ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD MEETING
November 19, 2009 Meeting
Members & Staff Present:
Scott Burnside (Chair) Diane Chauncey (Staff) Jenny Clifford (Alternate) David Dubois (Alternate) Jesse Lazar (Alternate) Peter Moore (Planner)
Andrew Robblee (Member) Steve Schacht (Ex-Officio) Sandy Snow (Member)
Kathi Wasserloos (Member) CR Willeke (Vice-Chair)
Member & Staff Absent:
Joseph Koziell (Member)
Public Attendees:
John and Lynn Rafuse
Michael Tucker
Dan Valley
Ron Haggett
7:00 Review Period:
· Appoint alternates to sit for absent members
Mr. Lazar to sit for the absent Mr. Koziell
· Review the Minutes of the November 5, 2009 Board Meeting
Business Meeting:
Chair Burnside introduced himself. The Board introduced themselves. Mr. Todd was given the floor.
Valley Lot Line Adjustment and Road Improvement – Planning Department Case 2009-09PB
Mr. Todd introduced himself as a land surveyor from New Boston. He began his presentation (which he placed on the easel for all to view and all PB members had the plans in front of them) with a plan and profile of Valley Lane showing proposed improvement concepts. The plan showed conceptual improvements to the roadway and the proposed hammerhead to replace of the existing cul de sac.
Sheet #1 Mr. Todd explained the profile of the existing road beginning at Elm Avenue and proceeding to the proposed hammerhead. He showed the gradual slope that existed for the portion of the road up to the last 400’ of the roadway where the road became steep with an 11% grade. Mr. Todd pointed to the three existing culverts, and that one in particular was too small, but was holding up “surprisingly”.
Sheet #2 - View of roadway - in two sections - match lines shown. Mr. Todd explained some of the issues with the road. He pointed to the areas of concern. In multiple areas, the road encroaches onto the lot lines and leaves no room for a ditch line. The road improvement would move the road back into the area in which it was originally proposed. Mr. Todd mentioned that the Road Agent had expressed a need for 8” of crushed gravel, which the applicant was willing to do. He discussed the portion of the road with the 11% grade and said that the road improvement would include bringing the grade to 10% (unless the PB would be willing to waive the 1%). There was also a proposed new culvert which would include a vegetative swale that would extend to a level spreader at the base of the slope on the west side of the proposed
hammerhead.
Mr. Todd explained that he would “like the blessing of the Planning Board” before his company continued with the engineering portion of the final plans. He continued with the proposed plans:
· The hammer head would be 150 feet long with the existing Rafuse driveway cutting into the hammerhead. There would be sufficient area for Mr. Rafuse to make the turn around with his full size truck and trailers’.
· A guard rail is proposed for safety – so that vehicles would not travel down over the 3:1 slope
· The cul de sac (future hammerhead) and the driveways entry onto it were explained.
· Sheet #3 – Proposed improvements to the road were discussed.
· Easements would be needed for: PSNH electrical conduits and transformer pad; Tucker easement for the culvert, and; Rafuse drainage easement (10’ culvert/ditch to end of steep section).
Mr. Todd had completed his presentation for the lot line adjustment and road improvement.
Chair Burnside asked for questions from the Board. Answers by Mr. Todd
Was the Antrim Road Agent concerned with the 11% grade?
The Road Agent had not shown concern.
Schacht – width of road?
What is the width of the road?
The road width varies from eighteen feet to tweny-two feet. It tapers as it goes south.
Is it basically a sixteen to eighteen foot passage way?
Yes it is.
What are the major determinations for Valley Lane does Mr. Todd needs to adhere to?
Getting it back into the center line so it will not encroach the right-of-way.
Are there new plans for the entire of Valley Lane – from Elm Avenue to the end?
Mr. Todd asked for guidance from the Planning Board. He felt that “a whole lot” did not need to be done until after Map 218 Lot 10.
Have test pits been done?
No.
Is there a cost estimate for the road?
No.
Who will be paying for improvements?
Mr. Valley.
Public Hearing
Mr. Rafuse, Mr. Haggett, Mr. Tucker, and Mr. Valley expressed that they were “all for it”.
Chair Burnside said that in order to go forward with the applicant’s proposed plans the following options may be considered:
1. The Road Construction Review by either the Road Agent (Chip Craig) or the Town Engineer (Peter Pitsas).
2. Road bond – which would assure that the road improvements and lot line adjustments are properly constructed and completed.
The Board members discussed the following points:
· Concerns for the width of the road
· Private or town-maintained road?
· Land and building restrictions (Mr. Moore read #12 of the Valley Lane Restrictions – available at Town Hall). Mr. Rafuse appeared surprised by the restrictions and was not sure if he had ever seen them. He did realize that it had been his responsibility – 1/6 had been split by the property owners of the 6 parcel owners.
Chair Burnside stated that if the checklist was to be reviewed, the Board would need to determine the services of the Road Agent Vs the Town Engineer.
Mr. Willeke felt that a discussion could occur but that any decisions to approve the lot line adjustment and roadway work should not be discussed until the next meeting.
Chair Burnside said that a site walk was needed.
Mr. Todd had not expected to receive approval at the present meeting and needed to know the next step.
Chair Burnside stated that Mr. Todd had given an excellent presentation, in which he had been able to express the need to protect the Valley Lane property owners, as well as the developer, Dan Valley.
Mr. Todd said that he would consult with an engineer for the road upgrades.
Chair Burnside said that in order to move forward the application should be accepted by the Planning board.
Mr. Rafuse asked how this would concern him in the meantime (before the road improvements occurred).
Chair Burnside said that issues in the ‘meantime’ would involve a civil issue between Mr. Rafuse and Mr. Valley.
Mr. Willeke motioned that the application be accepted as presented. Mr. Robblee seconded it. Roll call vote: Robblee, aye; Schacht, aye; Burnside, aye; Willeke, aye; Wasserloos, aye; Snow, aye; Lazar, aye.
Chair Burnside closed the Public Hearing.
The Department Reviews had all been submitted and only the road agent had a comment – which said that as road agent, he concurred with the proposed hammerhead and that he wanted to see 8”of crushed gravel as part of the proposed road improvements.
Chair Burnside said that the checklist would be reviewed line by line. The minor subdivision, lot line adjustment, and annexation checklist had been reviewed by Mr. Todd’s office and the Planning Staff. All were satisfied except the following:
#16 B.3a(11) – The Board was concerned that wetlands had not been delineated – Mr. Todd said that he felt there was none needed, and even though new culverts were to be constructed, he felt that there would be no problem.
#17 – Location of drainage & ditches subject to change, plans only reflect current situation.
#18 - PSNH – new easements
#20 - Changed boundaries, need new setbacks
#22 – Town Engineer estimate – engineering – test gravel, etc.
#23 - Engineered drainage
#24-Need to lay out hammerhead and delineate existing lines where it encroaches
#28 - bounds to be set – condition of approval – whatever the PB agrees for standards Roll call vote:
#33 - Waiver request – read by Mr. Moore – soils delineation – no issue seen
AR, SS All approve – granted
#39 - Deeds to show drainage easements and PSNH easements
#42 - Driveway , culverts engineer drawings for lot 4-40-1-4 (Dan Valley lot beside Tucker) addressed by engineer
#43 – Site Specific – depends on how much is disturbed – shouldn’t be that large an area
Chair Burnside was satisfied, except for engineering and bond requirements.
A site walk was scheduled for November 30, 2009, at 7:00am – PB Members will meet at Valley Lane. Chip Craig will be asked to attend. Mr. Todd will have markers placed during Thanksgiving Day.
Mr. Robblee motioned to continue the Public Meeting to a date certain of December 17, 2009 and to meet for the site walk on November 30, 2009. Mr. Schacht seconded the motion, and the motion was approved.
Review Subdivision & Site Plan Regulation DRAFT – next meeting
Cell Tower Rehearing Update – File #2009-01ZBA
Met Tower Status Report – ZBA to consider Motion for Rehearing – Tuesday , December 1, 2009
Capital Improvement Plan – Mr. Moore explained the first CIP meeting and that there the committee needed tow PB members to participate. Mr. Willeke and Mr. Robblee volunteered to join the committee. Mr. Moore thanked them and will inform them of the next scheduled meeting.
Correspondences: CVTC newsletter - FYI
Code Enforcement: No new actions
New Business from the Floor:
At 8:50 pm, Mr. Schacht moved to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Mr. Snow, and unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Chauncey, Planning Assistant, On behalf of the Antrim Planning Board
| 
