|
Discussion about new facility of New England Handicapped Sports Association at Mount Sunapee State Park took place before the Newbury, NH Planning Board on Dec. 18, 2007.
Town of Newbury Planning Board Minutes
From the planning board minutes:
Conceptual Site Plan Review – NESA – Bill Johnson
Tom Kersey, Director of Handicapped Sports at Mt. Sunapee Resort was
present to
discuss a conceptual site plan review to relocate the handicapped
skiers lodge and
parking area. He explained that the program has outgrown its current
facility and has
been looking at several areas within the park that would be feasible
and satisfy their
needs. The proposed site is considered the best location relative to
the access and trails.
The actual building will be located over the town line in Goshen, but
the driveway to that
building will come off the main access road in Newbury. The NESA Board
is not sure
where to start with Goshen, Newbury or the State of NH.
Michael Burke, from JGI Eastern Inc, was also present and is on the
building committee
for NESA. Mr. Burke identified where on the map presented the project
is proposed to
be located. The access to the new building will be beyond the lagoons
on the northerly
side of the access road. The State has dictated where the driveway will
be since that
portion of the road is a State road. The proposed driveway is
approximately 1,000 ft.
long and laid out in an effort to try to minimize the impact of
development on a steep
slope.
Mrs. Freeman advised Mr. Burke that in light of the steep slope, the
Board will be very
interested in what is going to be done to prevent rapid run-off.
Mr. Burke stated that he and Mr. Kersey have come before the Board to
show what they
would like to do and to get feedback from the Board.
Mr. McWilliams explained that the Board tried to address the unique
circumstances of
the Mountain by creating Article XI – Mt. Sunapee Recreation District
that makes
exceptions for development on steep slopes. The development that is
referred to in the
zoning regulations is specifically designated for ski slopes and
trails, not buildings.
Planning Board Page 9 of 10 December 18, 2007
Therefore a variance would be needed for development on a slope greater
that 25%
grade.
Mr. Williams suggested a different driveway route that ran parallel to
the existing contour
lines that would mean less vertical development on the steep slope,
thereby limiting the
magnitude of the erosion issues and making an easier grade. The wetland
will be
impacted no matter where the driveway goes.
Mr. Burke commented that he will certainly consider that suggestion.
Mr. McWilliams asked if this project is part of the approved Masterplan
for Mount
Sunapee.
Mr. Kersey explained that NESA is separate from Mt. Sunapee Resort.
They are two
separate lease agreements. Therefore, the Mount Sunapee Master Plan has
no jurisdiction
over NESA.
Mrs. Freeman asked if there was another site that would be less
problematic regarding
steep slopes and wetlands.
Mr. Kersey stated that there is not a place less problematic. This is
the only location
where new trails would not have to be developed. This site will allow
the skiers to ski in
and ski out. There is also snow making equipment already near the
proposed building.
Mr. McWilliams asked how many parking spaces are designated for this
new building.
Mr. Burke stated 98 spaces. The calculations were based on 20 – 25
students per lesson.
The student will arrive in one car, probably with an additional family
member. If the
program grows to the numbers we are projecting, each lesson would then
have 30 – 35
students per session. If each student goes out on a lesson, there are
commonly two or
three volunteers. One volunteer is the teacher and two volunteers act
as blockers. That
means more parking.
Mrs. Freeman commented that since the volunteers often work a full day,
they could park
remotely in the employee parking lot and walk or shuttle up to the NESA
building. She
emphasized that the developers need to be cognizant of the fragile
wetlands.
Mr. Burke commented that he is very aware of the importance of
wetlands, but this
particular wetland is not considered a prime wetland. It is a
low-functioning wetland.
There would be approximately 4,000 sq. ft. of wetland impacted. The
State DES has
given a verbal approval of the project. There is an option to pay a fee
to the State in lieu
of mitigation, which goes into the watershed fund.
Mrs. Freeman advised Mr. Burke and Mr. Kersey that this project should
come to the
Newbury Planning Board before the Goshen Planning Board reviews the
building site
Planning Board Page 10 of 10 December 18, 2007 because they cannot
build a building without an access and parking. She added that planting
would be a good addition to this project to help protect the wetlands.
Mr. Burke informed the Board that he is also a geologist and works for
an environmental
firm. They will be utilizing retaining walls to minimize the impact on
the wetlands. He
presented a cross section of the retaining walls approximately 15 ft.
high above ground.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Burke to provide a locus map when they return to
the Planning
Board that shows where this project is proposed in relation to the rest
of the Mt. Sunapee
Ski Resort facility.
|