NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 13, 2005
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, James Nordstrom, Bob Furey, Travis Daniels; ex-officio Gordon Carlstrom; and, alternate Douglas Hill. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were Christine Quirk, Donna Mombourquette, James Denesevich, Jay Marden, Kathy Bradfield, David and Susan Deyo, Kevin Short, Jim and Carol Eggers, Brandy Mitroff, Walter Leach, Bob Todd, Frank and Dorothy Fillmore, Jeff Fillmore, Doris Fillmore, Pat Monbouquette, Jason Wenzel, Patricia Rice, Ursula Gordon, Richard Silvernail, Jim Steenson, Earl Sandford, Ari Pollack, Esq., Art Bergen, Mark Gagne, Fred Hayes, Todd Mueller, Bob LeFavre, Dave and Sherry Elliot and Dan Teague, Clifton LaBree, Paul Koning, Reggie Houle, Frank Partin, Karin Cannon, Jim Smith and Wayne Daniels.
PUBLIC HEARING
Driveway Regulations
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Because this was the only hearing scheduled for tonight’s meeting the interested parties present were those listed above as present in the audience.
The Chairman read a prepared statement by the Planning Board regarding the Driveway Regulations:
Driveway Regulations Statement
The Board will begin by explaining the background to the Driveway Regulations and hitting the main points of interest. Then there will be time for questions. The acoustics in the gym are less than optimal so please approach the microphone and state your name and address for the record. The Board reserves the right to interrupt if there is repetition to avoid wasting everyone's time. It is intended to end this session at 9 p.m. The hearing will, if necessary, be adjourned to a future date and time.
Here is the background to the Driveway Regulations:
The New Boston Master Plan advises in the Goals and Objectives section that the town should promote a road system that will "…facilitate the safe movement of pedestrians and both non-motorized and motorized vehicular traffic…" by "…minimizing and controlling the number and location of future points of access (curb cuts) to said roadways.".
In order to do this the Planning Board has been issuing Driveway Permits since about 1997. Prior to this date the Board of Selectmen were in charge of the process. The Planning Board also considers the dangers of erosion and runoff from driveways; drainage into town roads; changes to drainage when paving takes place, and so on.
In 1999, the Planning Board determined that the past policy and practice should be written into a formal Driveway Regulation. A sub-committee of the Planning Board was formed and work began to write the regulations. Preparation of the regulations was put on hold when the Planning Board's schedule became increasingly busy with applications and other more pressing items.
The regulations were revisited in 2003 and work has been ongoing until January of 2005 when the regulations were sent for review by Town Counsel. He was unable to review them until July of 2005, hence the delay in holding the public hearing.
The regulations have been reviewed by John Riendeau, Road Agent, Dennis Sarette, Building Inspector and Code Enforcement Official, William Drescher, Esq., Town Counsel, and Jack Munn, Senior Planner, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission.
Two postcard mailers from the Concerned Landowners of New Boston, LLC, have excited much interest in the regulations and the Board is glad to have additional input. That is what public hearings are for. However, there has been some negative publicity surrounding the regulations. The most recent mailer indicated that there was something to be exposed. On the contrary, all the discussion on the regulations has taken place at public meetings since 1999. A timeline is available since the regulations were taken up again in 2003.
The postcard also questions the procedure for adoption of these regulations. According to state statute Driveway Regulations are to be adopted by the Planning Board - just as the Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations are - and do not require town meeting vote.
So what's new? Obviously, when a process is written down it has to be broken down into its component parts and ends up looking a lot more complicated than it really is.
The Purpose section takes all the reasons that the Board has been reviewing and issuing Driveway Permits and puts them in one place.
Scope explains that the process applies to the driveway within the Town's right-of-way, unless there are occasions when the location or construction within the property has to be reviewed so as not to present any hazards or erosion problems.
The application procedure is the same as currently except that only the Road Agent will inspect the driveways in the field. The Planning Board will still be involved in the administrative side of the process.
Driveway design criteria suggests that driveways should be of a grade to allow reasonable access by emergency vehicles. No grade requirement is included although it is suggested that 10% is the maximum that town emergency vehicles would be able to access. It is also recommended that the driveway access a town road where the road is 8% or less. This is consistent with the requirement in the Subdivision Regulations.
Sight distance appears to be the biggest area of concern. Past Road Agents have used 200'. The Board included the 300' to be close to the AASHTO standard. Other surrounding towns range from 150' to 400' to 10 times the posted speed limit. The Board is willing to discuss this figure to come to something that everyone can feel comfortable with.
This section suggests (but does not require) that driveways be a minimum of 12' wide for safety and that the driveway should be no closer than 5 feet from abutting property lines.
This section does require the maximum width of a driveway to be 30'. The Board discussed this at one of their meetings and did not think this was restrictive. It will keep the traditional look of New Boston's roads and not allow large swaths to be cut out of the roadside vegetation.
The radii requirement at the intersection of the driveway and the road has been reduced from 20' to 10'. The 3% negative requirement has changed from being required for a distance 25' from the centerline of the road to be required to the center of the ditchline.
A section was included regarding house numbering. This will be changed since the recent adoption of the Street numbering and addressing ordinance by the Board of Selectmen which took their 25+ year old practice and put it in regulation format.
The Driveway Construction Materials section is new and requires certain materials within the right-of-way and suggests materials to be used outside of the right-of-way.
The Common Driveways section ratifies the Planning Board's practice of allowing common curb cuts and puts in place more stringent requirements for common driveways that may be used by 3 or more houses.
Temporary Driveways is a new section but provides the town with protection should a temporary driveway for a logging operation or temporary construction entrance cause damage to a town road. Some temporary driveways require culverts to handle the roadside drainage even for a short period of time.
The Paving only permit has been required right along and allows the town to inspect the driveway pre- and post-paving to make sure that no changes are made to roadside drainage. The only change here is that the fee is reduced from $25 to $10.
In order to make the administration of the process easier to handle, a Permit to Use will be issued by the Road Agent when a driveway has been satisfactorily installed.
The Bonding section includes an increase from $200 to $1,250 which more accurately reflects what it would cost the town to go in and pave the apron of a driveway should the need arise.
The final sections of the regulations incorporate required legal language, including waiver provisions and appeals provisions.
Paul Koning asked what the case would be if a cross road was present on a roadway and was within the required 300’ line of sight for a driveway. The Chairman replied that the presence of a crossroad within the 300’ of sight distance would not be relevant as the sight line would travel through it. Paul Koning asked if traffic generated by such a crossroad would be a consideration. Gordon Carlstrom replied that a crossroad would be considered in the same manner as another driveway on that roadway. Paul Koning then asked what the case would be for an approved existing lot that could not satisfy the requirements of the Driveway Regulations because the lot owner could not obtain permission to remove trees from abutting property. The Chairman asked if, in
this example, an approved Driveway Permit existed. Paul Koning replied that this example assumed no permits had been secured and that only the approved lot of record was confirmed. The Chairman stated that this example would pose an issue, however, a waiver provision was possible. Paul Koning stated that he likened his example scenario to scenic roads in the Town that were subject to certain restrictions concerning the removal of roadside vegetation which, in turn, could pose sight distance issues for driveways on those roads. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the restrictions for removal of vegetation on scenic roads applied more to the Town rather than a landowner as it affected the Town’s ability to do maintenance on such roads without a public hearing. Paul Koning stated that if the Town was inhibited as to how they could perform maintenance on scenic roads then compliance with the requirements mentioned in Section 9.5 (page 6) of the Driveway
Regulations was questionable for driveway installations on such roads. Gordon Carlstrom referenced this Section and noted that it did not deal with the removal of rocks, trees, brush, debris, construction within the Town’s right-of-way by the Town, but, rather, by the landowner installing their driveway. Paul Koning wished to clarify that a landowner on a scenic road would not be restricted if they wished to remove rocks, trees, etc. on their own property. Gordon Carlstrom replied that was correct and reiterated his previous explanation. Paul Koning asked about removal of vegetation from the Town’s right-of-way. Gordon Carlstrom replied that was correct with the permission of the Town, as owner of the right-of-way, the landowner could remove vegetation in order to construct a driveway if that was necessary.
Paul Koning stated that the 14 foot setback requirement from the edge of pavement to measure sight distance noted in the proposed Driveway Regulations would be detrimental to certain scenic roads as it could impact vegetation up to the edge of existing stone walls which seemed contrary to the Town’s goal of retaining the scenic beauty of these roads.
Bob Todd wished to offer several comments and recommendations as a professional who would frequently reference these Driveway Regulations. He added that the Driveway Regulations were comprehensive and felt they addressed many relevant issues. Bob Todd stated that his first comment concerned the use of terms within the Regulations where the words, Town road, rights-of-way, street, traveled way, highway and roadway were used interchangeably throughout the document. He added that the definitions of these words should be changed in the corresponding index to reflect how they are intended within the Regulations. He suggested that in Section 3, paragraph F, the word “traveled ways” be exchanged with the term “rights-of-
ways” as that defined the extent of the public easement. The phrase within this Section would read : “To ensure that driveways do not disrupt drainage systems, or culverts, damage the surface of traveled ways, or cause erosion or siltation of rights-of- way or siltation of surface waters;”. Bob Todd then suggested that the full definition for “Right-of-way” listed in Section 5, page 3, read: “shall mean town owned property, easement or other interests therein, dedicated for municipal highway purposes or a right-of-way shown on a subdivision plat approved by the Planning Board and recorded with the County Registry of Deeds which provides the principal means of access to abutting property” which was a combination of its current definition and the second
portion of the definition for “Road/Street/Highway”. The Chairman asked Bob Todd if the Board could retain a copy of his notes to the Regulations. Bob Todd replied that he would provide this copy. He then suggested that the full definition for “Road/Street/Highway” read: “when used within these regulations shall mean a public traveled way which the town or state has the duty to maintain regularly.” Bob Todd stated that with his noted changes these definitions would then rebound throughout the Driveway Regulations and be more meaningful.
Bob Todd approved of Section 9.9, Design Criteria which read “The driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of 10’ radii minimum.” He wished to discuss Section 9.11 and assumed an example of a lot and driveway that were perpendicular to a roadway. Bob Todd explained that in applying the 10’ radii minimum, 5’ from the property line this would encourage encroachment onto an abutter’s land by 5’.
Bob Todd felt that the language of Section 9.16 was contradictory which read: “No drainage may be discharged onto a public road and must be tied into any roadside drainage”. He thought that drainage instead would have to discharge into a public right-of-way to tie into road side drainage. Gordon Carlstrom explained that the intent was that drainage be kept off of a traveled way/public road by keeping the drainage in the right-of-way so that it did not flow onto a roadway and back into the ditchline. Bob Todd suggested that traveled way be used in place of public road to make this language more understandable.
The Chairman returned to the topic of Section 9.11 and asked Bob Todd if he recommended 5’ or 10’ of distance from abutting property lines. Bob Todd thought that a minimum of 10’ should be stipulated. He added that language could also be added to state that a driveway flare could not extend beyond an owner’s property line.
Bob Todd next addressed Section 13.3, under Temporary Driveways which stated that temporary driveway permits were valid for six months. He recommended that this permit be extended to one year to coincide with the time period for timber sale contracts.
Ari Pollack, Esq., stated that he represented the Concerned Landowners of New Boston, LLC. He then distributed a written statement of comments to the Board and noted that additional copies had been provided for audience members. Ari Pollack, Esq., stated that the Concerned Landowners of New Boston, LLC, was comprised of residents who believed that their landowner rights were being restricted by the Planning Board. He believed that this was a case where
public opinion and discussion had not been considered and likened this scenario to the events that had transpired concerning the recent Steep Slopes Ordinance. Ari Pollack, Esq., felt that the Steep Slopes Ordinance passed the Town vote because the public relied on the Board’s support of it given that they were not offered education on this topic beforehand. He added that since that vote public perception of the Steep Slopes Ordinance had changed and the Town now faced litigation, animosity from residents and the re-instatement of a re-drafting committee which he felt was somewhat extraordinary given the brief time line involved. Ari Pollack, Esq., felt that the proposal of the Driveway Regulations were likely to travel the same course if they were not given full consideration by the public in addition to Town
entities involved. He added that he appreciated the comments provided by the Board at the beginning of the hearing.
Ari Pollack, Esq., stated that the existing information contained in the Zoning Ordinance Section 309, regarding driveways was somewhat informal and contained only three sentences that concerned the location of driveways in conjunction with intersections compared to the proposed Driveway Regulations which were 13 pages of rules, procedures, expenses and specifications. He noted that amending or replacing what was currently in the Ordinance was serious business that required notice of public hearings and a Town vote, not a documentation process where the Board would try to interpret what residents would desire. Ari Pollack, Esq., stated that a vote without public education was a smoke screen. He noted that the State did allow planning boards to regulate driveways and that
the NH DOT could prohibit the placement of two or more driveways on a lot where sight distance was less than 400’. Ari Pollack, Esq., further noted that according to the Driveway Regulations proposed by the Board even the first of those two driveways would be disallowed where sight distances were less than 300’ and the waiver provision mentioned was not guaranteed. He added that there should be specific justifications made for every item addressed in the proposed Driveway Regulations and anything less could be considered taking rights from property owners without reason. Ari Pollack, Esq., stated that he had read the Planning Board minutes from previous hearings regarding the proposed Regulations adding that it appeared to have been a comprehensive process, however, he did not note anywhere in these minutes that any scientific calculations such as traffic studies were performed to justify the particular sight distance lengths, widths of driveways and
grades, etc. that the Regulations presented. He recalled the example given earlier in the evening by Bob Todd where certain scenarios of driveway/road intersection radii curves could cause encroachments onto abutting properties. Ari Pollack, Esq., noted that such inconsistencies could leave property owners without rights. He recalled an earlier comment in the evening where the past policy of the Town, although undocumented, had been 200’ of sight distance which had now been increased in the proposed Driveway Regulations to 300’. Ari Pollack, Esq., felt that this was another item that required justification.
Ari Pollack, Esq., concluded by asking the Board what the case would be for the single residential lot owner who had 290’ of sight distance and could not gain the permission of their abutters to remove 10’ of trees to gain the required 300’. He noted that a waiver provision might not be successful even after that lot owner spent a considerable amount of money to have an engineer qualify that 290’ was the same as 300’. Ari Pollack, Esq., asked that the Board
continue to look at these scenarios on a case by case basis and not lock themselves into
Regulations that were overly restrictive. He questioned whether the proposed Driveway Regulations would add enough safety for the Town so that it was worth the toll it would have on private property rights.
Walter Leach asked if the Town was prepared to move existing roads over stone walls and through trees to satisfy sight distance from all driveways.
Brandy Mitroff wished to address a comment made by Attorney Pollack and noted that the public may not be aware that obtaining a waiver from the Planning Board was much easier that obtaining a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) at a financial expense, therefore, it would more palatable to not have the Driveway Regulations under the Zoning Ordinance. She added that upon speaking with the Road Agent he felt that residential driveways on cul-de-sacs would be acceptable with 200’ of sight distance, however, those driveways on highly traveled roads similar to Bedford Road should have 300’ of sight distance. She suggested that the proposed Driveway Regulations could require between 200’ and 300’ of sight distance based on the Road Agent’s
discretion.
Brandy Mitroff stated that the term “resurfacing” in Section 6 of the proposed Driveway Regulations was being misinterpreted by some members of the public to mean top-coating rather than what was intended by the Board which was transforming a gravel driveway to a paved driveway. She noted that because of this confusion the Board might wish to consider a different term.
Art Bergen asked if Section 15.1, Maintenance and Responsibility, applied to existing driveways. The Chairman replied that this Section dealt with State Law which stipulated that property owners were responsible for maintaining culverts underneath their driveways. Art Bergen again asked if Section 15.1 applied to existing driveways and noted that his home was 25 years old with two driveways 54 feet apart and one being located on the corner of his lot which clearly went against the stipulations of the proposed Driveway Regulations. He added that the sight distances for the two driveways were 60 feet and 17 feet respectively which would also be restricted. The Chairman replied that Section 15.1 referred to maintenance and safety hazards concerning driveways and did not
apply to the current position or placement of an existing driveway. He added that it did stipulate that the owner of a driveway was responsible for maintaining proper drainage of its underlying culvert. Art Bergen noted that his secondary driveway was “Y” shaped and at the end of the road, therefore, he assured that the snow was plowed during the winter season so that the Town plows had a turn-around. He noted that if this driveway was found to be against the requirements of the Regulation then he would not be motivated to continue to do so. Art Bergen further added that there were no culverts under his driveways. The Chairman stated that Mr. Bergen’s driveways would be considered grandfathered for existing use. Art Bergen noted that grandfathered driveways were not mentioned in the proposed Driveway Regulations. The Chairman replied that this was an assumed implication.
Mark Gagne stated that his concerns were similar and he would like to see a specific statement that referenced grandfathered driveways regarding sight distance as his property had only 300 feet of frontage with a 50 foot right-of-way between his lot and his neighbor’s. He asked if the Driveway Regulations would be rewritten again and available for public review before they were considered for adoption. The Chairman replied that a similar format would be provided.
Mike Gagne questioned the phrases “…including, but not limited to,…” in Sections 7.4 and 7.8 and felt that all specific requirements in these Sections should instead be listed and summarized.
Fred Hayes stated that his existing driveway had a 25’ apron off of the right-of-way and he now wished to pave the remaining portion of his driveway. He asked what stipulations of the Driveway Regulations would apply to his scenario. The Chairman replied that only one item would apply as had been the case prior to the drafting of these Regulations which was that the -3% grade into the roadway be assured before and after paving.
Paul Koning stated that it should be better clarified within the proposed Regulations that a paving only permit only needed to meet the requirements of Section 14.2 and that no other construction requirements referenced in other Sections applied.
Todd Mueller asked if the Board had performed a safety analysis in conjunction with the drafting of the Driveway Regulations and considered safety issues or safety statistics of the past. The Chairman replied that they had not but had referenced the restrictions put in place by other towns, recommendations from the Town Engineer and research on erosion from poorly constructed driveways. Todd Mueller wished to clarify that the Board had not compiled any statistical information regarding accidents that had occurred in the Town due to driveway irregularities. The Chairman replied that in respect to safety no one in the Town had been injured as a direct result of a poorly constructed/designed driveway, however, road crews in the Town had been dispatched in the past to remove
remnants of driveways that had washed into brooks as a result of poor construction/design. Todd Mueller asked if that was a one time incident. The Chairman replied that the State assured that it was a one time incident by imposing a sizable fine on the contractor who was responsible.
Todd Mueller noted that the proposed Driveway Regulations referenced State RSA’s, however, these Regulations seemed to be stricter than those imposed by the State, therefore, residents on NH Routes 77 and 13 were subject to less stringent State regulations living on a State Highway than residents on Town roads. Gordon Carlstrom asked if Mr. Mueller could be more specific. Todd Mueller replied that he had outlined this in an Email sent to the Planning Department on August 10, 2005, and the first item dealt with Section 9.3 in which the recommended driveway grade was a maximum 8% compared to the State’s maximum grade of 15% per Section 10.G of their policy adopted March 10, 2000. He stated that the next specification mentioned in his Email regarded Section 9.4
which required a 14.5’ setback from a roadway to measure line of sight from a driveway. He noted that the State used 10’ and that calculation was based on the average size of a vehicle measured from the front of its hood to the driver’s seat. Todd Mueller went on to say that if an individual wished to appeal an issue based on the State’s Highway Regulations the matter was addressed by the NH DOT, however, in the proposed Driveway Regulations Section 23, Appeals, an appeal would need to be addressed by Superior Court. He added that a subset step should be made available before an individual was forced to take such legal action. Todd Mueller closed by stating that he did not understand why the Driveway Regulations proposed for the Town were more stringent than the State Highway Regulations as he assumed the Board would want the two to coincide.
Bob Lafave referred to a diagram in the proposed Driveway Regulations that illustrated a 25’ setback from the centerline of a Town and asked if that meant that Town roads had 50’ right-of-ways. The Chairman replied that this was the case for that example. Bob Lafave stated that because New England roads curved considerably it would be necessary to remove many trees from the edges of roadways in order to assure the sight distance stipulated by the proposed Regulations. He added that it may be more sensible to base sight distance on a multiple of the speed limit for certain roads that were curved but more slowly traveled, especially since a traffic study was never done to support the 300’ measure.
Bob Lafave stated that regarding the 10’ radius for a driveway apron where the point of curvature occurred at the edge of the Towns’ right-of-way, a driveway 5’ or 10’ from the property line would have its curvature taking place in the Town’s right-of-way regardless. The Chairman replied that Mr. Lafave was presuming that the Town road was built in the middle of the right-of-way by that example. Bob Lafave stated that he stood corrected.
Bob Lafave noted that previous discussion on Section 15 had dealt with the fact that property owners needed to maintain the culverts under their driveway, however, Section 15.2 suggested that residents would be responsible for cutting trees that could be on the Town’s property in order to maintain sight distance. The Chairman wished to clarify that sight distance was not an arbitrary number and instead was based on speed limit, reaction time and stopping distance. An audience member asked what the case would be for a subdivision with a 15 m.p.h. speed limit. The Chairman replied that there was no such thing as a 15 m.p.h. zone and 35 m.p.h. was the lowest speed limit postable in a town with the exception of a school zone. Gordon Carlstrom noted that there was a
provision for a town compact and that within a defined area such as the downtown area it was permissible to put in a lower speed limit such as 25 m.p.h.
Dave Elliot stated that he also had issues with Section 9.4 where 300’ of sight distance would be required in both directions along a roadway in order for a Driveway Permit to be issued. He added that he was aware of roads that had recently been approved by the Board that could not conform to the proposed Driveway Regulations, therefore, he did not think it was a responsible position of the Board to approve a lot which would then require an exception to those Regulations. Dave Elliot explained that in many instances it was a roadway that would need to be altered in order to improve the line of sight for driveways off of it because the radius of the vertical curve would not permit 300’ of sight distance. He added that given that scenario he felt 200’ of
sight distance would be more acceptable. Dave Elliot noted that he also questioned the benefits of a 14.5’ setback to determine sight distance along with 200’ of separation between driveways.
Dave Elliot stated that in his experience he felt that that Board had always closely scrutinized driveways proposed on scenic roads and that owners did not have the flexibility to clear trees, etc., as the Board implied. The Chairman noted that review of the statute had indicated that scenic road hearings were not required for property owners cutting their trees.
Dave Elliot stated that his major concerns involved the distances stipulated in the proposed Driveway Regulations and what was being approved for building lots by the Board. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the 200’ distance measure between driveways was suggested by the Road Agent so that snow piles from plowing would not cause piles of snow to intersect. Dave Elliot noted that it was very common in new subdivisions for that separation to be less than 200’.
Dan Teague commented that very few driveways in the Town had 300’ of sight distance now and that as a fire fighter in Town for over 15 years he had not recalled an occurrence of a motor vehicle accident that was caused by issues with a driveway. He added that Earl Sandford of Sandford Survey and Engineering was present this evening and could supply professional information that was contrary to what these proposed Regulations call for. Dan Teague felt that requiring 300’ of sight distance at 14.5’ setbacks was unachievable due to the curvature of many existing roads in the Town. Paul Koning added that a good way to test a proposed regulation was to apply it to existing properties as was done in the case of the Steep Slopes Ordinance. He further added
that in the case of the Driveway regulations a significant number of existing driveways could not conform and that would place a burden on new properties. Paul Koning then asked if existing utility poles would be considered as possible obstructions to sight distance. The Chairman replied that this was a possibility. Paul Koning replied that this could pose an issue and gave the example of a subdivision approved across the street from his property that had two backlots with an existing utility pole close to the boundary between each. He noted that it would be problematic to require that the utility pole be moved in order to secure a Driveway Permit for these lots.
Earl Sandford explained that the 14.5’ setback from the edge of pavement for sight distance measure was an AASHTO requirement for intersections and was based on vehicular movements and driver behaviors. He noted that the accepted range of setback from the front bumper of a vehicle to the eye of the driver was 8’ and the remaining 6.5’ was an added measure that brought the setback up to more global requirements of intersections where motorists pulling out of a driveway would tend to pull up further to the road edge before exiting onto the roadway. Earl Sandford stated that imposing the 14.5’ setback would have large impacts on tree cutting in the Town and he felt this length was excessive for a driveway. The Chairman asked Mr. Sandford what he
suggested for a setback measure. Earl Sandford suggested a setback between 8’ and 10’ adding that the State used 10’ for major roads. The Chairman asked Earl Sandford what he would recommend for a measure of sight distance for driveways. Earl Sandford quoted page 391 of the AASHTO Regulations which read: “Minimum stopping distance for local streets should range from 100’ to 200’. He added that 300’ was considered for an intersection with a lot of vehicular movement. Earl Sandford recalled Dave Elliot’s comments where there were many instances of approved road designs whose lots did not meet the 300’ sight distance measure. He felt that there was room for compromise regarding the sight distance requirements for major intersections versus residential driveways.
Ursula Gordon asked if the 300’ of sight distance was a total measure or if it was a length from each direction of a driveway. The Chairman replied that it was from each direction. Ursula Gordon clarified that this would mean 600’ in total. The Chairman was unsure as to why the measure would be added together but replied that this was correct.
Jim Steenson stated that he assumed Section 6, General Provisions, dealt with new lots but wanted to clarify that if he wished to construct a barn on his existing lot that he would not be bound to these Driveway Regulations. The Chairman replied that he would not. Jim Steenson suggested that some type of explicit grandfather clause within the Driveway Regulations would provide such reassurance. He added that the last paragraph of Section 4 dealt with unrealistic maintenance requirements which appeared vague in this Section but seemed to be addressed in Sections 3.F and 9.2.
Dan Teague wished to clarify that he did not want to allude in his earlier comments that the Planning Board lacked common sense and that he appreciated their efforts.
Jeff Fillmore asked if the Board would be straightening out all existing roads that disallowed 300’ of sight distance from the driveways they supported if these proposed Driveway Regulations were going to affect the two cars leaving his residential driveway. The Chairman replied that this would not be done. Jeff Fillmore noted that the Transfer Station’s driveway accommodated 800 cars per day and that driveway lacked 300’ of sight distance. The Chairman noted that the Transfer Station was on an existing roadway and asked if Mr. Fillmore’s driveway was also existing. Jeff Fillmore replied that it was. The Chairman asked Mr. Fillmore what point he was trying to clarify. Jeff Fillmore replied that safety began at home and if the Town’s municipal facility did not meet the safety requirements imposed by the Driveway Regulations then how could the Town impose the same safety requirements on his future driveway. He asked that if the Chairman did not wish to respond to his
question that he please step down from the Board.
The Chairman thanks the audience members for their input. He noted that the Board would be adjourning and that a work session would be held in October, 2005, and that until that time any further comments should be forwarded to the Planning Department. He added that once the work session was held at least one more public hearing would be held so that the public could review any changes that were made and offer input. The Chairman explained that the Driveway Regulations would not be adopted until that work session and at least one public hearing was held. He added that it was likely that the Board would be working on these revisions for many months.
Walter Leach wished to make a motion for the taxpayers to vote on the Driveway Regulations in contrast to their adoption by the Board. The Chairman stated that RSA 236:13, RSA 674:36 and RSA 674:44 mandated the process by which the Driveway Regulations could be adopted by the Planning Board.
At 8:30 p.m. Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to adjourn. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien, Recording Clerk Minutes Approved:
| 
