Back to
Article 4: Citizens Petition Amendment #1
Citizen’s
Petition #1: To amend Section 616.6.2 of the Cobbetts Pond Watershed Protection Ordinance to state that
for applications that have received NH DES Shoreland
approval are not required to have outside engineering review of an erosion and
sedimentation control plan prepared by an engineer licensed in the State of New
Hampshire or a qualified professional familiar with erosion control measures
and acceptable to the Town Engineer.
Ms. Webber
read Petition #1 into the record and recused herself.
Mr. Sycamore motioned to open the
Public Hearing and was seconded by Mr. McLeod. Motion passed: 5-0.
Mr. Maynard
of Benchmark Engineering is requesting the Board to change the regulation which
requires an additional level of costly review of a plan that has already paid
for review at the State level, and been reviewed by the TRC and then has come
back to the Planning Board for major review. He is only looking for the change for
projects that have been reviewed by a State agency; Shoreline plans within 250
ft of the pond, specifically.
Board
comments/questions included:
•
Mr. McLeod asked if the NH DES Shoreland approval requires an erosion and sedimentation
control plan?
Mr Maynard said that according to their application,
it does.
•
Does
the State review cover 100% what the Town is looking to review in their
process? Mr. Maynard says that it
does when he presents the application.
They have, on occasion, sent his plans back, because he has forgotten
something.
•
Ms. DiFruscia
noted that when she and a committee were working on this Town Ordinance, the NH
DES encouraged the Town to include this section, because they no longer
actually review the plans themselves.
Sometimes the applicant does not have a plan in place when they apply
for the permit. The DES often does
not know this until there is a violation reported. Mr Chapman of
the NH DES Watershed Management Bureau emphasized that Shoreland
is not reviewing erosion and sedimentation control. Also, DES told her there is no
redundancy of review. Mr. Maynard
said that, in his experience, it is an additional step for those who are trying
to redevelop; they lose about a month’s time.
•
Mr. Derek Munson was surprised that DES
sends back permits that need erosion control. He said the problem is that even if
someone is looking at the plans, are they making sure they are
implemented. He concurred with what
Ms. DiFruscia had been told - that DES does not
review sedimentation control. The
State is inconsistent.
Ms. St.
Laurent was seated at 7:21 pm.
•
Ms. Scott explained that all this is
doing is not having the outside review for the Town because it is done at the
State level. If the office received
a site plan approval that was missing a Shoreland
piece, they would call the State.
All the same Shoreland information is on the
same plan that the State sees.
There are not 2 sets of plans.
Mr. McGuire, the building inspector, does inspection as part of the
building permit process.
•
Mr. Wrenn asked
what the extra cost is, if the erosion control plan is already being prepared; Mr. Maynard
said that as the Ordinance is written it says, “…shall be reviewed
by the Town engineer.” On a
major application, the Town engineer has an escrow fee of $500. The applicant must still come before the
Board where it can be decided there is not enough erosion control
measures. This petition is
requesting relief from this outside review and the fee.
•
Mr.
Sycamore recalled that in the past the ZBA would issue a variance for this
step; Mr. Maynard said that Mr. Corwin has since determined that there is no
allowance for a waiver, as it is written.
Chairwoman
Post opened the hearing to the Public.
Mr. Alan
Carpenter, 8 Glenn Wood Rd, asked what constitutes a major application. Ms. Scott replied that unlike a minor
application which is defined in Section 616.4, a major application must go
through the Planning Board process and have outside engineering review with the
Town engineer. Mr. Carpenter noted
that the Town will no longer do local engineering review of any applications
that are built on the great ponds in town as they are all within 250 ft of the
shoreline. Ms. Scott explained that
it is specifically for the Cobbetts Pond major
application piece – for new home construction and additions. Site plans
and subdivisions would still have outside engineering review through the site
plan and subdivision process. This
is specifically for new home construction and reconstruction and would be
required to go through Shoreland. Mr. Carpenter was unsure what the
benefit to the community would be.
It seems like a small fee when significant money is already being spent
on the project. How do we enforce
more stringent standards when there is no engineering drawing on record? He thinks the risk to reward ratio is
not favorable to the community.
Ms. Maloney
arrived at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Maynard
stated that a seasonal to year-round conversion where the building is not being
torn down does not have to go to the Planning Board. The Ordinance is written requiring only
soil and erosion control measures that are put in place to control the
temporary impact of ground water run-off.
Once the area isstabilized, it’s
gone. This is not a 5-year out
thing; it is for 4-6 months while the house is being constructed. Not all the Lake homes are six-figure
homes, especially those not directly on the water. A deck would require the engineering
review.
Ms. DiFruscia confirmed that if a home adding a deck is within
250 ft of the shoreline, they must go to DES, and DES claims they are only
reviewing the plans when there is a complaint. She is concerned that if a problem
arises, there will be no plan in place.
Ms. DiFruscia said the burden is on the
applicant to guarantee that what is on the application is done.
Chairwoman
Post closed the Hearing to the Public.
Board
comments/questions included:
•
Ms. St. Laurent asked whether the erosion
and sedimentation control plan covered just the construction period or did it
continue permanently; Mr. Maynard responded that they are temporary, and the
outside review by KNA confirms that it is being done. Mr. Wrenn
stated that the erosion control plan stays in place for about 6-months to a
year while permanent vegetation takes hold.
•
Chairwoman Post asked hypothetically, if
this Petition passes, what safeguard reviews remain in place; Ms. Scott said
the applications would arrive to the Board quicker. The plans that get submitted to DES are
the same plans that get submitted to the Town for Board review and end up in
the Building files. The difference
is that they would not go to Keach-Nordstrom for
outside review.
•
Ms. DiFruscia
asked who prepares the plans; Mr. Maynard responded that a qualified
professional does. He noted that
the Board still has the final decision.
•
Ms. DiFruscia is
unsure what is going before DES; has a qualified professional reviewed and
prepared the plans. Mr. Maynard
stated that the applicant pays a lot of money to the State to review these
plans.
•
Ms. Nysten
stated that she has no training in sedimentation control and would not feel
comfortable performing that role.
If the State is not doing it, then someone has to.
•
Chairwoman
Post said she finds this a difficult decision, but values the Keach-Nordstrom reports the Board has received in the past
and has found them helpful.
Mr. McLeod motioned to not recommend
Citizen’s Petition #1. Mr. Wrenn seconded.
Mr. McLeod
is concerned that erosion and sedimentation control is key
to the integrity of the Town’s water bodies and thinks that local control
is crucial. Ms. DiFruscia
reminded the Board that Cobbetts Pond is an impaired
water body and that is why that language was put in place. Mr. Wrenn
feels better that KeachNordstrom is looking at it
from an engineering perspective.
Motion passed: 5-1. Mr. Sycamore opposed.