of the roadway type in subdivisions.
W. Ritter asked P. Harding to follow up with the Fire Department so the Board could work on changing the subdivision control definition portion for the road widths.
- Low Impact Development Techniques and Stormwater Standards
P. Harding stated there is currently a draft that needs to be reviewed to ensure that the requirements are up to date with the new stormwater regulations.
O. Lies asked if this was completed a few years ago. P. Harding replied that it was but the design standards were no incorporated into the subdivision regulations.
W. Ritter asked P. Harding why they were not added. P. Harding replied that the by law was adopted but the design standards were done and the stormwater regulations changed shortly after DEP made significant changes that needed to be taken into consideration.
- Distance between two roadways; both opposing and abutting
P. Harding stated that they need to clarify the opposing roadway distances. They currently state 125FT but the regulation does not clarify if the distance is centerline to centerline, or where the measurements are taken from. She stated that two roadways side by side also needs to be clarified because there is not currently a regulation in the subdivision control regulations regarding this matter and this could lead to a 100FT right of way.
- Size of retaining walls/ bridges which support public ways
W. Ritter stated that he did walk the Salisbury subdivision this week. P. Harding stated that the bridge in that subdivision is 19FT across.
W. Ritter stated that the bridge is not currently constructed but that when completed it will transverse a significant gorge.
P. Harding replied that the Town had structural engineers that reviewed the original designs and that they had made some changes. She stated additionally the Town required review of the compacting, installation of footing, and all rebar. She stated someone for the Town will be on sight for construction and a peer review structural engineer will be onsite for installation of critical construction components..
W. Ritter asked if the developer is going to be paying that fee. P. Harding replied that they would be.
W. Ritter asked when the construction was going to begin. P. Harding replied that they were going to begin the second week in June (2015). She stated that there was a lot of work to be done including sandbagging the stream, prep work and pouring the concrete culvert. She stated the project was going to take a significant amount of time.
W. Ritter asked why it was not precast. P. Harding stated that it was 7 miles of rebar in the culvert so they felt it made more sense to pour the concrete.
W. Ritter asked if any other towns had limits on retaining walls. P. Harding replied that J. Woodsmall’s, DPW Director, policy had been to not allow anything greater than 20FT, which is considered a bridge by the state, but it was a policy, not a regulation. She stated in the Salisbury subdivision there was an issue regarding the placement of the retaining wall (public way versus common way) so the question of maintenance was raised. She stated that it is not currently in the regulations but needed to be reviewed so the Town was protected.
- Bond Procedures
P. Harding stated this just needed to be amended as there is nothing in the policy to release the bond and something needed to be written to address how to follow bond releases going forward.
- Homeownership Association Requirements
W. Ritter stated that this needed to be amended because it is an ongoing issue regarding maintenance.
O. Lies asked how much could be done about this; could the Planning Board actually interfere or mandate how an association works.
P. Harding stated that she would like to see something in draft format that could be attached as an addendum to the subdivision control regulations. She stated that there is not currently any regulations regarding the Home Owners Associations and if there was something in place the review would go smoother.
W. Ritter asked if they could do a funding requirement. P. Harding replied that they could and that they had been doing that although it was not spelled out. She stated that it is usually a fee of $250 per lot that gets put into a trust.
O. Lies stated that he believes it is not just how it is set up but how it is operated as well. He stated that he gets the impression that although a Home Owners Association is initially set up, after years; no one knows where it stands.
P. Harding agreed and stated that they usually start out strong and evolve as sales and ownership of the homes change. She stated it is difficult to keep the groups and contact information together.
W. Ritter asked T. Stratis how the association at Winter Hill worked.
T. Stratis stated that they meet once a year and have dues that are collected.
W. Ritter asked T. Stratis if it was a lot of work clearing out the detention basins. T. Stratis replied that they had it done last year and she anticipates it to be done again in the coming weeks.
P. Harding stated that Winter Hill was the only association that the Town receives yearly reports from.
J. Michalak asked if an individual homeowner runs the association. T. Stratis replied that it was three homeowners.
W. Ritter asked how much it cost to clear out the detention basin. T. Stratis replied that it probably depended on how well they are kept up.
J. Michalak asked what happened with a Home Owners Association goes defunct. T. Stratis replied that is an issue.
J. Michalak asked if it would make sense to not have the Associations go on indefinitely. He stated that when they started out strong, have them assess a fee or establish a fund that could eventually be transferred to the Town.
T. Stratis stated that one issue is that people do not pay every year.
D. Lindberg asked what happens if you don’t pay yearly.
W. Ritter stated that it worked a little like a condo in that a lien could be assessed however unlike a condo there is not anyone enforcing the payment and no ramifications of not paying until it makes financial sense to sue or until a property is sold.
J. Michalak replied that he was not suggested having the Town should take over the Associations, but he asked if there was any plans regarding them.
W. Ritter stated that this was something that the Board was going to see a lot of going forward as most of the subdivisions coming before the Planning Board were going to have some sort of detention basins and maintenance involved with them.
P. Harding stated that J. Woodsmall, DPW Director believes that this is going to be a statewide requirement and that Towns were going to be involved as it encompasses stormwater. She stated that it would probably be something that they see Town-wide as all the catch basins and detention ponds would be impacted.
W. Ritter stated that is all the more reason for the Board to be mindful of this regulation so that they can have regulations surrounding less maintenance, less fencing, and not as deep.
- Detention Basin Design specifications, depth, slopes
W. Ritter stated this was always a concern. He stated that he believes that the developer did a great job in the low impact development off of RT 31.
P. Harding replied that she thinks that worked well because it is all common area and individual lots are not owned. She stated that it is all maintained by an association.
W. Ritter asked the Board what they wanted to look at for time frame and prioritizing the seven subdivision control regulations discussed. He stated that he thinks that the road widths should be a priority.
D. Lindberg asked if the Board wanted to discuss sidewalks as part of the roadway width conversation.
P. Harding replied that she thought the Board had decided to leave the sidewalks as they were as it allowed the Board the option to waive the sidewalk requirements where they deemed necessary.
W. Ritter agreed and stated that there could be a subdivision location that matched up with sidewalks on both sides.
O. Lies stated that they should have the conversation with the roadway width conversation.
W. Ritter suggested prioritizing road widths. The Board agreed.
D. Lindberg stated that he believed that the Board should discuss #2 Low Impact Development Techniques and Stormwater Standards and #7 Detention Basin Design Specifications, depth, slopes at the same time and that he believes that they should be prioritized as the second conversation after road widths.
W. Ritter agreed with D. Lindberg as did the Board.
W. Ritter asked P. Harding to add these items to the agenda in the coming months.
CHAPTER 61A- RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL RIVER STREET, RILEY, LLC
P. Harding told the Board that Chapter 61A classification allows property owners to reduce taxes on undeveloped land. She stated that this classification grants the Town first right of refusal to buy the land if the owner proposes to take the property out of Chapter 61A classification for development. She stated that the owner of the property must submit a purchase and sale agreement for the land and the Town has 120 days to match the offered purchase price or to vote to release the land for private sale. P. Harding told the Board that upon the sale of the property the owner must pay the five previous years of taxes at full evaluation.
P. Harding told the Board that she had provided the release of property from Chapter 61A, Agricultural Land. She stated the property that was requesting release as lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 and all are previously approved ANR lots located in the R-40 zoning district with frontage on River Street. P. Harding told the Board that the lots abut a larger parcel which was recently approved for a common driveway servicing two house lots; the larger parcels will remain in Chapter 61A. She stated that Lots 4-7 contain steep grades, do not abut any protected open space and have not been identified as critical wildlife habitat.
W. Ritter asked if this 61A Land was going to go through the Board of Selectmen review process. P. Harding replied that it was.
O. Lies replied that the new policy was that the Agricultural Commission was looking at it first but that the Planning Board did have a role in this land.
P. Harding replied that the Planning Board was statutorily required to be notified and that could not be circumvented.
W. Ritter stated that the Agricultural Commission was acting as a sounding board.
P. Harding replied that when the Planning Board had comments on 61A land, she sent their comments to Ms. Kelly, Town Manager and copied the Agricultural Commission on the notes so they are aware that Planning submitted an opinion.
O. Lies asked for the location of the land. P. Harding showed the location of the land on the plans; she showed the Board the location of the lots. P. Harding stated that you are able to divide land under 61A if it remains under common ownership it does not have to be released and a permit is not pulled.
O. Lies asked if this land was in the open space inventory. P. Harding replied that the Town does not have an inventory of prioritized land but it is included in an inventory of land classified under Chapter 61A
J. Michalak asked about the tax implications. P. Harding stated that they would need to pay the previous 5 years of taxes for the lots.
Motion by O. Lies, seconded by D. Lindberg, it was UNANIMOSLY VOTED THAT THERE IS NO RECOMMENDATION REGARDING CHAPTER 61A LAND RIVER STREET, RILEY, LLC GIVEN THE LIMTED PLANNING SIGNIFICANCE AS THE LAND DOES NOT ABUT ANY PROTECTED PROPERTIES OR ANY OTHER OPEN SPACE THAT WOULD ASSIST THE TOWN IN ANY CAPACITY.
SIGNING OF MYLAR AND COVENANT DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION ST. MARY’S DRIVE
P. Harding asked for four Board members to sign the document. The members signed the document.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by O. Lies, seconded by T. Stratis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 28, 2015 PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES AS SUBMITTED.
MISCELLANEOUS
An unnamed member of the public stepped into the meeting. W. Ritter asked if there was anything in particular the Board could assist him with. He replied there was not and he was curious as to what was on the agenda. W. Ritter stated that meeting was wrapping up but that agenda could be found online.
O. Lies stated that he wanted to echo P. Harding sentiment and thanked W. Ritter for his hard work especially at Town Meeting. He stated that he was not happy with the Board of Selectmen for opposing the Planning Boards warrant article and he stated that he believed that W. Ritter did a terrific job. O. Lies stated that he approached D. White who spoke in favor of the Planning Board and thanked him for his support. He also stated that he spoke to J. Kurtz, Board of Selectmen, and stated that the communication between the Boards needed to improve and that J. Kurtz agreed.
W. Ritter asked P. Harding if the Planning Board meeting minutes were being uploaded in a timely manner. P. Harding replied that she would keep an eye on it and make sure they were.
D. Lindberg asked if there anything going on with the Jefferson Mill. P. Harding replied that there was not and the issue appeared to be the dam.
W. Ritter asked P. Harding about the new subdivision that was going to be presented to the Board.
P. Harding replied that it was a 500FT cul-de-sac.
W. Ritter asked if it was perpendicular to Forest Street. P. Harding replied that it was.
W. Ritter asked when it would be on the agenda. P. Harding replied that the Board would see it on June 23, 2015 and that she would distribute the material at the June 9, 2015 meeting.
W. Ritter asked what else was on the agenda for June 9, 2015. P. Harding replied that nothing was currently scheduled. W. Ritter asked to add some of the subdivision control regulations to the agenda.
J. Michalak asked if there was any news on the legal action. W. Ritter replied that there was not and that Town Counsel would contact the Planning Board for a meeting when anything happened.
NEXT MEETING: June 9, 2015
Motion by O. Lies, seconded by D. Lindberg, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE MAY 26, 2015 PLANNING BOARD MEETING AT 7:35PM.
The May 26, 2015 Planning Board meeting minutes were approved on July 21, 2015
APPROVED: _____________________ __
Pamela Harding, Town Planner