PRELIMINARY MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 10, 2010
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
7:00 pm Start of meeting
Meeting called to order by GMorris at 7:04pm for a proposed subdivision on the Trosky property on New Boston Road. Members present: GMorris, JFletcher, MBorden, BMarshall, MSteere, KO’Connell GMorris questioned if any member needs to recuse them self from the hearing. None did. He then explained the Rules of Order
GMorris said DO’Hara, the representative for the applicant, is going to make the presentation on the subdivision. It was noted by the Recording Secretary that all abutters were notified. And the meeting was properly noticed A signup sheet was sent around to record the attendees. He asked, “How does Board perceive this hearing tonight, as a Planning Board meeting first and Board of Adjustment second?” MSteere stated the hearing was published as a joint hearing. The Board of Adjustment can gather information and ask questions during public portion of the hearing and then would convene after the Planning Board concluded.
JGryval pointed out that the previous Planning Board hearing on the original subdivision was for a single driveway with a 50’ width maximum. His concern is that the original decision of the Planning Board still holds true to the 50’ width single driveway as previous accepted. BMarshall is concerned that both Boards maintain integrity of separate roles in their action. Planning Board and Board of Adjustment should not blur their independent roles. GMorris noted that BMarshall is sitting as an alternate. John Cronin requested the Board go back and look at original decision. GMorris read the application as submitted by DO’Hara, engineer for the applicants. He also requested a copy of the Power of Attorney from the owner. A copy was submitted by Dave O’Hara. GMorris read the Power of
Attorney. History: GM researched 3/8/07 meeting minutes and MBorden handed 4/7/08 meeting minutes to GMorris.
Dave O’Hara, stated the original subdivision for DPratt was approved 2/07 and is listed in the Registry of Deeds as #35429. The Troskys have since purchased the property. A driveway has been roughed in and a small piece of wetlands was impacted. Scott Tucker, contractor, was in charge of the driveway installation and he is present to answer any questions. One lot will have 114.84 feet frontage, approximately 20.7 acres large with 8 acres dry area as required for back lot. The second lot will have 252.61 feet of frontage. The driveway will be 24 feet wide with 2 foot shoulders and a hammerhead turnaround. A small section will be 16 feet wide as shown on the plans. The curb cut was approved when the DPratt owned the property. The wetlands scientist on this project was Richard Bond who has since retired.
Sharon Monahan, a wetlands science and septic designer will take over the project. The lots meet all of the zoning requirements. The common driveway will have the lot line for the subdivision up the center of driveway.
GMorris asked the Board if they wanted to go over the subdivision checklist. All agreed that the Board should do so.
Checklist:
1. Plat prepare according to RSA 478.1 - yes
2. Proposed subdivision name; name/address of owner - yes
3. Professional seals on plat - yes, but need wetland soil scientist signature & stamp
4. Locus plan - yes
5. Boundaries and designations of applicable zoning districts - yes
6. Name/addresses of abutting property -yes
7. All subdivisions within 100 feet, intersecting roads, etc. - yes
8. Boundary survey and location of permanent markers, lot numbers - yes (Surveyor will check on lot number if back lot is created.)
9. Identification of frontage and location of driveway – yes
10. Location of existing and proposed streets, surface materials, etc. - yes
11. Existing and proposed buildings and setbacks - yes
12. Watercourse, ponds, stonewalls - yes
13. Any open space preserved - no
14. USGS contour lines - yes
15. Soil data including wetlands designation – yes
16. Special flood hazards - no
17. Methods of sewage disposal, percolation test, and septic area - no
18. Location of 75’ well radius on property - yes
19. Location and profiles of existing and proposed water mains, sewers, culverts, drains and connections - no
20. Plans for soil erosion and sedimentation control - no
21. Copy of state septic approval or certification from septic designer - yes
22. Road plans - no
23. Copy of driveway permit - no
24. Copy of another other state and federal permits – no
25. Copies of existing and proposed easements – yes On page 2, block description is in deed and each deed will have description of easement.
26. Copy of any deed restrictions - no
27. Copy of deed covering land to be used for public easements and right-of-way - no
28. Any additional reports or information required by the Board
DO’Hara then presented a letter requesting waivers for the following:
1. Delineation of wetland.
2. Methods of sewage disposal, location of percolation tests and results, 4,000 square foot septic areas, location of 75-foot well radius on property.
3. Plans for soil erosion and sediment control.
4. Copy of approved septic design or statement from licensed septic designer that system is adequate.
5. Copy of driveway permit.
JFletcher motioned to accept application as presented, MBorden seconded the motion. KO’Connell stated the Board has sufficient information to invoke jurisdiction on this application. The vote was unanimous.
GMorris then collected the application fees totaling $646.20. Check #831 for $346.20 and check #832 for$300.00 for lot number R7-21-2 was written by Steve Carey.
GMorris asked does Board have any questions of applicant. MBorden questioned, “Why are you asking for a waiver to not show the culvert?” He stated it would be nice to know which way water is flowing in culvert and wetlands should be protected during the construction. MSteere then asked, “Are there any culverts going in on the driveway?” “There are no culverts to be added to the driveway,” responded DO’Hara. It was also stated that during driveway construction, silt fencing was put in place. GMorris asked, “Is there any building occurring at this time?” “Not at this time,” responded DO’Hara.
MBorden questioned, “Is there an area that is going to be disturbed and when should the silt fence be put in?” DO’Hara responded that the land slopes downward and once the common driveway is constructed, the wetlands will become farther away. DO’Hara also stated the downward slope is on the western side of property and it would not a big deal to put in hay bales/silt fence. GMorris stated to the Board that silt fencing could be a condition of approval. BMarshall asked, “Why the extra expense for a common driveway when you have existing one already?” DO’Hara explained he didn’t want to cut into the slope and bank and he wanted a less soil impact.
7:52 pm open to public for questions:
GMorris asked that audience members state name and address questions to the Board. Carol Irwin, abutter and Chairman of Conservation Committee stated “I think I understand where proposed house is going, but where are the septic systems and wells being placed? Are circles on the plat for wells? Looks like it would be in the front yard and the septic system would be where?” MBorden responded that septic systems have to have test pits dug to show the best soil for drainage for a system.
GMorris explained that the big squares on plans demonstrate where houses can be placed. MBorden commented that in order to create a back lot in the rural/agricultural district, a 350’ frontage is required. MSteere stated that the area has to be contiguous. CIrwin has a concern about there being no erosion plan. “I know that water flows into a significant pond on the next lot over. I don’t know what the culvert requirements are, but a significant one should be placed to make sure no damage is done to wetlands or the pond”.
GM closed public portion of the hearing at 7:58 p.m. stating that the Board is entering into deliberative session. MSteere asked the Acting Fire Chief, Loren White, to look at the plat to see if the proposed driveway width and hammerhead turn could accommodate the fire trucks. He replied that it was ok. He also said, ”He doesn’t see any problem with line of sight.”
GMorris referenced to the history on the lot stating that in January 2007, Mr. Pratt was going “withdraw the proposal and go before the Zoning Board to seek wetlands crossing approval.” (Meeting minutes of Planning Board, January 8, 2007)
KO’Connell asked that the Board go through the back lot ordinance/requirement. General comments listed as:
All back lots will not be less than the frontage that is required – applicant has presented documentation that meets that requirement.
100’ frontage: look at note 19 on pg 2 for exact measurements on lots. One is 252’ and the other is 114’.
BMarshall commented on back lots by reading pg 15, paragraph 1; raising the issue, “at sole discretion of the Board to approve lots having frontage containing less frontage requirement of town ordinance.”
On culvert, soil erosion, and driveway:
MBorden stated that the Town Road Agent should go out and look at the common driveway location to be sure it can serve the two lots. There are limits as to how far a driveway can go. The Board may request a maintenance agreement as a condition of approval. (See pg 5 of Planning Board driveway regulations). JFletcher said that driveway locations shall be shown on plat. He also commented that the existing driveway has a permit to come off a paved road and an apron will have to be paved in accordance with the regulation.
KO’Connell addressed DO’Hara with the question, “the original driveway was placed between 2 wetlands and what are you doing to make sure that this driveway doesn’t encroach on the wetlands?” DO’Hara, responded, “There will have to be a DES wetland application in place to assure the least impact to get into lot.”
MBorden said the common driveway should have specifications identified which can be verified. GMorris said these conditions need to be listed on the plats as requirements for approval. KO’Connell said delineations for common driveway should be listed. KO’Connell & MSteere request assurances that driveway follows the plan as presented. MSteere still concerned about who is going to be the one that verifies this driveway will be put in as required. GMorris said that all specifications need to be listed in plat. GMorris said the plat should clearly define the common driveway and how it is constructed. GMorris then re-read the common driveway requirements to the Board for a clearer understanding.
BMarshall asked if there was an agreement in place for the commmon driveway. John Cronin said the Board was trying to do 2 different things. If subdivision is approved, then it seems that common driveway issue for Special Exception would be the next step. GMorris said that the common driveway approval could be contingent upon the Board’s subdivision approval.
JFletcher asked to go over the requested waivers.
1. Location/culverts.
2. Plans for soil erosion sediment control
3. Common driveway plans
4. Copies of access easement made contingent upon approval of subdivision.
The consensus of the Board is that it needs assurance that when construction occurs that the contingencies are linked to the plat/plans. GMorris stated contingent approval means we don’t sign until we get the plats with contingencies addressed and required items listed. The Code Enforcement Officer will get copies of the approved plats. John Cronin commented, “The trickier issue is you don’t sign plat if notes on plat do not get done; Town has a remedy.
MBorden questioned, “Is it appropriate for us to look at what the Board of Adustment granted in the past?” DO’Hara said that application for Special Exception with restrictions was granted on 2/13/2007. MSteere read those meeting minutes to all.
JFletcher motioned that the application for a subdivision be accepted with following contingencies:
1. Require a soil erosion plan on plat.
2. Require a common driveway plan.
3. A copy of updated driveway permit and copy of easement and maintenance agreement.
4. When the common driveway is constructed, an inspection of said driveway will be made by a town approved engineer.
5. Need soil scientist signature, lot number, location of existing culvert,
6. Statement that there is no further encroachment to the wetlands as shown on the plat.
7. Approval is also contingent granting of Special Exception by Board of Adjustment for a common driveway serving two lots.
MBorden seconded it.
JGryval made a point of clarification to be entered in the minutes. He summarized the Planning Board driveway regulations Sec 5 (c) under Travel Width it states at least a 12’ width for a driveway and in that Section 5, (x) under Common driveways, it states “if approved by the Planning Board that one driveway may serve two lots. In such cases, the Planning Board may require that the driveway maintain a 50’ right-of-way. The proposed common driveway is 16’ wide at narrowest point and, 24’ wide at widest pt. JGryval said that what is already in place be clarified in meeting minutes. MSteere questioned about new zoning regulations that are coming up about ancillary structures and wonders if a requirement should be put in the motion saying that a common driveway can only serve two
dwellings and not an ancillary structure. BMarshall stated, “The Board can’t discriminate by including the word ancillary structure.” He explained that an ancillary structure could be an in-law apartment and while it would increase traffic, you can’t know what an owner will do on his property. JGryval said that an application to the Board of Adjustment for a Special Exception for an ancillary structure would have to occur.
At 8:57 pm, GMorris called for a vote. Motion carried with. GM, KO, MB, JF voting for granting application and MSteere abstained.
Meeting Adjourned at 8:58 pm
| 
