PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 11, 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; and, alternates Don Duhaime and 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 Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Bill Morin, Bob Todd, LLS, Albert LaChance, Clifton LaBree, David Craig, Roger Dignard, Don Sipe, Linda Pothier, Michael Pare, Matt Haddad, Bill Vanark, David Moore, Lou Kozar, Roger Noonan, Eric Fey, Cyndie Katz, Brandy Mitroff and Sara Hogan.
DE ROETTH, PETER
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: 55 Hooper Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #’s 11/12 & 11/12-1
Residential “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, who represented the applicant. An abutter present was Bill Morin. Also present were interested parties Roger Noonan and Eric Fey.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the applicant proposed a reconfiguration of Lot #’s 11/12 and 11/12-1 where Lot #11/12-1 would be lessened in size to 3.115 acres and the parent Lot #11/12 would retain 15.816 acres. He noted that an existing access road to the rear lot was put in at the time of a previous subdivision. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, further noted that a waiver request had been submitted in September, 2005, for the requirement of Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. He justified this waiver request by explaining that no new lots were being proposed with this lot line adjustment, therefore, there would be no additional impacts to traffic, municipal services or the environment.
Abutter Bill Morin stated that he lived across the street and questioned the placement of a survey marker approximately 30 feet from an existing stone wall. He noted that he was familiar with the property being discussed as he once owned the land. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the marker was most likely a traverse station used as a reference point for surveying. Bill Morin asked if the existing access to the rear lot would be below the house and require crossing an existing brook with the new lot line configuration. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that this would not be the case and that a cut existed in the existing stone wall to provide access. Bill Morin stated that he thought the survey marker indicated that the driveway for the rear lot would cut through the hill section of the
property and was concerned because of Hooper Hill’s scenic road status. He added that it was his understanding that such cuts for driveways could only be made on scenic roads under dire circumstances. The Chairman clarified that under the Scenic Road Ordinance such cuts were to be avoided whenever possible. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that the applicant had an interest in the conservation of this land. Bill Morin noted that it was written in the applicant’s deed that as long as he, Bill Morin, lived across the street from the property the land could not be subdivided any further. The Chairman wished to clarify that the proposed new lot line would traverse around the existing house creating a front lot. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that both were front lots currently, however, with the new lot lines the properties would not be as tight. Bill Morin stated that he was satisfied with the proposal and had been concerned that a
driveway cut was being proposed through an existing hill on the property but now understood that was not the case.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the waivers requested for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies and Topographic mapping as captioned in letters by Ray Shea dated September 13, 2005 and September 14, 2005. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked if the applicant needed to secure Driveway Permits. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that driveways were existing, therefore, Driveway Permits were not needed. The Coordinator clarified that the original Lot #11/12 did not have a Permit on file and at the time of the subdivision in 1996 the applicant was not made to get one.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Peter De Roetth, Minor Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, Location: Hooper Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #’s 11/12 and 11/12-1, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked if any other abutters were present and there were not. James Nordstrom asked if the granite bounds on the front lot corners still needed to be better defined as noted on the Coordinator’s checklist items. The Coordinator replied that she had not been able to see the granite bounds on the first plan submitted but was able to identify same on revised plan submitted by Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, this evening.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Peter DeRoeth, Hooper Hill Road, such that Tax Map/Lot #11/12 will be reduced from 15.727 acres to 3.155 acres and Tax Map/Lot #11/12-1 will be increased from 3.204 acres to 15.816 acres, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDEDNT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) revised site plans that include all of the
checklist corrections and any corrections noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD;
3. Payment of any outstanding fees including the cost of recording the mylar at the HCRD.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be December 15, 2005, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action from the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date, and a written request for extension is not submitted prior to that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board map convene a hearing pursuant to RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 11, 2005
1. Approval of minutes of August 23, 2005, with or without changes, distributed at the meeting of September 27, 2005. (No Copies)
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of August 23, 2005, as written. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. The minutes of September 13, 2005, were distributed for approval at the meeting of October 25, 2005, with or without changes.
3. Discussion: Carriage Road construction.
Because interested parties were anticipated for this discussion it was determined that this item would be addressed later in the evening.
4. Discussion: Linda Pothier, Toad Hill Farm, 40 Helena Drive.
This item was also addressed later in the evening as Linda Pothier was expected to attend for the discussion.
5. Discussion: Planning Board meeting of December 27, 2005.
The Coordinator asked the Board if they wished to hold a scheduled meeting on this date given the close proximity of the Christmas holiday. The Board’s consensus was not to hold a meeting on December 27, 2005.
6. Schedule a compliance site walk for James and Claire Dodge, New Boston Self Storage, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #5/21-3.
A site walk was scheduled for Saturday, October 29, 2005, at 8:30 a.m.
7. Endorsement of a Site Plan Agreement for Granite State Concrete Co., Inc., Hopkins Road, Tax Map/Lot #13/5, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman endorsed the above noted Site Plan Agreement.
8. Endorsement of a Subdivision Agreement for Reggie Houle Builders, LLC, Greenfield
Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/74, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman endorsed the above noted Subdivision Agreement.
9. Driveway Permit Application for Mitch Construction Co., Inc., Susan Road, Tax Map/Lot #’s 12/93-35, 36 & 37, for the Board’s action. (Drive-by prior to meeting)
James Nordstrom stated that he had viewed the driveways and although it was dark at the time he saw no issues. He added that the subgrade of the roadway these driveways were off of was adequately cut and that after its completion the level should come up another 18 inches.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #’s 05-049, 05-048 and 05-050,for, Tax Map/Lot #’s 12/93-35, 36, and 37, for proposed driveways, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the driveways shall have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft) from the centerline of the road; the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of twenty foot (20’) radii minimum; and, the driveways shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Don Duhaime pointed out that an additional permit for Mitch Construction Co., Inc., was in his packet for Lot #12/93. He stated that this driveway was pretty steep and probably warranted an inspection by the Board. The Planning Board Assistant was not sure whether Mitch Larochelle intended to ask for approval of this driveway yet so the Board determined that a site visit could be held on October 29, 2005, if needed.
10. A copy of a letter dated October 4, 2005, from Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, to the Board, Re: driveway compliance certification for R.J. Moreau Communities, Tax Map/Lot #6/32-23, Swanson Road, was distributed for the Board’s action. (Drive by prior to meeting.)
The Coordinator noted that there were short sections within the driveway that exceeded the maximum 10% grade. The Chairman stated that a site walk should be done on this driveway on October 29, 2005.
11. A copy of a letter dated September 27, 2005, from State of NH, Division of Economic Development, to Peter Hogan, Planning Board Chairman, Re: invitation for the Annual Regional Economic Development & Infrastructure Summit, Center of NH, October 26, 2005, was distributed for the Board’s information.
12. Daily road inspection reports for Olde Colony, Harvey J. Dupuis Family Trust, Carriage Road, dated August 9th, 16th, 18th, 17th, 19th, 22nd, and 23rd, were distributed for the Board’s information.
13. Daily road inspection reports for Forest View, Nissitissit Development, McCurdy Road, dated August 1st, 2nd, 3rd, & 30th, were distributed for the Board’s information.
13.1 The Coordinator noted that the Board had copies of a letter which outlined that the Selectmen were in the process of working with the property owners at the corner of Bedford and Wilson Hill Roads regarding the site improvements that would be addressed by Thibeault Corporation when they began their next development project in that area. James Nordstrom noted that Matt Reed, the property owner, had been in to see the Board several months ago regarding this issue. The Coordinator stated that was correct. The Chairman noted that Mr. Reed had retained legal counsel on the matter.
15. A copy of a letter dated October 11, 2005, from Cyndie Wilson, New Boston Conservation Commission, to the Board, Re: kettle hole, Tax Map/Lot #13/15, Hopkins Road, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that the Conservation Commission was unsure if they wished to be involved with the kettle hole, however the deed for Tax Map/Lot #13/15 had been drawn with a signature area for the Conservation Commission Chairman to sign which was not typical. She added that the Conservation Commission had agreed to view the site and if they did not wish to be involved then a Declaration of Covenants in the lot deeds could address the kettle hole.
The Chairman asked if the drainage issues for this site had been resolved. The Coordinator replied that the erosion control measures were very strict.
16. Discussion, Re: Indian Falls Road.
The Coordinator explained that Golden Oak Developers were in litigation with a contractor for Indian Falls Road and had requested that two letters (punch lists) from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., be made available for court documents. She noted that these documents were considered to be public information, however, since the request was submitted to her attention she felt that she should get the Board’s approval. The Board was in agreement to supply the punch lists requested by Golden Oak Developers.
This will be a work session for the Planning Board to discuss the final draft of the Driveway Regulations and input gathered from the hearing of September 13, 2005.
The Coordinator explained that she had supplied the following copies to the Board and their contents should be considered along with input given at the September, 2005, public hearing on the Driveway Regulations: a letter by Jack Munn of SNHPC, comments from the Coordinator, Email from resident, Todd Mueller, comments by Ari Pollack Esq., attorney for the Concerned Land Owners of New Boston, LLC, made at the September, 2005, hearing, an Email from Bill Drescher, Esq., and an Email from Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry, Inc.
James Nordstrom stated that he believed the five foot radii minimum curve joining a driveway intersection with a road noted in Section 9.9 of the proposed Driveway Regulations should be changed to 10 feet per Bob Todd’s suggestion. He added that he felt constructive input was given at the last meeting. Douglas Hill agreed. The Chairman stated that he felt Bob Todd’s outline of suggested modifications to the proposed Driveway Regulations could be incorporated. He added that clarifications should be made as to where the proposed Driveway Regulations would apply to new driveways and not existing driveways. Douglas Hill noted that the second paragraph of the section entitled “Scope” of the proposed Driveway Regulations was not clear in its
intent as it seemed to address existing driveways. The Chairman thought that this intent had been taken out of context and asked if language should be added that stated each driveway would be required to be maintained to the standards by which it was originally approved. He noted that in this way the Board would not give the impression of relinquishing their jurisdiction over existing driveways. Douglas Hill added that the same ambiguity occurred in Section 9.24 as the driveways mentioned were not clarified as existing or new. The Chairman suggested that the term “new” could be interjected to better clarify this section. The Coordinator stated that a paragraph that described existing or grandfathered driveways was needed. The Chairman noted that this term should be further clarified as existing driveways were not necessarily driveways of record with the Town. Douglas Hill added that such driveways could still qualify as legal
driveways even though not on record. He further added that it should be specified within the proposed Driveway Regulations that the only restrictions effective to existing grandfathered driveways would be proposals for paving. The Coordinator noted that the Board would also need to retain restrictions over drainage issues for such driveways as well as paving or re-paving.
From the audience, Brandy Mitroff noted that the Selectmen, theoretically, had the authority to charge landowners for violations on Steep Slopes and assumed that the same would apply for driveways. James Nordstrom agreed that if any nuisance to the public was created in such cases the Selectmen did have that authority. Douglas Hill added that this theory was also inferred in another regulation he could not recall and that the Road Agent would have authority over situations where the Town’s right-of-way was affected. James Nordstrom thought that this was probably mentioned in the 200 series of the RSA’s.
Douglas Hill stated that many pre-approved lots in New Boston did not have the sight distance required by the proposed Driveway Regulations and, therefore, it would appear that this was a taking of land by the Town. James Nordstrom stated that Town Counsel had strongly urged a waiver provision along those lines. Douglas Hill reiterated that he did not know of one lot within the Town that had 600 feet of frontage with 300 feet of sight distance in either direction. He asked the frontage requirement for the R1 District. The Coordinator replied that the minimum frontage requirement for the R1 District was 150 feet but that frontage and sight distance measurements were not interchangeable noting that a lot with 200 feet of frontage could possibly have 300 feet of sight
distance. James Nordstrom stated that the issue of lots of record without the required sight distance had been challenged in court before. He recalled such a case in Londonderry, NH, where an existing lot was denied because of lack of sight distance. Douglas Hill stated that he could understand the court upholding such a decision if a major safety issue existed. James Nordstrom added that the outcomes of such scenarios had been on a case by case basis. He added that in the past the Police Department had offered input on traveled road safety related sight distance issues. The Coordinator noted that the Police Department had also offered input on these proposed Driveway Regulations.
Douglas Hill thought that the abutting property line measure in Section 9.11 should be changed from five feet to ten feet. James Nordstrom agreed and noted that this would alleviate the rounding of the radius from extending past the property line.
Bob Furey stated that he would be satisfied with a sight distance requirement of 300 feet but questioned whether the setback distance from the roadway should be 14.5 feet. He added that he did not believe information provided by the Fire Department or Police Department was needed as backup because AASHTO research offered many examples. Bob Furey stated that he felt the Board should choose a sight distance measure they were comfortable with along with a loose waiver option. He questioned the mention of a 75 foot distance measure within the Zoning Ordinance concerning driveways. The Coordinator explained that it had been a common misconception that this 75 foot measure related to sight distance when it actually pertained to the specification that commercial or
industrial driveways could not be less than 75 feet from a street intersection, therefore, it had nothing to do with tonight’s discussion.
Douglas Hill offered his personal experience of constructing a subdivision in Lyndeborough, NH, where 400 feet of sight distance was required from the driveways at ten foot setbacks. He added that in order to achieve this he had to remove a great number of established trees along the roadway and approximately a half mile of existing stone wall. Douglas Hill stated that such impacts were unsightly to the landscape and he was concerned that the same impacts could occur in New Boston as such restrictions were being considered for each new individual lot. Bob Furey noted that it was not the Board’s intentions to have such impacts occur and that his biggest concern was safety in conjunction with preserving the aesthetics of Town roads. The Chairman asked the reason
for stipulating sight distance requirements on Town roads with speed limits of 35 m.p.h. James Nordstrom replied that AASHTO set that standard and noted that a drawback was that the data they provided was not typically geared for rural environments. He added that AASHTO and NHDOT supported sight distance requirements based on the design speed of a roadway multiplied by seven seconds. Bob Furey noted that in some case the design speed for a road was higher than its posted speed limit. He added that he was in favor of reducing the setback measure from 14.5 feet to 10 feet as that could improve sight adjustments. Bob Furey further added that he would rather have the support of numbers provided by ASSHTO standards rather than choose an arbitrary sight distance measure. Don Duhaime stated that he liked the seven second rule. He added that because traffic on Bedford Road was in excess of 40 m.p.h. a sight distance requirement of 300 feet would be
appropriate. The Chairman noted that by using the calculation of seven seconds multiplied by a road’s posted speed there would be flexibility between roads like Bedford Road and roads with slower traffic such as cluster subdivisions. Don Duhaime asked what the stopping distance would be for a vehicle traveling on a 35 m.p.h. roadway. Bob Furey replied that this was how AAHSTO calculated their sight distance measures. Brandy Mitroff asked if the Board would consider discussion of AASHTO’s sight distance measures on local streets which was mentioned by Earl Sandford at the September, 2005 hearing. She noted that this information could satisfy the rural road issue. James Nordstrom replied that although AASHTO had a rural roads section it did not differentiate stopping distances. He explained that AASHTO did not clarify the difference between urban and rural scenarios and the numbers were more geared to urban environments with the
inference that rural areas may need lesser and more appropriate figures. James Nordstrom added that AASHTO did not note what these numbers were.
Douglas Hill stated that the main issue with residents of the Town regarded the Board choosing a sight distance measure that would negate existing lots of record and disallow their Building Permit. The Coordinator noted that this was a reason for the waiver provision suggested by Town Counsel. James Nordstrom agreed and likened the waiver provision suggested as the same intent as for waivers of Subdivision or Site Plan requirements. He clarified that there were two options the Board could select which was to completely exempt driveways that predated the Driveway Regulations or allow for waiver provisions. Douglas Hill asked what the scenario would be if such a waiver was granted for a driveway that did not meet the sight distance requirement, a fatal accident
occurred as a result of that inadequate sight distance and the Town was sued. Don Duhaime stated that he believed the goal of the proposed Driveway Regulations was to make Town road as safe as possible. Douglas Hill stated that he believed a sight distance measure chosen should be supported by scientific data of a Town study if the Board’s main goal was safety of Town roads. Don Duhaime noted that AASHTO already compiled such data by researching many communities. The Chairman agreed that the goal and objective of the proposed Driveway Regulations was safety and that in its writing the Board should be conscious of the repercussions without allowing those repercussions to dictate the Board’s actions. He added that the Board should be conscious of landowners who strived to preserve their land over the years and that if they chose to construct a driveway in the future the proposed Driveway Regulations would neither exempt them from the
restrictions they imposed nor negate the value of their land. The Chairman noted that in this way a methodology would exist for such scenarios while minimizing the Town’s risk. James Nordstrom and Bob Furey agreed that the Chairman’s point was well put. The Chairman stated that a concise paragraph within the proposed Driveway Regulations was necessary in order that future members of the Planning Board could understand, interpret and administer them properly. He added that certain driveway issues would start with the option of a waiver and asked what options would be available for an applicant if a waiver was not granted. The Coordinator noted that Superior Court would be the next option. The Chairman noted existing lots on Bog Brook Road as an example where the Board may not allow a driveway to be created on an existing lot. He explained that some of these lots were engineered many years ago and the Board was given bogus grading
measurements that were 10 to 20 feet off. The Chairman added that the Board attempted to place a human aspect on this situation and worked with the property owners rather than enforce the legal perspective that these were useless lots. He further added that the developer was no longer in business, therefore, the Board worked to achieve the best situation possible for owners such as Mr. Melanson even though it was understood that he had designed his driveway so steep that the Town could not provide emergency services if needed. James Nordstrom suggested that a clear waiver provision be crafted so that future members of the Planning Board understood its intent. Bob Furey noted that the Board could offer a set of objective reasons as to why such a waiver could be granted. James Nordstrom agreed and added that example scenarios could be offered. Bob Furey stated that the first issue he would want to think on when considering a waiver for sight
distance would be the traffic flow on the road and the condition of that road. He added that he would like to include Douglas Hill’s thoughts regarding possible impacts to mature vegetation but noted that due diligence also needed consideration. The Chairman asked the Coordinator’s thoughts on this subject. The Coordinator replied that she would need to give it some thought. The Chairman then asked Bob Todd, who was present in the audience, if he had any thoughts on the discussion. Bob Todd replied that it was important to realize that certain driveways would need to be addressed on a case by case basis. He offered he example of Pine Road which was 16 feet wide, lined with trees and was traveled at 20 m.p.h. Bob Todd explained that in this case a driveway constructed along that road would not need 300 feet of sight distance and would certainly not need a setback 14.5 feet from the edge of the road. The Chairman asked Bob
Todd if he had any suggestions as to how to approach the waiver issue. Bob Todd replied that he did not except to suggest that the Board look at sight distance on a case by case basis. He noted that this was not the first Planning Board in the Town to be faced with this issue. James Nordstrom stated that he had researched this subject and was not successful in finding examples of case by case scenarios. Douglas Hill noted that in other towns these issues were put to the Road Agent’s discretion.
The Coordinator stated that she would schedule another discussion of the proposed Driveway Regulations on the agenda in the near future and asked that the Board read all the materials she had provided for tonight’s discussion for comments at a successive meeting.
This will be an informational session with Albert LaChance to discuss the potential subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #2/112-2, Middle Branch Road and NH Route 77.
Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, and Albert LaChance.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the applicant had purchased 44.8 acres from Kathy Houghton several months prior. He noted that this was Lot #2/112-2 which was approved by the Board in 2004 and separated the land he currently owned from Kathy Houghton’s property on the opposite side of Middle Branch Road. This property was formerly described as one lot until Lot #2/112-1 was approved in 2001 and was later subdivided to include Lot #2/112-2. He noted that the applicant currently resided on Lot #2/112-1. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that Lot #2/112-2 was comprised of woodlands and had frontage on Route 77 and Middle Branch Road with several residential lots nearby. He noted that green space was located to the west along with residential lots linked to the Middle Branch
conservation area. Bob Todd, LLS, further noted that land to the east of the site was likely to be developed in the future.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the applicant would like to call the proposed subdivision “Houghton Woods” after the prior owner of the property. He reiterated that the site had been a wooded area but had been harvested with the overstory removed. Bob Todd, LLS, added that the land was scattered with mature white pines and the understory was established with sapling hardwood vegetation. He stated that jurisdictional wetlands had been delineated and comprised
6.25 acres. Bob Todd, LLS, added that wildlife corridors had been identified and that aerial topographic mapping was performed. He further added that the applicant was in the process of having the moderately steep slopes and very steep slopes identified for purposes of proposed lot sizing and driveway placement. Bob Todd, LLS, then stated that nine test pits were dug for the Site Specific soil survey which was not digitized on the plan, and the soils were found to be complex groupings that were predominantly moderate to well drained. He noted that the seasonal high water table was 17 to 34 inches on a restrictive layer with no evidence of bedrock within five feet of the surface, therefore, a Class 3 soil overall which is considered to be favorable for site development. Bob Todd, LLS, noted existing
cultural features on the plan which included a barn cellar hole and a home cellar hole with stonework dating to the 1800’s. He stated that he would have the soils digitized on the base map for future meetings.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the applicant proposed a cluster design subdivision in order to preserve the existing wildlife habitats and open space. He explained that in order to propose the cluster design it was necessary to illustrate the maximum number of lots that could be accommodated by a conventional design and to complete the Steep Slope assessment in order to assure that the lots would meet contiguous flatland requirements of 1.5 acres. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the number of State Driveway Permits that could be obtained presented some constraints. He further noted that Kathy Houghton had obtained a State Driveway Permit for one driveway cut which allowed the applicant the ability to obtained two more. Bob Todd, LLS, noted their proposed location on the plan
and stated that two wetland crossings would be required unless a common driveway was constructed which would equal four cuts on Middle Branch Road and three off of Lull Road. He noted that if the plan was approved Lull Road would most likely need to be improved further west to gain an additional 200 feet of frontage to satisfy Class V standards. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the applicant proposed a density of nine lots and added that he had been to the site and identified building areas that would avoid Steep Slope crossings, provide adequate locations for septic systems and wells and not impact existing wildlife corridors. He noted that wildlife in that area tended to follow wetland and stream corridors alongside Middle Branch Road which he had witnessed during his hunting days of the past.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the proposed cluster design concept would be augmented with a triangle of land with an easement encumbering the LaChance lot, therefore, allowing the existing wildlife corridor to be widened to approximately 300 feet at its narrowest point. He noted the proposed locations of the lots with clusters of three, four and two homes, although he had not yet discussed this idea with the applicant. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that more than the required 25% or 11.21 acres of open space calculated for this cluster design would be available and that 40% of that land was confirmed buildable. He asked if more than 25% of the site was set aside if that excess would also need to apply the 40% calculation or if the Cluster Ordinance intended this to apply to the
minimum 25% acreage only. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that both scenarios were workable but he wondered how the Ordinance should be interpreted. He stated that his second question involved the basis for determining slope factors and whether it applied more to conventional layouts rather than cluster designs. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that on page 38,
paragraph G of the Cluster Ordinance, it stated that the Steep Slopes that were required to be deducted from the gross tract area to achieve the net developable area were the soils mapped as steep slopes on the Hillsborough County Soils Map. He questioned why such a general document would be the reference point when Site Specific soils mapping and delineation of the slopes had been performed along with topographic mapping which should be considered more accurate. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the Hillsborough County Soils Map did not show any “E” slopes which were slopes greater than 25% and this was not correct as the existence of such slopes had been confirmed by the other methods listed. James Nordstrom agreed that the digital model for topographic mapping was the most accurate. Bob Todd, LLS, agreed. The Board’s consensus was that this was the best method to use. Bob Todd, LLS, asked about the open space algorithm and whether 40% should be calculated against the minimum open
space requirement only. The Chairman replied that the Cluster Ordinance intended that the minimum open space requirement be used. James Nordstrom agreed that the intent of the Ordinance seemed vague and that it seemed fair to work with 40% of the minimum.
Bob Todd, LLS, asked if the Board wished to address any other issues. James Nordstrom clarified that the intent was for the open space to be a fee simple lot within a cluster. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this was correct and that each of the proposed nine homes would share an interest in the open space. The applicant stated that he was considering turning an easement on the open space over to the Piscataquog Watershed Association. James Nordstrom noted that this would need to be determined at the time the plan was executed.
Albert LaChance stated that he was given the opportunity to buy this land from Charles Houghton because Mr. Houghton knew that he would not overdevelop it which was a discussion that he had with Mr. Houghton before his death. He added that he did not realize Mr. Houghton would give him the option to purchase the land until after he died and, therefore, his goal was to develop the land at minimal cost to himself and keep the project small so as not to disturb wildlife in the area. Albert LaChance added that he would provide his first daughter with one of the proposed house lots on what he would like to call Pumpkin Lane after Charles Houghton’s prize winning pumpkin while his second daughter would eventually inherit his existing home and lot from him.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the applicant intended to submit for a Dredge and Fill Permit for the wetland crossings and would then return to the Board with a design review plan. He asked if the Board would like to schedule a site walk or wait until the plan was further along. The Chairman replied that the Board would prefer to wait until the plan had progressed. Bob Furey noted that it would make sense to hold a site walk before the winter season and asked Bob Todd, LLS, when he thought he would return for a meeting. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that he thought they could be prepared to meet again in December, 2005.
LABREE ONE FAMILY TRUST (Applicant)
LABREE, CLIFTON E. (Owner)
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: 126 Wilson Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #9/21
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, and the applicant Clifton Labree. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the frontage of the applicant’s property was located after Labree Road on the left and before the looped return of Labree Road. He noted Lot #9/21 to be 50 acres and outlined in red on the plan and added that the proposed subdivision was for the northern lot to be approximately 21 acres and the lower lot to be approximately 29 acres. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, added that he questioned the major status given to the application as a large development was not the applicant’s intent. He stated that sufficient topographic mapping was performed which confirmed the viability of the lots for septic systems and fulfilled the requirements of the Steep Slopes Ordinance.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the driveway to the existing house would need to be turned at its half way point if the subdivision were approved, however, this alteration would not require an easement. He noted the location of an existing cemetery that would remain part of the parent lot. Clifton LaBree noted that his primary reason for subdividing now was to permanently protect the existing cemetery which was established following the accidental death of his son three years prior. He added that at that time his family decided to establish a family cemetery and gained Town approval to do so. Clifton LaBree stated that he proposed the subdivision of Lot #9/21 to maintain the integrity of the cemetery and assure that it would always remain a part of the parent
lot. He noted a separate lot of record on the plan from which 8 acres was subdivided at the time of the Al Bell/Copertino project. He noted that he would not be proposing this subdivision if it were not for the existence of the cemetery and that fact that he had now established a family trust. Clifton LaBree noted that his proposal was a simple one and for his own peace of mind. He added that he had approached the Planning Coordinator approximately 18 months ago with his consideration but found that he first needed to seek a variance to the Steep Slopes Ordinance from the ZBA because he did not want to have his entire acreage surveyed for topographic mapping (the variance was granted to allow topography on two acres of each lot in order to provide a building envelope area). Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, wished to point out a twisting property line for one lot which accommodate a 400 foot section of an existing stone wall.
The Chairman stated that the Board would need to act on several waivers before
proceeding for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. James Nordstrom asked where the Steep Slopes were on the plan. Clifton LaBree noted that the property was quite flat. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, clarified that some “C” slopes existed based on the Soils Map.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the six waivers requested in a letter dated
September 20, 2005, by Sandford Survey and Engineering. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Board did not feel that a site walk was necessary. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if there were any other issues with the plan. The Coordinator replied that there were not. James Nordstrom asked the applicant if he had any plans to further subdivide the land in the future. Clifton LaBree replied that he did not. James Nordstrom asked the applicant if he would be willing to encumber the plan by noting that the site could not be further subdivided. Clifton LaBree replied that he would prefer not to do so and leave the option up to his children. The Coordinator clarified the question regarding the major status of the application by explaining that on the previous subdivision plan a note was added that stated any further subdivision would hold a
major status.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of LaBree One Family Trust (Applicant), Clifton LaBree (Owner), Major Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: 126 Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/21, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the application of LaBree One Family Trust (Applicant), Clifton LaBree (Owner), Major Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: 126 Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/21, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) revised site plans that include all of the
checklist corrections and any corrections noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD;
3. Submission of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application or recording of documents at the HCRD.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be December 15, 2005, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action from the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date, and a written request for extension is not submitted prior to that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board map convene a hearing pursuant to RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
NORTHERN SKY HOLDINGS by Adjourned from 9/27/05
DAVID CRAIG, MANAGER
Compliance Hearing/NRSPR/Law Office & Professional OFFICES
Location: 5 River Road
Tax Map/Lot #18/8
Commercial “COM” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. Present in the audience was David Craig, manager of Northern Sky Holdings. No abutters or interested parties were present.
David Craig stated that he was before the Board to obtain final compliance. He noted that a site walk had been held with members of the Board on the previous Saturday and he believed that the conditions subsequent and Site Review Agreement items had been completed. The Chairman stated that the applicant was not in compliance as there were deficiencies in two areas: missing landscaping and improper exterior lighting which cast light onto neighboring property. He explained that the applicant could gain compliance by bonding for the landscaping if he chose. The Chairman recalled that the applicant had mentioned during the site walk that he would be addressing the lighting problem. David Craig stated that he had ordered cut off shields for the lighting which would reduce
the glare onto abutting properties and keep it within the site’s parking areas. The Chairman clarified that as of the site walk the applicant was not in compliance. David Craig asked what he should do. The Chairman replied that three sugar maples noted as landscaping on the plan had not been installed. He noted that by the time a bond could be done the applicant could also put the trees in. David Craig stated that he did not think it would be possible to place a tree in one of the locations. He noted that the Planning Coordinator had mentioned on the site walk that she did not think the trees were a requirement of the Planning Board. James Nordstrom noted that this was irrelevant as the trees were on the approved design plan and the applicant had agreed to do site improvements according to that plan. David Craig asked if a doctrine of substantial compliance existed and noted that it would seem illogical to place a tree on site
if it was not needed. He added that it seemed inevitable that a plan could be altered slightly during its process. The Chairman stated that the applicant could amend his plan. David Craig asked if he could do so this evening and remove the trees from the plan. The Chairman replied that the applicant would not be able to eliminate all three trees from the plan as a certain percentage of greenery was required. David Craig asked why this issue was not brought to his attention on the day of the site walk. The Chairman replied that site walks were information gathering sessions and if decisions were made at the time then the site walk would be considered a public meeting. David Craig stated that the Board could have noted that a tree was needed in a certain location in order for compliance. The Chairman stated that the applicant’s site worker should have worked off the plan provided. He added that the lighting issue was the
bigger problem and was not yet resolved. The Chairman noted that a full Board site visit would probably not be required because the two issues halting compliance were easily rectifiable, however, it was the applicant’s responsibility to get his plan in compliance. David Craig asked what he could do tonight in order to gain compliance. The Chairman replied that nothing could be done tonight. James Nordstrom suggested that the timeliest way to address these issues were to get a cost estimate for the tree installations and post a bond. He added that by the time this was done the light shields should be received and could be installed. David Craig reiterated that the tree issue should have been brought to his attention on the day of the site walk, noting that the Planning Coordinator casually commented that the trees were not a requirement of the Board. James Nordstrom clarified that he believed the Coordinator had stated that she was not
sure if the trees were a requirement of the Board. Don Duhaime noted that at the applicant’s first meeting with the Board there was significant discussion regarding the landscaping proposed for the site and the applicant should have fulfilled the specifics of the plan’s design. David Craig stated that he recalled significant discussion about the fencing for the site. Don Duhaime noted that both fencing and landscaping had been discussed at length which was why he mentioned it during the compliance site walk held the previous Saturday. James Nordstrom added that Bob Todd, LLS, had spoken at length during a previous meeting about the landscaping proposed. Douglas Hill noted that the Site Plan Regulations stated that a tree was required for every 200 feet of landscaped area. He suggested that if David Craig requested a recalculation of the landscape requirement Bob Todd, LLS, should be able to do it in a timely manner and it certain
trees were found to not be necessary then the plan could be amended. David Craig asked how he should proceed with the current plan. The Chairman replied that David Craig could opt to have the trees installed. David Craig stated that he could do so, however, he believed the area would appear crowded and he was also worried about snow storage effects on newly planted trees in that area. James Nordstrom suggested that David Craig bond the cost of the tree installation until the spring after which time he would have assessed the snow storage effects. The Chairman asked why the snow plow would be plowing in that area as it would most likely damage the grass and leach field. David Craig recalled this as one of the snow storage areas designed on the plan and noted that he did not have an actual leach field but rather a septic tank and outflow area that was underneath the pavement. The Chairman stated that snow melt combined with the septic outflow
would put a lot of burden under the parking lot. He suggested that hauling the snow offsite and placing a tree in that vicinity as the plan showed was a better option. David Craig reiterated that because he had not experienced a winter season on that property yet he was unsure what the best course of action would be. The Chairman noted that the installation of the tree was for the sake of the approved plan. James Nordstrom stated that the best option would be to obtain a cost estimate for the installation of the trees and install the light shields previously discussed.
David Craig asked if the Board was knowledgeable in their experience of what that cost would be so that he could submit a check tonight for bonding. He asked if a check for $1,500.00, $2,500.00 or $5,000.00 would be sufficient to cover the cost. Travis Daniels agreed that the trees should have been put in place by the time of the compliance site walk but noted that a check to bond them for $3,000.00 should more than cover their cost. The Chairman stated that he did not want to set a precedent by accepting the bond check tonight in order to confirm compliance of the site plan or they could have future issue where contractors were willing to submit even larger checks to the Board to gain compliance. He noted that, procedurally, the site was not in compliance at the
time of the site walk and it was the applicant’s responsibility to
rectify the issues on the plan, submit the necessary items to the Planning Coordinator whether it was a bond or confirmation of the items being complete. He added that he would not confirm compliance given the condition of the exterior lighting which he could only describe as outrageous. The Chairman noted that these lights were far too bright and that was the bigger issue. He suggested that David Craig address the lights, bond for the trees and be aware that storing snow in the location he suggested did not eliminate the requirement for trees in that area unless the landscaping re-calculation supported one less. The Chairman added that if David Craig wished to move the location of the trees based on snow storage factors he could come to the Board to amend his plan.
David Craig asked if he could obtain compliance tonight if he agreed to keep the exterior lights turned off until the shields were installed in addition to submitting a check to bond the trees for $3,000.00 this evening. The Chairman replied that this would not be acceptable as a requirement of the Site Plan was that the exterior lights remain on during certain hours of operation. David Craig asked when he could feasibly start using the building on site to operate his business. The Chairman replied that he could begin using the building when the exterior lighting issue was resolved.
The Chairman stated that they could schedule David Craig for another compliance hearing in two weeks. He added that if David Craig wished to submit a personal check to bond the trees it would eliminate additional legal issues of a formal bonding. David Craig stated that he found this application process to be extremely frustrating and noted that he had strived to do everything expected of him in good faith. He added that he had spent a substantial amount of money during this process and was unsure if the Board was sensitive to his plight or just did not care. The Chairman replied that the Board was very sensitive to Mr. Craig’s issues and felt that he should be better attuned to his responsibilities as an applicant especially since he was a chairman on another
board of the Town. David Craig thought that this was irrelevant to his case. The Chairman disagreed and stated that it was quite relevant because of how it would appear to Town residents and other applicants if he was given preferential treatment by the Board. David Craig stated that if his membership to another Town board was the problem then he would resign tonight. He added that he believed the Chairman was making his position on that board the main issue. Travis Daniels noted that there were other applicants who had experience similar difficulties with their plan’s compliance and offered the example of applicant, George Merrill. He noted that Mr. Merrill would have taken issue with Mr. Craig’s scenario if the Board confirmed compliance of his plan tonight. David Craig stated that he did not understand the theory behind the procedures of the Board but would do as they asked.
David Craig asked if it was necessary to delay the process further by scheduling an additional compliance hearing. He reiterated that if the Board had notified him at the time of the compliance site walk that certain items needed to be addressed then he would not be here this evening with compliance issues. The Chairman stated that it was not the procedure of the Board to inform an applicant during a compliance site walk that they had compliance issues. He added that David Craig knew at the time of the site walk that he was not in compliance. James Nordstrom asked as a point of clarification if there was anything the Board could do this evening for the applicant. The Chairman replied that the question to be answered was: Is the applicant in compliance?, which
he was not. Don Duhaime was unsure as to how the light shields that were currently on order would address the glare issue of the exterior lighting. The Chairman told David Craig to keep the Planning Coordinator informed of his progress regarding the compliance issues so that another compliance check could be scheduled. He added that if the light shields were deemed by members of the Board to inadequately solve the glare problem then they would let Mr. Craig know.
Travis Daniels MOVED to adjourn the application of Northern Sky Holdings by David Craig, Manager, Compliance Hearing, NRSPR, Law Office and Professional Offices, Location: 5 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #18/8, Commercial “COM” District, to October 25, 2005, at 8:00 p.m. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
DIGNARD, ROGER
Compliance Hearing/NRSPR/Architectural Home Office
Location: 146 South Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #13/50
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant, Roger Dignard. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Roger Dignard submitted checks to the Board for the outstanding application fee of $144.80 and compliance hearing for $42.00. He then submitted three revised copies of his Site Plan. The Chairman stated that because these copies were considered new information that amended his existing plan it meant that he was not in compliance at the time of the compliance site walk. He clarified that the new plan accurately demonstrated the location of the light post and deleted a sign on the side of the house and on a post. The Chairman noted that the amended plan would now bring Mr. Dignard into compliance, however, new information submitted to the Board was required, procedurally, to be at the Planning Department at least seven days for review and in order for the statutory time
requirement to lapse, therefore, compliance could not be confirmed until the next scheduled meeting. The Coordinator asked Mr. Dignard if his business sign was installed on his post. Roger Dignard replied that it was not yet installed and would take about a week. The Chairman stated that when the sign was installed he should inform the Planning Department so that a compliance hearing could be scheduled. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if the next meeting could be scheduled under Miscellaneous Business. The Coordinator replied that a hearing was necessary. Roger Dignard asked if abutters would need to be re-notified. The Chairman replied that abutters would not need to be re-notified.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn Roger Dignard, Compliance Hearing, NRSPR, Architect’s Office, Home Business, Location: 146 South Hill Road, Tax
Map/Lot #13/50, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to October 25, 2005, at 8:10 p.m. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
NIXON, JANET E. & DAVID L.
Compliance Hearing/Major Subdivision
Conditional Use Permit/Steep Slopes
Location: Lyndeborough Road
Tax Map/Lot #7/58
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. No abutters or interested parties were present.
The Chairman stated that a compliance site walk had been held with members of the Board and the site was found to be not compliant. He asked if any communication had been submitted by the applicant since the site walk. The Coordinator replied that Bob Todd, LLS, had submitted a letter to the Board as a requirement of the plan had been that a certified engineer sign off after the driveway’s completion. The Chairman read a portion of Bob Todd’s letter: “For the most part I believe the installation of the driveway substantially complies with the intent of the design plan.” The Chairman stated that he felt Mr. Todd, LLS’s statement did not say anything of value. James Nordstrom asked the date of Bob Todd, LLS’s letter. The Chairman replied that the letter was dated October 7, 2005. He asked the Coordinator if the applicant had offered a time frame for when compliance could be established. The Coordinator replied that she had run into Janet Nixon after the site walk who
informed her that they should be able to address the compliance items in the next two weeks and could safely meet with the Board in one month’s time.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn Janet E. and David L. Nixon, Compliance Hearing, Major Subdivision, Conditional Use Permit, Steep Slopes, Location: Lyndeborough Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/58, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to November 8, 2005, at 8:00 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 10:10 p.m. +/-, the Planning Board took a 10 minute break.
14. A copy of a letter dated October 4, 2005, from Don Sipe, New Boston Pizza, to the Board, Re: site plan amendment, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Don Sipe was present in the audience. He stated that he proposed a seating area at his business, New Boston Pizza, which he had determined in speaking to the Planning Assistant would require an amendment to his existing Site Plan. The Chairman asked how many customers could be seated currently at the site. Don Sipe replied that there was currently no seating. He noted that he would propose seating for a maximum of 24 customers. The Chairman asked Mr. Sipe if he would be adding on to his existing building to do so. Don Sipe replied that he would not be adding on and would instead be phasing out the video rental business to use that space for seating which would involve changing the existing flooring and removing the carpeting. He noted that he had
looked into this option when they initially purchased the business. James Nordstrom clarified that Don Sipe wished to better utilize the space. Don Sipe noted that the present license from the Health Department allowed for seating but would require an analysis of the septic system on site. He added that he had met informally with the Health Inspector and the DES to determine what steps would need to be taken in that regard. Don Sipe further added that based on those informal discussions he had hired Harry Murray to do a septic design because DES would need assurance that an approved system could be installed on the site if the existing one were to fail. He noted that once the septic design was approved by DES they would forward a letter to the Health Inspector who would then inform the Town. Don Sipe stated that no physical changes were proposed to the site.
The Coordinator asked Don Sipe how parking would be addressed. Don Sipe replied that per the Site Plan Regulations one parking spot was required for every three seats in the pizza business which at 24 seats would equal eight parking spots. He noted that these parking spaces were in existence.
Don Sipe stated that he had with him a preliminary copy of the Site Plan but did not wish to formally submit it to the Board as he had not yet reviewed it for accuracy with Don Grosso who owned the building. The Chairman stated that the Board did not typically require an expansion to the minimum parking spaces that the Site Plan Regulations would require. Don Sipe reiterated that the current parking spaces met those minimum Regulations. Bob Furey asked if the hours of operation for the business would be altered on the amended plan. Don Sipe replied that they would not and that the Board had previously approved hours of operation that included breakfast hours but he did not currently have the seating to accommodate breakfast patrons. He noted the hours of
operation to be 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 6:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday, and 6:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday.
Don Sipe asked if the Board would like to view the preliminary plan. The Chairman replied that the Board would not need to view the plan at this time as it was quite preliminary, however, it appeared that the business was already approved for what the amendments to the current plan proposed. The Coordinator noted that the only change would be to the number of parking spaces as the plan currently noted four spaces for the pizza business and five for the video store. Don Sipe clarified that the pizza business would take over the video store’s parking spaces as that portion of the business was phased out. The Chairman suggested that it would be more appropriate to do an overlay of the original plan rather than amend the original plan. James Nordstrom noted
that this could be an addendum to the original site plan which would include the septic system design plan. Don Sipe asked if the approval of the septic design was required before the new plan was approved or could it be a condition. The Chairman replied that the State would need to approve the septic design anyway, therefore, it would not make sense for the Board to approve the new plan if the State did not approve the septic design. He noted that once State approval was granted Mr. Sipe could proceed with his application with the Board, and added that the application process was not difficult as long as an applicant was conscientious in following the steps involved. Bob Furey noted to Don Sipe that the Building Inspector also needed to be contacted and this would be a separate process than the applicant’s dealing with the Planning Board. The Chairman clarified that the Building Inspector was responsible for issuing the Use Permit which did not
involve the Planning Board.
The Coordinator asked if the Board was proposing an amendment to the Site Plan under Miscellaneous Business or a new application with a hearing. The Chairman replied that he did not think a hearing was necessary and that a new Site Plan could be submitted to overlay the original, with a site walk deemed unnecessary as the applicant was not proposing any new lighting, parking or other exterior changes. Don Sipe stated that he would proceed with obtaining an approval on the septic design from the State and the Health Inspector and return to the Board with a revised plan for submittal.
4. Discussion: Linda Pothier, Toad Hill Farm, 40 Helena Drive.
Linda Pothier and her spouse, Michael Pare were present in the audience for this item.
Linda Pothier stated that she was present to reply to a letter sent to her by the Board regarding their question of whether she was operating a home business from her residence. She noted that in 1998 she began giving horse carriage rides leaving from the Apple Barn located in the Village and proceeded to purchase a hay wagon and later give pony rides at birthday parties. Linda Pothier added that since that time she had married and moved to her existing residence which used to be a llama farm owned by the Cloughs and had begun dog sitting a maximum of three dogs at a time on an infrequent basis to help with the expense of keeping her horses but did not run a kennel. She noted that she also advertised to host hayrides of which she had three so far and also gave four riding
lessons a week on her property Monday through Thursday and that in the summer months she ran a three hour summer camp. Linda Pothier stated that in response to the Board’s questions in their letter to her she did not have any storage on the property related to this business and did not pay any employees. She added that people did come to her house but infrequently. Linda Pothier further added that they maintained the Class VI road on which they resided and did not board any horses.
Mike Pare asked why the Board had sent them a letter asking these questions. The Chairman replied that it had been brought to their attention by someone that they were operating a business out of their home. The Coordinator noted that it most likely was brought to this individual’s attention due to an advertisement that Linda Pothier had put in the New Boston Bulletin. The Chairman requested that Linda Pothier sketch a Site Plan for an agricultural business noting the parking areas and hours of operation. He suggested that she give herself generous leeway on the hours so that she would have some flexibility in her compliance. The Coordinator noted that an agricultural business allowed for minor status on the Site Plan while having the possibility of
increased parking but did not exempt the applicant from the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations unless waivers were requested. The Chairman clarified that the applicant could request a waiver to certain requirements of the Site Plan regulation if they felt a stipulation did not apply to their plan. Linda Pothier asked if there was an informational sheet she could obtain to list the steps she needed to take. The Chairman replied that such a list was available through the Planning Department. The Chairman stated that Linda Pothier’s advertisement should be removed from the Town newspaper until her Site Plan was approved. Linda Pothier noted that she also advertised at the Apple Barn for carriage rides but this did not involve customers coming to her home.
3. Discussion: Carriage Road construction.
Present in the audience for this item were several residents of Carriage Road: Matt Haddad, Bill Vanark, David Moore and Lou Kozar.
Matt Haddad stated that he was surprised to see surveyor stakes along Carriage Road several weeks ago which he believed indicated that work was planned for the road. He noted that he spoke with Mitch Larochelle and Dave Elliot but they had not informed him that certain existing driveways on Carriage Road including his own would be impacted as a result of this work. Matt Haddad added that he was now aware that a sight line issue with Susan Road was the reason that Carriage Road would be altered. He stated that because Carriage Road saw limited traffic he saw no need for the proposed impact as it would require blasting in front of several existing homes. Matt Haddad added that his call of inquiry to Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc. was not returned. He
further added that he was here this evening in the hopes that an alternative solution to this issue could be decided. The Chairman noted that the expenses for the impending alterations to Carriage Road would be incurred by the contractor involved and not the Town. He explained that the Board did not dictate sight distance requirements for new roads and that this was handled by the Town Engineer, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., who was charged by the Board to make new roads safe for anticipated traffic flow.
Matt Haddad stated that he attended the initial meeting regarding Susan Road and heard that it was not intended as a throughway. He wondered if a speed limit of 25 m.p.h. could be assigned to Susan Road which would alleviate the need for increased sight distance. James Nordstrom replied that in some cases a lower speed limit could be requested through the Police Department, however, it was very difficult to obtain and took density into account.
David Moore noted that Carriage Road was already approved as a Town road and felt it should not be subject to modifications based on the construction of Susan Road. He asked if the Board would be willing to do a site walk on Carriage Road and discuss the rudimentary exercises he and other concerned residents had performed there relative to sight distance issues. David Moore stated that they had not been notified by the contractor that modifications to Carriage Road were planned and noted that the area proposed for cutting was entirely ledge, therefore, some blasting had already occurred. He stated that some residents were concerned that further blasting could cause substantial shifts in the ground that could damage their well casings and leach fields. Travis Daniels
noted that he was in the blasting profession and that blasting exercises did not go deep enough to harm wells. He added that in his experience he had blasted within 25 feet of well casings and no impacts had ever occurred. Travis Daniels further added that leach fields would also not be affected as they were located above bedrock and did not permeate into the ground. He noted that blasting companies usually monitored the area surrounding the blast with seismographs.
Bill Vanark stated that when he purchased his property he was informed of the different elevations of the land surrounding his home which he assumed would remain as they were constructed because at that time Susan Road was planned for future construction. He questioned why an existing approved road would require modification to support another road’s construction. Don Duhaime noted that the reason for the modification was that the first design submitted for Susan Road had a +3% pitch off the road in contrast to the required -3% pitch. David Moore stated that there were survey markers on his property line into his mulch bed land that had been placed there without his prior notification. The Chairman noted that the Town owned that portion of right-of-way from the
edge of the pavement. Don Duhaime stated that these markers were most likely offset markers for the road construction. The Chairman noted the various right-of-way markings on the plan.
James Nordstrom explained that in order for proposed Susan Road to comply with the Town’s road standards it would need to slope down 3% from the existing edge of the pavement to a certain point and then climb at an upward pitch, therefore, Carriage Road needed to be lowered in that area because the required sight distance could not be achieved. He clarified that the Town was not requiring that Carriage Road be modified but as it was the builders desire to construct Susan Road the road construction requirements of 2005 needed to be applied and these requirements differed than what was in place at the time Susan Road was preliminarily proposed years ago when the Carriage Road plan was submitted. Bill Vanark asked what requirements were being applied. James Nordstrom
noted the Town of New Boston had Subdivision Regulations that contained a section on the requirements for road construction. David Moore asked if these road standards had been recently amended as recently constructed roads in the Town such as Inkberry Drive seemed to have significant sight distance issues. He asked how the sight distance issues of Inkberry and Byam Roads had been overcome. The Coordinator noted that the road plans for Inkberry Road and Byam Road were approved in 1988 and the Town had to abide by the plan due to a court issue. She added that the plan was re-approved in 1998 which was when construction actually began, therefore, these roads were a bad example to use. James Nordstrom added that the Byam and Inkberry Road plan had presented an odd situation for the Town.
The Chairman stated that the contractor was doing road improvements per an approved plan and that even if the Board wished to change the plan they could not. Matt Haddad asked if, as an alternative, three stop signs could be installed at the intersection of Carriage Road and Susan Road to alter the sight distance requirements. The Chairman thought that one stop sign at the intersection of Susan Road and Carriage Road was likely. James Nordstrom clarified that the sight distance down Carriage Road was not the main issue and, rather, the fact that Susan Road would need to slope down at that intersection so that a sight line of 300 feet up Carriage Road was obtained. David Moore asked if it would be possible for the Board to do a site walk at this intersection. The Chairman stated that the Board could still not make any changes as the plan had been designed in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations, inspected by the Town Engineer with their recommendations
incorporated and approved according to their revisions by the Board. Lou Kozar asked how Carriage Road was approved as a Town Road knowing that it would need to be modified in the future. The Chairman stated that this was not known at the time because Susan Road had been proposed on the Carriage Road plan but was not an integral part of it. He added that many roads were proposed in that area and it was not known exactly where they would be installed or whether the elevations of existing roads would need to be modified in the future in order to accommodate their construction. The Chairman explained that a change in the Subdivision Regulations meant that Carriage Road needed modification only because of the proposal of Susan Road in 2005. He added that it was poor planning on the applicant’s part because if they had know in the preliminary phases of Carriage Road what the requirements would be then all modifications could have been made during
Carriage Road’s construction. Lou Kozar stated that existing residents were now being adversely affected due to that poor planning. The Chairman noted that these concerns could have been brought forth by residents at the time of the applicant’s initial application. Matt Haddad stated that he and other Carriage Road residents had attended the first meeting for the applicant regarding the Susan Road Plan and had not recalled any issues in addition to reading about subsequent meetings with the Board in the Town paper. He added that he was then surprised to see that his land would be impacted by these modifications and thought he should have been re-noticed for the meetings that subsequently involved these discussions. James Nordstrom clarified that as an abutter, Matt Haddad was required to be noticed under State Law for the applicant’s initial meeting with the Board, however, if these meetings were adjourned to subsequent meetings
re-notification was not a requirement. Matt Haddad asked by example if the applicant had wished to later propose a commercial building on the plan if abutters would have been re-noticed. James Nordstrom replied that if the intent and content of the original application changed then a new application and submittal would ensue and abutters would have been required to be re-noticed. The Coordinator noted that offsite improvements to existing roads were not a proposal that required notice to abutters and when such improvements were required for approval of a plan they were also not required to be noticed. Matt Haddad asked what the applicant’s responsibility was to the Carriage Road residents to inform them of these improvements. James Nordstrom replied that the applicant was obligated by the language in the notes of the plan if such notification was included. Matt Haddad stated that he had written a letter to the contractor, Mitch Larochelle,
regarding his expectations regarding how damage to his property would be addressed as a result of these road improvements. The Chairman stated that the Town Engineer would monitor the improvements and any deficiencies in the status of the road or driveways as Carriage Road was a Town Road. He added that a note on the plan stated that the applicant would coordinate any required driveway construction with the homeowner or removal and relocation of features such as mailboxes. The Chairman stated that as the blasting occurred he assumed that temporary ramps would be installed to impacted driveways as the road grade changed. David Moore asked again if the Board could plan a site walk on the road as he felt that 2% was a minimal grade to affect the modifications that were planned. The Chairman stated that the Board entrusts the Town Engineer to oversee road design plans for the Town. James Nordstrom added that the applicant had not originally proposed
the -3% pitch for the road and it was the Town Engineer who reviewed the plan which initially proposed a +3% pitch that was found to not comply with the Subdivision Regulations. David Moore thought that dropping the elevation of Carriage Road in the area planned would create a blind spot on the rise on another area of Carriage Road and this could be hazardous to children that played in the street. The Chairman noted that children should not be playing in the street. Matt Haddad clarified that Carriage Road had many residents with small children who inevitably ended up playing in the street at times. The Chairman stated that the Board entrusted the Town Engineer to review road plans for safety and were not qualified to change a road design approved by them. James Nordstrom clarified that it was the Town Engineer that qualified the non-conformity of the road design with the Town’s Subdivision Regulations which he presumed the applicant had been
already aware of but was then required to address. Lou Kozar asked if there were any other alternatives to improving the grade in another location. The Coordinator replied that by pushing the slope further back into the site wetland impacts would have occurred and the location planned was found to be the optimum spot for Susan Road. Douglas Hill asked if it would be beneficial for the concerned residents of Carriage Road to draft a letter to the Town Engineer and request an alternative solution. Matt Haddad thought that he could successfully provide a petition with signature from all the Carriage Road residents if that would be helpful to this cause. The Chairman clarified that this issue could not be addressed with a vote and that these concerns were being raised at the wrong point in the process as the plan had already been approved. Matt Haddad stated that he was merely exploring alternative solutions and reiterated that he believed three stop
signs installed at the intersection in question would solve the problem. The Chairman stated that the grading issue was the main problem and that the +3% pitch needed to be altered to a negative pitch to address sight line deficiencies up Carriage Road from the Susan Road intersection. He added that this modification would be very expensive for the applicant and was sure that if there was an acceptable alternative that was less expensive they would have done it. Matt Haddad noted that this modification was being done in order for the applicant to build his next development. He asked the Board if it would make sense for the residents to approach Mitch Larochelle to discuss alternatives or if Mitch Larochelle could feasibly approach the Town Engineer for suggestions. Travis Daniels noted that a lot of funds had already been put towards the road improvements thus far. Matt Haddad asked if the stop signs were an acceptable solution to the Town
Engineer if it would be possible to do. The Chairman replied that the issue
began with the negative grade of proposed Susan Road but then sight distance became a factor, therefore, blasting on Carriage Road was required to lower that road and bring sight lines into an acceptable range of 300 feet. He noted that installing three stop signs at the intersection would not meet the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. James Nordstrom noted that at a stop sign intersection the required sight distance was zero.
The Board reviewed the improvements planned for Carriage Road on the plan and noted the length of the cut to be approximately 250 feet which would impact three existing driveways.
James Nordstrom asked the Coordinator if she had any suggestions regarding the issue at hand. The Coordinator replied that there was no cause for revoking the approved plan because it met the requirements of the Town. She added that it would be ok for the residents to approach the developer with the stop sign question, however, the developer had the right to move forward with the project if he chose because he was working with an approved plan. Travis Daniels asked if any modifications had been made to the road yet. David Moore replied that nothing had been done other than grade stakes and markings. He added that Dave Elliot and Mitch Larochelle had already indicated to him that if the Board would be willing to look at an alternative they would oblige and would hold off on their work until a forum was
established. Bill Vanark stated that Mitch Larochelle had informed him that his suggestions at a prior meeting regarding some type of signage, possibly a speed limit sign, on the road was not accepted by the Board. The Chairman stated that the Police Department would most likely say no to a stop sign in that location because it would be difficult to enforce and placing a stop sign at every bad intersection could set a bad precedent. Matt Haddad thought that it was appropriate for the Carriage Road neighborhood as Susan Road was not intended as a throughway. Douglas Hill thought that stop signs at the intersection could alleviate the sight distance requirement in this case. James Nordstrom agreed. Douglas Hill noted that if this was a viable solution he could not imagine why the applicant would not have brought it forward beforehand.
The Chairman suggested that the question could be posed to the developer as to whether he would be willing to consider a redesign of the Susan Road intersection at their expense and risk which would eliminate the cuts planned for Carriage Road. He added that the developer would also have to be willing to put his project on hold so that the board could investigate this alternative. Don Duhaime noted that timing would be tight as the developer wished to construct Susan Road before the winter season. James Nordstrom noted that the Town Engineer would need to review alternative solutions posed by the developer and give their recommendations. He added that signage seemed to be the only other option in this case. The Chairman noted that the process of introducing
alternative solutions needed to be initiated by the applicant and considered whether he was willing to alter his plan. Douglas Hill suggested that the residents seek the opinion of a private engineering firm and if the alternative presented itself as a possibility then they could approach Mitch Larochelle. The Planning Assistant noted that the landowner, Harvey Dupuis, would also need to be assured. Bill Vanark assumed that Mitch Larochelle would view this exploration as a scheduling risk on his part. David Moore asked how the existing lots on Susan Road had been approved already. The Chairman replied that these lots were part of the original road plan. .
The Chairman stated that the Board would contact Mitch Larochelle regarding the issues discussed this evening and contact a representative of the Carriage Road residents if they chose. David Moore supplied his number to the Planning Coordinator as a contact person.
At 11:35 p.m. Travis Daniels MOVED to adjourn. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien Minutes Approved:
Recording Clerk
| 
