Town of Kensington
Planning Board Minutes
July 7, 2005
Amended and approved August 8, 2005
In Attendance: Michael Schwotzer, Chairman, Peter Merrill, Joan Whitney, Bob Solomon, Steve Wilson, Michael Motherway, Selectmen’s Representative, and Jill Robinson, Rockingham Planning Commission Circuit Rider.
The Meeting was called to order at 7:04 pm by the chair.
PUBLIC HEARING NEW
The Chairman read the proposed Zoning amendment: Are you in favor of deleting, in its entirety, Article 8.5 Housing for the Elderly under Chapter II, Planning and Zoning in the March 9, 2004 edition of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Regulations and replacing it with the following: Planning and Zoning Chapter II, Article 8.5 Housing for the Elderly: Housing units for the elderly are subject to all of the planning and zoning requirements of the zoning district in which they are to be located.
The Chairman explained that due to time constraints and complexity of adjusting the current ordinance, it was felt by the Board that deleting the current and drafting of a new ordinance was in the best interests of the town to eliminate any further developments using the current ordinance. J. Whitney noted the current ordinance’s unit density as the major problem.
With no further comment from the Board or the public, B. Solomon motioned “That the proposed zoning amendment be forwarded to Town Meeting and to request the Board of Selectmen that they schedule and hold a special Town Meeting within 120 of this date.” Seconded by J. Whitney with all Board members voting in favor.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED
Boston North Holdings, LLC – Site Plan Review of Map 16, Lot 4 for 23 detached single family residential housing units for the Rolling Ridge Active Adult Community – located off Powder Mill Road, Exeter, NH.
The Chairman read a portion of the June 24, 2005, letter from Atty. Malcolm McNeill, representing Boston North Holdings, LLC, in which Atty. McNeill requested that the Planning Board hearing scheduled for July 7, 2005 be postponed until the first available date after August 11, 2005. The Chairman then read from his June 27th response: “Unfortunately, the Chairman does not have the authority to grant your request without action of the Planning Board. The Board will, therefore, hear the application as scheduled on July 7, 2005. It is recommended that a representative attend to personally request postponement.”
Atty. McNeill explained that the principle in this project, Mr. James Sheridan, was not present due to illness and gave the board members copies of his resume. Other members of the development team, Mr. Dow and Mr. Ring, were present in the audience.
Atty. McNeill went on to explain that normally developers want to speed a project through and the current request for a delay was unusual. The reason for the request is that the project in question lies in two towns and poses a “chicken & egg” type problem: how to proceed with which town in what order. He then referred to a June 20th meeting he attended with Jill Robinson of the RPC and Sylvia VonAulock, Exeter’s planner, in which he agreed to a joint Exeter and Kensington Planning Boards meeting to be held July 7th in Kensington to address the concern about consistency of material presented to the two boards. Then at the Exeter Planning Board meeting of June 23rd, the Exeter board decided not to hold a joint session and then delayed their public hearing until August 11th.
Peter Merrill questioned Atty. McNeill’s use of the word “concern”, as in whose concern. Atty. McNeill responded with his impression that people were saying materials being presented to the different boards were being “spun” depending on the location of the meeting. He then went on to discuss the dissimilar nature of the two applications. Exeter must deal with a short piece of the entrance road into the project plus the resulting traffic on Exeter streets while Kensington must deal with the rest of the road, housing units, fire protection, etc., each according to their town’s regulations. Lastly, he stressed that the two towns must both grant approval for the project to proceed to completion. He then stated that there would be no prejudice regarding the 65 day legal time limit to act upon an application since he had the authority to issue a waiver.
Atty. McNeill had hoped at the July 7th meeting to update both boards at the then proposed joint meeting regarding Kensington’s ZBA approval for second floor bedrooms; the elimination of the emergency access road; installation of unit sprinklers; a proposed pavilion in the open central area; changing from a fire pond to a cistern; and possible walking trails around the property. Additionally, he had hoped for Marty Kennedy, Exeter’s traffic consultant, to participate regarding the traffic volume concerns.
S. Wilson then asked Atty. McNeill if the applicant would be willing to re-notice the abutters at the applicant’s expense due to the length of the delay, i.e.: more than one meeting. Atty. McNeill answered in the affirmative and stated that he did not see the delay as causing any damage to the case.
The Chairman opened up the discussion to the board and the public. He then questioned Sylvia VonAulock if there was any issue that she or the Exeter board would want discussed so Kensington could give “guidance” to the Exeter board. Ms. VonAulock responded that she would like to see the issue of the cul-de-sac length addressed.
Atty. McNeill objected, stating that Kensington’s decision regarding the length of the cul-de-sac was not germane to Exeter’s issues in their case. He went on to state that the Kensington Planning Board’s action of changing the elderly housing ordinance (see above) has fixed the number of units in the development along with the size of the buildings. It is his contention that if Exeter denies the application at their next meeting, then failing an appeal, the application in Kensington will be null and void.
S. Wilson questioned if a denial of the cul-de-sac length waiver would “kill” the application. P. Merrill addressed “finality” … it would only occur if the board moves to deny the whole application. Additionally, Mr. Merrill stated that we are back to the chicken and the egg situation, which board acts first.
S. Wilson motioned to grant the extension of the current application to the planning board meeting of September 1st at 7:00, the applicant to supply a written waiver of the 65 day period (copy on file / signed by Atty. McNeill), and the abutters are to be re-noticed at the applicant’s expense. Seconded by B. Solomon. The vote was 4 in the affirmative and 2 (Schwotzer & Merrill) in the negative.
The public was reminded that the next activity on this development would be at the Exeter Planning Board meeting of August 11th at 7:00 pm.
Mr. Hanson of Exeter then approached the board with a set of maps showing the Jim Stanley farm (consisting of the land in question) from the early 50’s. On one of the maps, Mr. Hanson reported that a gravel pit was shown to exist at that time. The material was shown to J. Robinson who would see if further information was available. The Chair thanked Mr. Hanson and suggested that he bring said material to the next scheduled meeting for sharing with the rest of the public.
NEW BUSINESS:
Gravel Pit updates - Felch and Kuegel The two letters from C. Smith, the town’s engineer, were reviewed and the minor repairs necessary at the Felch pit noted. It was suggested that the Felch pit owners be contacted regarding a schedule of repair completion and S. Wilson agreed to do an onsite review when the work is done.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Development site safety inspections M. Motherway stated that at the request of a homeowner, he had visited the Kensington Place (Lambert) subdivision. He found six cisterns that did not have their metal covers installed but rather a few planks across the opening with a rock to hold them in place. He felt that this was a major safety risk and that the town could be held liable in case of an accident.
S. Wilson discussed the procedures for installing cisterns and how to detect ones that have problems. After further discussion, Mr. Wilson motioned that: “The town engineer should be sent to said development and review the compliance and functionality of the existing drainage to that of the original plan.” He also stated that the building inspector, being the person most often at the development should include overall safety into his routine / schedule inspections.
M. Motherway also mentioned that this type of safety requirement should be included in the sequence of construction which is now part of the subdivision approval process.
NEW BUSINESS Cont.
Unitil – Waiver request for existing Moulton Ridge Road company tower. Jim Folland and Leigh Willett of Unitil presented a copy of their June 27th letter to the abutters to their radio antennae on Moulton Ridge Road. The Chairman started the conversation by stating that it was his interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter VI, Telecommunications Facilities, that the planning board had control over towers and that Unitil’s request for an expansion of a non-conforming use (replacing the existing 65’ wooden tower with one of like construction but being 100’ in height) could possibly be handled under Article 8, Waivers, instead of going to the ZBA. J. Robinson had reviewed this request earlier and was unsure of what board having jurisdiction.
The Chair then read the body of Steve Smith’s e-mail of July 6th, listing his and purportedly the objections of his wife, Ann Smith plus other abutters: C. Rezendes and P. Sawyer.
The request from Unitil to make an exception to Article Three Section E regarding heights seems to us to violate the status of Moulton Ridge Road as a declared scenic town road. The current radio antennae structure certainly does not enhance its scenic qualities and an extension of over 35 feet would make the road even less appealing. Unitil proposes to replace the current antennae pole with a "like structure." What exactly does this mean? Do they intend to replace the wooden pole with another wooden pole 35 feet taller? Or do they intend to replace it with a metal pole? Is the rest of the structure (i.e., the building) to remain as is, or will it also be modified? Have all alternatives been explored? While we are not engineers, we wonder if there is not equipment which can serve the desired purpose without extending the communications pole.
Originally the pole was on top of the hill and then moved lower at the request of Michael Dingman. Then, because the noise bothered the Dingmans, the pole was moved to its current location, presumably through a trade in land between Dingman and Exeter-Hampton Electric Company. Obviously, the height advantage the pole once had is no longer. Have other sites been investigated---sites that might lend themselves to satisfactory communications and not be in violation of the character of a declared scenic road?
In short, we would like to support Unitil in its desire to better serve its customers, but at the same time, we object to this proposal and would hope alternative sites or communications technology might be sought.
This was followed by a group discussion of the history of the pole’s origination (copy of easement received), past locations, reasons for its existence, level of technology with alternatives, condition and sightlines of the current installation, proposed materials, and so forth. It was stated by Mr. Folland, and agreed to by the Chairman, that if one was to attempt to find the existing tower, the chances are that the person would drive right by it. The outcome of the discussion was the decision that the Planning Board should hear the case but that (as pointed out by S. Wilson and J. Whitney) the notice of this evening’s meeting was informal and not timely.
Therefore, Mr. Folland was instructed to contact the Administrative Assistant as soon as possible to schedule a formal, public hearing in the matter of replacing the existing tower with one 35’ taller.
With no other business to discuss, Peter Merrill motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m., seconded by Mike Motherway with all in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael A. Schwotzer
Chairman