TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of 2007 Meetings
April 24, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, Douglas Hill, Don Duhaime and; ex-officio Christine Quirk. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting was Kevin Leonard, Northpoint Engineering, Rodney and Mica Stark, Cyndie Wilson, Burr Tupper, Brandy Mitroff, John Palmer, Bob Palmer, LLS, Kimberly Messa, Anthony Eberhardt, Jean McCreary, Dave Ely, Lisa Jeck, Elliot Konner, George and Jeff St. John and Jay Marden.
Discussion with Kevin Leonard of Northpoint Engineering, re: construction monitoring estimates. If time remains, the Planning Board will discuss future planning issues.
Kevin Leonard, Northpoint Engineering, was present.
The Chairman wished to clarify that the Board’s question regarding the monitoring estimate to be discussed did not mean that they were not standing behind Northpoint’s numbers but rather that they needed to be able to explain to applicants going forward how to justify expenditures for construction monitoring as the Town was responsible for spending an applicant’s money in this way. Kevin Leonard asked if the Board would like an explanation of construction monitoring costs in general terms or specific to Christian Farm Estates. The Chairman replied that if an explanation was unique to Christian Farm Estates then that could be offered as well as general information.
Kevin Leonard submitted a revised estimate which he explained had the adjusted estimate for cistern monitoring based on the Subdivision Regulations flat rate of $3,500.00. The Chairman wished to clarify that Northpoint did not intend to be on site full time for inspections. Kevin Leonard replied that based on a conversation he had with the Planning Department it had been his understanding that, historically, there had been issues with estimates provided by previous engineers for the Town that often went over or greatly exceeded themselves with the Planning Department needing to request additional funds mid project. Given that information he explained that Northpoint was asked to provide a conservative estimate that would cover the worst case scenario while providing the
level of inspection that the Town was looking for. Kevin Leonard noted that drainage installation and paving were considered to be full time monitoring items as they were ultimately looking out for the infrastructure of the Town.
Kevin Leonard stated that specific to Christian Farm Estates, this was a 24 lot subdivision for a 2,900’ road with some steep road segments of 8% grades. He added that three retaining walls would also be constructed and had not yet been designed for technical review. Kevin Leonard added that there would also be a cistern and three detention ponds, one with an access road 350’ in length. He explained that the rate of installation, for example, of the drainage lines, would correspond to the amount of time required on site for that item. He noted that the $3,500.00 inspection fee for the cistern as quoted by the Town ordinance had been adjusted. The Chairman clarified that the Ordinance had been written with the intent that a concrete structure would
be used when in the case of Christian Farm Estates a fiberglass cistern had been proposed, therefore, the intensity of inspection could be assumed to be much less. Kevin Leonard noted
that the anticipated number of visits to the site incorporated mileage. He added that JGI Eastern in Manchester, NH, was the geotechnical consultant and would be going over the plans with Northpoint and discussing specifications along with doing a review of the retaining walls proposed which was more their forte than Northpoint’s. The Chairman asked if this explanation was referencing the line item entitled “Structural and Geotechnical Review” Kevin Leonard replied that was correct. He added that this line item also included reviews of shop drawings, lab work including sieve and proctor, compaction testing for gravels and incidental concrete testing. The Chairman asked if concrete would be involved for the installation of a fiberglass cistern. Don Duhaime noted that some type of
concrete would be involved for ballast in setting the fiberglass structure.
Kevin Leonard stated that the line item for “construction administration” was intended to encompass pre-construction monitoring, scheduling and coordination between contractors and soils consultants, bond administration, plan review for specific methods and design changes and unforeseen subsurface conditions. He explained that Northpoint intended to prepare a report for all work done on a project so that everything billed to the escrow would be itemized and accompany the invoice. The Chairman clarified that at the end of a project rather than billing a 20% administration fee as noted on the estimate, the billed hours would be subtracted from the total with the difference refunded. Kevin Leonard replied that was correct and this was generally true for every item
on the estimate with the allocation of time being on an hourly basis. The Chairman asked if cistern inspection would be billed hourly also. Kevin Leonard replied that it would. The Chairman added that it would be his guess that Northpoint would not drive out to the site merely for one item such as erosion control but would try and incorporate several inspection items into one trip. Don Duhaime noted that it would not be unusual if Northpoint went out just to check erosion control after a significant rain event. Kevin Leonard replied that was true and that any other time they were on site they would also check erosion control. He noted that erosion control measures had been known to drag on if road paving was done and the road was not properly stabilized. The Chairman agreed that in that case there might be no other reason to go out to a site except to check erosion control. He asked Kevin Leonard if, in his opinion, a well organized
construction team could cut a conservative estimate such as this one in half. Kevin Leonard replied that while it was possible he could not make such a speculation in the specific instance under discussion. The Chairman stated that if all work was done properly/efficiently on site then the estimate being discussed should be considerably less when billed. Kevin Leonard replied that the intent of providing this estimate was that it would cover everything and the developer would receive some refund. The Chairman noted that, historically, applicants usually had not seen refunds. He asked the Coordinator what percentage of estimates she felt had gone over escrow in the past. The Coordinator replied that there may have been some refunds given with past applicants but not recently.
The Chairman stated that Kevin Leonard had surprisingly satisfied his expectations regarding his explanation of the 20% construction administration fee as he thought that it was a tacked on fee for secretarial/administrative expenses. Kevin Leonard stated that the fees the Chairman alluded to were considered to be overhead associated with the cost of doing business.
Douglas Hill stated that he had spoken with Kevin Leonard after he received the initial estimate and wrote a letter which prompted Mr. Leonard’s response letter explaining the numbers. He recalled that the letter which Kevin Leonard signed stated that the estimate was for a 3,900 linear foot cul-de-sac and that he had referenced similar jobs done for the Town. Douglas Hill noted that the last cul-de-sac of that length done for the Town was the Popple Road/Swanson Road project which had received a construction monitoring estimate of $45K from the former Town Engineer that ultimately rose to a $60K bill given the challenges of that road which included substantial ledge. He noted that if Christian Farm Estates was to be a 3,900’ cul-de-sac which had been
erroneously stated in Kevin Leonard’s letter he would not have questioned the bid, however, the length was incorrect and he found it surprising that Mr. Leonard would have signed his name to it. Douglas Hill added that rather than admitting the mistake he received a new letter several days later with the correct footage of 2,900 linear feet but the same cost. Don Duhaime noted that costs may have gone up in the time between the Popple/Swanson Road project and now. Douglas Hill replied that materials may have increased in costs but he did not see how inspection monitoring would follow suit. Kevin Leonard explained that the plans for Christian Farm Drive started at station 1000 and had gone 2,900 feet which is why he had written 3,900’ in his letter. He noted that he simply had not recalled the length of the road off the top of his head when he was writing but it had nothing to do with how the estimate was itemized and when the Coordinator
brought the error to his attention he quickly revised it. Kevin Leonard added that he had looked at the Popple/Swanson Road estimate to familiarize himself with a close example and that it was a case of an estimate that was initially $40K and rose to $60K. Douglas Hill stated that he did not think this a fair comparison as that project had many issues and changes along the way which resulted in the high ending cost. He added that if he thought the estimate for Christian Farm Estates to be legitimate he would not argue it. Kevin Leonard replied that the estimate was legitimate for what he had been requested to do by the Planning Department. He added that Northpoint intended to bill on an hourly basis. The Chairman clarified that it was Northpoint’s intent not to need more money for this escrow based on the estimate provided. Kevin Leonard replied that that estimate was conservative on behalf of the Town. The Chairman felt the
estimate was more aptly described as being liberal, allowing for the maximum amount of hours. Christine Quirk noted that the total hours estimated equaled 424 which meant that Northpint would be on site full time for 11 weeks. Kevin Leonard explained that the math was based on individual tasks and steps of the project. The Chairman clarified that because some steps may be done simultaneously on site Northpoint would not bill double for the time that they were there doing multiple inspections. Douglas Hill noted that he had no control over how the estimate would be handled with billing because this was a new Engineer for the Town and he had no idea how they conducted business. The Chairman noted that Northpoint also had no idea what type of contractor they would be dealing with on the project. Don Duhaime agreed that the contractor’s performance on a project was the biggest key to how an applicant was billed for on site inspections. He
referenced the estimated underlaying for drainage pipes which Northpoint quoted at 312’ per day. The Chairman corrected this to mean 60’ in a 9 hour day and noted that if the whole underdrain could be done in one day then the inspection cost would come in well under the estimate. Kevin Leonard wished to note that he had recently learned through the Coordinator’s check with the Road Agent that underdrain did not need to be billed as full time inspection which is how it was noted in this estimate, therefore, that item should be reduced. Christine Quirk asked if there was anything else Kevin Leonard saw on the estimate that should be reduced. Kevin Leonard replied that there was not. The Chairman felt that the billing relied heavily on proper construction sequence. Kevin Leonard noted that another contractor in Town was moving right along with his project but was still behind schedule for paving which was common. The Chairman
asked how that estimate was covering the project. Kevin Leonard felt that he was in line with that estimate and that it would cover everything. Douglas Hill asked how long the road was for the project he referred to and what the estimate had come in at. Kevin Leonard replied that it was 1,000 lineal feet and estimated monitoring was $30K.
The Chairman stated that when the Board initially looked at the estimate before tonight’s explanations and it totaled 11 weeks of full time monitoring they questioned how that could be possible. Kevin Leonard replied that in his experience he had seen roads go in very slowly and that depending on the quality of a contractor and the availability of funds from a contractor such projects could take a long time. Douglas Hill noted that inspections would not be occurring if a construction job was halted. Kevin Leonard noted that erosion still needed to be monitored. Don Duhaime asked if Douglas Hill was proposing to build his 2,900’ road all at once. Douglas Hill replied that he was.
The Chairman felt that there would be a substantial cost savings on the estimate as Northpoint did not intend to hold to itemized tallies where they would instead be billing hour for hour and this was just an estimate for escrow. He asked how quickly bills were issued. Kevin Leonard replied that bills were done monthly on the first Tuesday of each month and sent out one to two days after that including all inspection reports. The Chairman clarified that this would be hour for hour billing against time on the job. Douglas Hill stated that his hands were tied and the information he had provided to the Board made his thoughts on the matter clear. He added that he would not have had a problem if a more reasonable estimate had been provided and then if an issue
arose during construction he was notified to increase his escrow. Douglas Hill further added that, instead, the Town Engineer had based the estimate on the project having many problems which meant that he would have to put the maximum amount of escrow up front. He noted that if he, for example, did not pay into his escrow then it was understood that inspections would cease on his project, however, if he fronted $60K then he risked having that entire amount spent from the escrow. The Chairman noted that Northpoint would be producing a tally sheet of the hours spent on inspections. Douglas Hill replied that Northpoint had estimated hours equaling $60K. The Chairman clarified that the $60K estimate was based on line by line calculations of inspection items which were then totaled. Kevin Leonard stated that he provided the estimate in an attempt to provide a conservative number. The Chairman clarified that Nothpoint had prepared the inspection
estimate to reflect that an ample amount of time was allowed to perform these inspections as required by the Town, however, it was their intention to bill based on actual time spent on inspections. Douglas Hill asked if this was how a former Town Engineer, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had billed. The Coordinator replied that it was. Douglas Hill asked why the estimate could not have been prepared in consideration of an average amount of inspection time with the option to request more in escrow if it were needed. Kevin Leonard replied that he had been asked to prevent that situation and the intent of this estimate was that it would cover all inspections for the project. The Chairman stated that if Douglas Hill’s contractors worked simultaneously on site then inspections could happen this way also. He noted that as was done by prior Town Engineers, Northpoint would most likely be able to determine how long they would be on site on a given day based
on the type of material loads they saw being delivered. The Chairman added that he interpreted Northpoint’s estimate to be more like a “piece meal” estimate given that each inspection was separately itemized and the billing would ultimately be based on hours on the job anyway. He noted that although Northpoint could not know how this scenario would play out until the job was underway he anticipated that the total estimate number of $60K would not be reached as that would meant that either the contractor on the job were very slow or the Town Engineer was overcharging. The Chairman stated that notification from Northpoint of how things were going during the first month of inspections would be helpful. Kevin Leonard agreed and added that the estimate would be broken down with billing as things occurred on site. The Chairman stated that editorializing the bills would help to serve as a guide of what was pending so that the
contractor/developer could react in a preemptive manner. He added that if inspections were taking a long time Douglas Hill would want to know that. Don Duhaime added that Douglas Hill would be on site most of the time anyway and should be able to see how things were progressing. The Chairman summarized that diligent inspections were needed along with diligent building. He thanked Kevin Leonard for coming in to meet with the Board as the face to face correspondence made it easier to get their questions answered.
At 7:23 p.m. the Board took a 15 minute break.
Informational Session for Rodney Stark of Shakey Pond Realty Corp, to discuss a potential subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #15/12, Laurel Lane.
Present for this discussion was Rodney Stark, Mica Stark and Cyndie Wilson. Rodney Stark put a plan up for viewing and noted the locations of Shaky Pond, Mason Drive and Laurel Lane. He noted that the total parcel to be discussed was surveyed by Bob Todd, LLS, and was slightly greater than 87 acres. Rodney Stark explained the connections between Mason Drive, Old Chestnut Hill Road and Laurel Lane. He noted that turning left at Mason Drive went to Alex Noftsger’s’s property while turning right onto Mason Drive went to Cyndie Wilson’s property and that she had been using this access to her property for the last 25 to 27 years. Rodney Stark stated that the reason they had come to the Board was to seek a waiver to the Class V road frontage
requirement so that they could propose a subdivision of the southern portion of the parcel which abutted the Tracking Station into three parcels of 11, 16.5 and 16.5 acres which would not be further subdividable. He added that they had not approached the ZBA yet, however, in the summer of 2006, the Planning Coordinator had written a letter to its chairman, David Craig and he had responded that the Planning Board needed to be approached on this matter first. Rodney Stark explained that one of the three subdivided lots would become part of Cyndie Wilson’s property while the other two would go to each of his sons. He noted that his son Mica who was present this evening currently resided in town on Bedford Road but intended to move to this property while his other son Cory currently lived in Vermont. Rodney Stark stated that he had owned the land for 28 years and other than a modest amount of hardwood foresting he had put it to no other use besides
allowing Wilson’s access way to her house. He noted that the parcel’s acreage on the south side of Old Chestnut Hill Road was 44 acres and on the north side totaled 41.5 acres which included the 18 acres of Shaky Pond. Rodney Stark added that he would like to see this northern side put into a conservation easement and that would create a conservation easement corridor from Alex Noftsger’s property to the Tracking Station.
The Chairman stated that the main problem was that there was no frontage on a Class V road abutting the property which they wanted to subdivide and that would require approaching the ZBA as it was a Zoning issue. Cyndie Wilson noted that the 300’ strip that NHDES was requiring the Lorden family to place into easement was part of this proposed corridor.
The Chairman stated that a lot of runoff came across Bedford Road as it approached Klondike Corner during the recent flooding rains and asked Cyndie Wilson if she knew where that water came from. Cyndie Wilson replied that she believed the runoff came from Campbell Swamp. The Coordinator noted that a developer, SHB Properties, who was working on a site nearby had, at the time of their application, indicated that water from many surrounding areas fed into Campbell Swamp as it was the center of a very large watershed. Cyndie Wilson added that Shaky Pond was located on the site they were proposing to subdivide and was not fed by any surrounding sources but rather had recently been redrawn to accurately depict its makeup which consisted of an interior kettle pond surrounded by
a peat bog and more water. She added that it was called Shaky Pond because when it froze in the winter the ice was attached to its kettle pond shrubs and not the ground. She then submitted pictures of Shaky Pond which were taken prior to the recent rain event in Town. Burr Tupper asked if with Rodney Stark’s proposal Shaky Pond would effectively be placed under conservation easement. Cyndie Wilson replied that it would be. Burr Tupper stated that he thought this was a great idea. Cyndie Wilson showed a map of the area and noted that it encompassed the highest ranking for wildlife habitat based on soils with the magenta color being the area of wildlife and the darker tan shading being the supporting habitat. She noted that this supporting habitat was the area that developers were proposing to build on. She explained that her and Mr. Stark’s proposal was in the lighter tan shaded area of the map which was considered a
wildlife area but not as crucial as the darker tan. Cyndie Wilson added that a second map dealt with the areas of cliffs, ridges and dunes with the darker blue areas detailing peat land much like the Great Meadow in Town. Douglas Hill asked if lot lines were done on the map as part of the proposal. Rodney Stark replied they had not been drawn yet. From the audience Brandy Mitroff asked if Mason Drive was considered a Class VI or private road. Cyndie Wilson replied that it was her driveway and a private road that she owned. The Chairman asked who plowed Mason Drive. Cyndie Wilson replied that she paid Peter Beers to plow it up to her house. She explained that Mason Drive was part of a road association and each resident who owned a right-of-way paid into a fund that supported plowing and maintenance. Rodney Stark asked what was the relative condition of Mason Drive
versus Laurel Lane. Cyndie Wilson replied that Mason Drive was in consistently better condition than Laurel Lane, a Class V road. The Chairman asked how the greater than two split for the common drive being proposed could be justified since the Town did not accept that. Cyndie Wilson replied that it would be the only way in to the property. Don Duhaime asked how fire protection and emergency access would be considered. Cyndie Wilson recalled that it had taken Jim Dodge 10 minutes to get to her property having made an emergency phone call from a neighboring house, followed by the Tracking Station response and then the ambulance. Don Duhaime asked what the emergency was. Cyndie Wilson replied that it was a chimney fire and she had phoned it in from the Beers’ house because she had no
electricity at the time. Rodney Stark noted that primary fire protection with sprinklers had been discussed for the proposed subdivided lots. Don Duhaime asked what the case would be for a medical emergency. Cyndie Wilson replied that an ambulance could successfully access the property. Rodney Stark commented that if an ambulance could access Laurel Lane then it could access their site. Brandy Mitroff noted that some private drives were in better shape than some Class V dirt roads in Town.
The Coordinator asked how David Craig, ZBA Chairman, had responded to the Stark inquiry wondering if he had said that the Planning Board would need to deny the subdivision approval before the ZBA could hear the case. Rodney Stark stated that David Craig had told him that the ZBA could not approve the subdivision of land. The Chairman clarified that the Planning Board could not grant a subdivision approval on land with no frontage and that required a variance from the ZBA. He felt that the only other resolution would be to bring the road up to Class V status. Rodney Stark replied that this was the hardship that they sought a waiver on. The Chairman stated that this was a matter for the ZBA. Rodney Stark noted that at one time in the past a joint meeting
possibility on the matter between the Planning Board and the ZBA had been discussed between the Coordinator and himself. The Chairman asked the number of lots proposed. Don Duhaime replied that it was four including the conservation land. The Chairman reiterated that the Town had regulations that prevented subdivisions from having multiple common driveways. Douglas Hill stated that he could see the scenario of monetary issues resulting in a 15 lot versus 3 lot subdivision, therefore, it could be beneficial to the Town for the ZBA to consider this waiver. Rodney Stark added that he did not believe that he had a developer mentality coming into this proposal and that would be part of the reason why the waiver would be appropriate as upgrading the road to Class V status would be prohibitive. The Chairman was unclear as to why it seemed that the ZBA Chairman misunderstood the ZBA’s involvement in this scenario. The Coordinator noted that
the Beers had gotten a variance from the ZBA to come in off a private road and the ZBA were not unaware of these procedures. Burr Tupper asked if, in light of the proposal for the conservation easement, the Planning Board could craft a letter that supported the ZBA granting a variance. The Chairman replied that the ZBA had requested that the Board not write such letters. Burr Tupper wondered if a letter of support from the Conservation Commission might be helpful as it would be a compelling step to link the wildlife corridors discussed.
The Chairman asked Rodney Stark if he fully developed the site how many lots he could fit. Rodnet Stark replied that he had not done that calculation. Mica Stark thought that between 10 and 12 lots could fit on the site. The Chairman thought that weighing the property density of three versus 12 lots was a compelling reason to move forward. Cyndie Wilson asked what the other members of the Board thought. Douglas Hill replied that if this proposal was unsuccessful the land could be sold to a developer who would choose to propose a higher number of lots. Rodney Stark noted that the 12 lots would fit on one side of the parcel and more could fit on the other as there were 23 more dry acres. The Chairman stated that given the proposal of no further
subdivision the idea sounded like a winning deal for the Town. Cyndie Wilson noted that the residents who shared the driveway got along well and that the Mason Drive Association was exemplary. Brandy Mitroff noted that the property was land-locked as Cyndie Wilson owned Mason Drive. She added that she thought that at most, by law, Mr. Stark had the ability to build a house on his property but it was a unique situation as he had no other choice of access.
The Chairman stated that the next step was to approach the ZBA and the Coordinator’s memo should be resubmitted to them along with the Planning Board minutes from this discussion. He added that if the Conservation Commission felt strongly about the proposal then they could submit a letter of support. The Chairman felt that the Board’s impressions would be aptly reflected in the minutes. Rodney Stark thanked the Board for their time. Mica Stark submitted a copy of the plan to the Coordinator.
Douglas Hill recused himself as a subdivision application for his mother and father was up next.
HILL, BARBARA L., TRUSTEE & HILL, DOUGLAS, SR.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: 106 Hooper Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #11/19 & 11/19-1
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Douglas Hill and Bob Palmer, LLS. An abutter present was John Palmer. Bob Palmer, LLS, stated that Lot #11/19 was owned by Douglas G. Hill, Sr., while Lot #11/19-1 was owned by the Barbara L. Hill Trust, and were 2.6 acres/240’ frontage and 2.21 acres/202’ frontage respectively. He explained that the proposal involved adding a portion of land from Lot #11/19 to 11/19-1 in order to better protect and landscape its driveway which would then increase the frontage to 230’ but still leave Lot #11/19 with 208’. The Chairman asked what this proposal accomplished. Bob Palmer, LLS, replied that in addition to giving the driveway to Lot #11/19-1 more protection it
equalized the lot sizes. The Chairman asked if this proposal was a technicality that would allow further subdivision. Bob Palmer, LLS, replied that it was not as the land could not be further subdivided. Douglas Hill noted that with the lot line adjustment it would be easier to landscape
around the driveway and if one of the properties was sold before that happened this could not be as easily accomplished. Don Duhaime asked if Lot #11/19-1 was the lot with the new house on it. Douglas Hill replied that it was.
The Chairman stated that the applicant had requested waivers for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact studies which he had no issue with.
Don Duhaime MOVED to grant the waivers requested by the applicant by memo dated 4/23/07, for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Don Duhaime MOVED to accept the application of Barbara L. Hill, Trustee, and Douglas Hill, Sr., Minor Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, Location: 106 Hooper Hill Road, Tax Map/lot #11/19 & 11/19-1, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
John Palmer noted that he felt the driveway to Lot #11/19-1 had not been installed according to the specifications of its Driveway Permit because there was runoff going into the road, down the road and onto an abutting field. The Chairman asked if the Building Inspector had looked at the driveway and who had signed off on the Driveway Permit. The Coordinator replied that she knew that the Town Administrator and the Road Agent had been involved with this issue but was unsure of the outcome. Douglas Hill stated that the Road Agent had signed off on the Driveway Permit and that water was not running into the road anymore but across the property as $15K worth of work had been done to correct this problem. John Palmer noted that a large vehicle had gone off the side of
the road in the area of the lots which had disturbed the ditchline and caused drainage and icing problems over the winter but this was a common occurrence and somewhat of a separate issue. The Chairman suggested that Code Enforcement could be contacted about this matter also.
Don Duhaime MOVED to approve Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Douglas Hill, Sr., and Barbara Hill, Trustee, for Tax Map/Lot #11/19 & 11/19-1, Hooper Hill Road, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of the mylar for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be May 30, 2007, confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill reclaimed his seat on the Board.
Informational Session for Kimberly Messa and Anthony Eberhardt to discuss a potential relocation of New Boston Health and Wellness Center and New Boston Physical Therapy to 18 High Street, Tax Map/Lot #18/2, located in the Commercial “COM” District and currently owned by Jean M. McCreary.
Kimberly Messa, Anthony Eberhardt and Jean McCreary were present for this discussion along with architect Dave Ely.
Dave Ely stated that the property at 18 High Street was well suited for the potential relocation as fitness machines could be placed on the first floor and therapy, aerobics and the offices could be located on the second floor. He noted that the existing barn on the property was proposed to be removed and relocated off site so that 9 additional parking spaces and 2 handicap parking spaces could be added. Davy Ely further noted that a porch on the rear of the existing house would be taken off to make a 12’ wide room that would allow more space for fitness equipment and the main entrance would be on the back side of the house. In this way he noted that the character of the house would be maintained from the front view off the road. The Chairman clarified that the
existing barn was proposed to be removed to accommodate 9 parking spaces. Dave Ely replied that this was correct as the property was in a Commercial Zone and the barn was a currently unused horse barn. The Chairman thought this proposal discarded the goal of maintaining the aesthetic value of the Village area as outlined in the Master Plan. Dave Ely replied that in order to have a commercial business in a Commercial Zone parking was necessary and the barn had not been dedicated as a historical structure to the Town. The Chairman thought this proposal was outrageous. Douglas Hill agreed with Dave Ely’s statement. The Chairman asked Anthony Eberhardt if he lived in Town. Anthony Eberhardt replied that he did not reside in Town any longer but he believed that his business provided a service to residents as 85% of patrons were from the Town. Dave Ely noted that there was nothing that would prevent the current owner, Jean McCreary,
from tearing down the barn if she wished to. The Coordinator asked where the barn was being relocated to. Dave Ely replied that he was unsure but several people had expressed an interest in acquiring it. Don Duhaime asked if the parking lot proposed would be gravel or paved to which Dave Ely replied it would be paved. Don Duhaime asked if there was any way to add the parking spaces while maintaining the integrity of the barn. Dave Ely replied that the new parking lot would require a lot of fill and to keep the barn in place would require prohibitive amounts. Douglas Hill asked how runoff would be handled due to the lot being paved. Dave Ely replied that the site was a difficult one and there was really no place for runoff to travel but Bob Todd, LLS, was doing runoff calculations and making provisions for that.
The Chairman wished to note that while the Planning Department had received the plans prior to the meeting the Board had not reviewed them until tonight as they were too large to distribute beforehand. Don Duhaime asked what the dotted line was on the plan behind the existing house. Dave Ely replied that it noted the building setback and because this was a non-conforming lot (under 3 acres) they would probably need to approach the ZBA for a variance. Douglas Hill asked if the parking spaces could be minimized. Dave Ely replied that based on the business’s current needs at the Apple Barn this proposal seemed a practical solution without more site disturbance. The Chairman asked if the current parking spaces at the business were fully utilized. Kim
Messa replied that the occupancy of the spaces varied. Anthony Eberhardt noted that up to 10 spaces were occupied at a time. The Chairman asked the number of spaces proposed on the plan. Dave Ely replied that 11 spaces were noted. Brandy Mitroff wondered if Jean McCreary’s lower lot on Depot Street could be utilized to provide the parking area.
Douglas Hill thought the proposal would be good for the Town’s tax base. Christine Quirk asked if a site walk would be held. Don Duhaime thought that some well placed shrubs in place of where the barn was removed might help with aesthetics on the site. The Chairman asked Jean McCreary if her other property on Depot Street was for sale. Jean McCreary replied that it could be. The Chairman wondered if the barn and house on the site could be used for commercial use with the bottom portion of the other lot used for parking. Dave Ely replied that there was an elevation change of 30’ between the two areas. The Chairman noted that patrons would need to walk up from a lower constructed lot to the business in this case. He stated that
although he had no problem with the usage he did have an issue with the removal of the existing barn to accommodate parking. Dave Ely asked Jean McCreary what the barn was used for now. Jean McCreary replied that it was a one car garage with horse stalls. The Chairman asked the size of the barn. Dave Ely replied that it was approximately 32’ X 32’. Jean McCreary added that it was 3 floors tall. Davy Ely noted that to park in Jean McCreary’s other lot on Depot Street it would need to be reclassified by the Town as a through street as it was not currently.
From the audience, John Palmer noted that in the past he knew of issues arising when offers were made on the property as it had commercial and residential uses, therefore, he thought the proposal a good one. He added that he was involved in collecting data for the Town in the 1980’s when Zoning ideas for Commercial uses were being discussed and there had been many questions about how parking in the Village area should be handled. John Palmer noted that he thought the Commercial Zone was ill conceived regarding Zones and soil types. Jean McCreary added that her lot had the unfortunate status of being on lesser acreage than the usage requirements. Dave Ely asked if there were other issues regarding parking as the lot was on a State highway. The Coordinator
replied that NHDOT District 5 should be contacted. Douglas Hill noted that the State would also need to be contacted regarding any septic system issues. Dave Ely stated that Bob Todd, LLS, was dealing with the septic issues but the business had low water usage because it did not offer showers.
A site walk was scheduled for Tuesday, May 1, 2007, at 6:30 p.m.
The Chairman asked Dave Ely if they would need to approach the ZBA for any variances. Dave Ely replied that he was unsure if a variance would be needed for the
proposed addition on the back of the house because of the lot’s non-conformity. The Chairman asked if the abutting lot was also Commercial. Dave Ely replied that it was. Douglas Hill noted that the Commercial Zoning ended after Dr. Brenner’s building.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the informational session for Kimberly Messa and Anthony Eberhardt to May 8, 2007, at 9:15 p.m. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 8:55 p.m. the Planning Board took a 10 minute break.
JECK, LISA
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Spiritual Growth and Development Workshop Home Business
Location: 110 River Road
Tax Map/Lot #8/113
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant Lisa Jeck and architect Dave Ely. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Lisa Jeck submitted copies of the revised plans which she stated included the corrections pointed out on the Coordinator’s checklist. Lisa Jeck noted that two remaining checklist items were the confirmation of the Residential-Agricultural parcels around the site and the distance between her driveway and an abutter (Gagnon). The Chairman asked about the proposed hours of operation. Lisa Jeck replied that they were on the plan as Sunday from 11:00 a.m. to 3 or 4:00 p.m. She explained that she would be living on site with her two teenaged daughters and did not want the business to overrun her home, therefore, she was planning on having two to four programs a month which might include Friday evenings for movies and/or book discussions. Lisa Jeck added that
she would like to offer free sessions beyond those with a fee which was why she considered the movie nights and book discussions. The Chairman thought the applicant’s wording on the plan of when services might be offered was ambiguous. Lisa Jeck stated that her intent was not to run a full-fledged business out of her home. The Chairman noted that home businesses were self regulating as the business owners lived on site and, therefore, did not want patrons always coming and going. Lisa Jeck added that she would offer programs on specific scheduled days, i.e., there would be no drop-in traffic and the programs would have small numbers of slots such as 8 to 10 people. She noted that the parking was unobtrusive with the State requiring a 20’ wide driveway for two way traffic and would be hard-packed to maintain the integrity of the site and surrounding woods. Lisa Jeck further noted that a new culvert was being installed for drainage. The Chairman asked what the drainage was
like on site. Lisa Jeck replied that much drainage work had been needed in the back of the site and an enormous amount was done in the house which she thought might have been built on a spring many years prior. She noted that its former resident, Verna Hall, grew up in the house and frequently visited and reminisced as she was building a new house two lots over. The Chairman stated that Lisa Jeck should make the necessary corrections to the ambiguous wording regarding the hours of operation.
Don Duhaime MOVED to accept the application of Lisa Jeck, NRSPR, Spiritual Growth and Development Workshop Home Business, Location: 110 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/113, Residential-agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Lisa Jeck stated that snow removal areas were added to the side of the driveway and that the sizes of the parking spaces and acreage of the parcel were also added to the plan. The Chairman noted that the applicant sought a waiver to the requirement of Major Site Plan Status due to the proposal of nine parking spaces and asked the Coordinator what the rationale for not granting such a waiver might be. The Coordinator replied that traffic, drainage and paved parking were some reasons as a home business was supposed to be transparent to the neighborhood. The Chairman clarified that increasing the plan’s status to a Major Site Plan brought in more requirements of the applicant. The Coordinator noted that an engineer or surveyor was required to design the plan and
the applicant would need to abide by all the Major requirements in the Regulations. Douglas Hill asked what the parking area resembled currently. Lisa Jeck replied that it was graded but dirt and there was a cleared area in the back. Douglas Hill asked if cars were able to drive on it. Lisa Jeck replied that they could. She added that there were three 5’ to 6’ drainage ditches which the water ran to and work its way out through the land. She added that her contractor wanted to install another French drain and the only other issue was a pre-collapsed culvert. Douglas Hill asked what the septic system entailed. Lisa Jeck replied that it was a pump-up system with a leach field behind the existing garage. She added that this septic system was the only thing that did not have to be replaced when renovations were done and that it was installed in the late 1980’s. Douglas Hill asked if the septic system was
large enough to deal with the usage proposed. Lisa Jeck replied that it was designed for a three bedroom home and she thought of the client load in a similar manner to having relatives over on the weekends. The Coordinator stated that the State had a booklet available that dealt with flow rates and septic requirements and the applicant should check to see that the existing septic systems met those requirements to satisfy the Planning Board’s questions. The Chairman stated that he had no issue with keeping the plan a Minor with the increased parking based on the road the site was located on. He added that he did not think there would be a traffic problem created on River Road due to the proposal. Douglas Hill agreed.
Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the waiver requested for the requirement of Major Site Plan status so the plan can remain a Minor Site Plan with 9 parking spaces due to the classification of River Road and the fact that this business will not impact traffic thereon. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
A site walk was scheduled for May 1, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. +/-. The Chairman asked if the exterior lights proposed on the plan were installed. Lisa Jeck replied that they were noted to be on the outside of the garage but she was unsure if she could get them up in time for the site walk. The Chairman noted that if these lights were installed compliance could be addressed during the site walk. Lisa Jeck replied that she would try and have this done in time. She noted that she did not have a business sign as of yet. The Chairman replied that this was not a concern of the Board and was regulated by the Building Inspector. He noted that the Planning Board only needed to know its proposed location. The Coordinator advised the applicant to check with
State DOT regarding setback requirements.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the application of Lisa Jeck, NRSPR, Spiritual Growth and Development Workshop Home Business, Location: 110 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/113, Residential-agricultural “R-A” District, to May 22, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2007
2. Driveway Permit Application for Doris Leedham, Clark Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/6 for the Board’s action. (Drive by prior to meeting)
Elliot Konner, agent for Doris Leedham, was present for this item. The Coordinator stated that the Selectmen had forwarded the information they had received regarding this matter to Town Counsel for his opinion. The Chairman clarified that the Board’s response would be pending Town Counsel’s review of this information. Elliot Konner asked why the Board could not take any action on his client’s request for a Driveway Permit. The Chairman replied that they did not want to give the applicant hope or justification for an issue that was not confirmed one way or another. He added that in some historical cases with lots in Town a road divided the lot. The Chairman noted that for some reason this property was assigned two tax numbers but
that did not necessarily make it two separate lots and this needed to be confirmed as the lot in question was so small. Elliot Konner noted that the lot had a State approved septic system and well and the Building Department had a copy of this information. He added that the issue was the Driveway Permit as the Board had copies of the Petition to Quiet Title. Elliot Konner further added that his client, Doris Leedham, had been paying taxes on the property since 2001. The Chairman replied that this did not make it a building lot. Elliot Konner stated that his client had a right to access her property. The Chairman stated that they would have an answer for Mr. Konner after Town Counsel’s review of the information. Elliot Konner noted that the Planning Board had addressed this issue previously in 1999 with parcels across the street from the one in question and at that time there were some findings made by the Board that this parcel was
not connected to the land on the other side. He noted that the present Planning Coordinator was an assistant to the Planning Department at the time of this finding. The Chairman reiterated that the Board was seeking legal counsel for advice as there was nothing in the submittals that provided a conclusive answer on the matter. Elliot Konner stated that he believed that a Driveway Permit was allowed to be issued on sub-standard sized lots. He asked what prevented the Board from doing so. The Chairman stated that they were awaiting Town Counsel’s response on whether the lot was considered a buildable lot. Elliot Konner thought that whether the lot was buildable had no bearing on his client’s entitlement to a driveway on the property. Douglas Hill asked what the intentions were for the lot. Elliot Konner replied that his client wished to have an access provided to the lot. Christine Quirk noted that Doris Leedham had
applied to the State for septic and well permits, therefore, it could be assumed that she wanted to build on the lot. Douglas Hill noted that Town Counsel’s opinion was needed because Zoning required that a lot be a minimum of 2 acres in order to build on it. Elliot Konner noted that a grandfathered clause may override Zoning in this case. The Chairman stated that once Town Counsel responded back to the Board on this matter they could release a letter to Mr. Konner if he wished so that he did not have to make an effort to appear in person before the Board.
1. Approval of minutes of March 27, 2007, with or without changes distributed by email prior to the meeting of April 10, 2007. (No Copies)
Don Duhaime MOVED to approve the minutes of March 27, 2007, as written. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. Application for Appointment received April 20, 2007, for the Board’s action.
Applicant, Jeff St. John, was present for this item accompanied by his father George St. John. The Chairman stated that the application would be forwarded to the Selectmen who would make the final decision.
4. A copy of a faxed letter received April 19, 2007, from Raymond P. Shea, Sandford Survey and Engineering, Inc., to New Boston Planning Board, re: Comeau Subdivision, Tax Map/Lot #2/63, Davis Lane, request for 30 day extension on the 90 day conditional subdivision approval granted on January 23, 2007, for the Board’s action.
Douglas Hill MOVED to extend the 90 day conditional subdivision approval for the Comeau Subdivision by 30 days. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
5. A copy of a letter received April 13, 2007, from Douglas Hill, Douglas Hill Construction, to New Boston Planning Board, re: Christian Farm Estates, request for extension on conditions precedent deadline from April 23, 2007, until August 1, 2007, for the Board’s action.
Don Duhaime MOVED to extend the conditions precedent deadline for Douglas Hill Construction to August 1, 2007. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
6. A copy of a letter received April 18, 2007, from William R. Matheson, IV, New Boston Truck and Equipment, to New Boston Planning Board, re: Tax Map/Lot #14/116-2, Mont Vernon Road, request for extension on conditions precedent until May 31, 2007, for the Board’s action.
The Chairman stated that he had seen progress on the site with the fence being installed and had no issues with Mr. Matheson’s request.
Douglas Hill MOVED to extend the conditions precedent for William R. Matheson, IV, to May 31, 2007. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
7a. A copy of a letter dated April 16, 2007, from Kevin M. Leonard, PE, Principal Engineer, Northpoint Engineeering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: SHB Properties, LLC, - Underdrain Required Due to Field Conditions, was distributed for the Board’s information.
7b. Copies of inspection reports from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Town of New Boston, re: SHB Properties, LLC, were distributed for the Board’s information.
8a. A copy of a letter dated April 6, 2007, from Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant, to Mark and Christine Bilodeau, Tax Map/Lot #14/44, 229 Joe English Road, re: operation of cordwood home business, was distributed for the Board’s information.
8b. A copy of a letter received April 13, 2007, from Mark and Christine Bilodeau, Tax Map/Lot #14/44, 229 Joe English Road, to Michele Brown, New Boston Planning Board, re: response to your letter, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
(Drive by prior to meeting)
The Chairman was unsure that a home business could be operated in this way. The Coordinator noted that she could research this matter and felt it was under an agricultural heading. The Chairman added that this seemed to be similar to Mr. Partin’s application on Chestnut Hill Road and Mr. Trembley’s application on Parker Road and Mr. Bilodeau should be treated the same and required to go through site plan review.
9. A copy of a letter received April 19, 2007, from Robert B. Dodge, to New Boston Planning Board, re: Tax Map/Lot #19/43, Maple Street, Stuart Clark Insurance/Tate’s Gallery, Parking Spaces, was distributed for the Board’s information.
10. All Board Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2007, were distributed for the Board’s information. (No copies, previously distributed by email April 13, 2007)
11. Endorsement of a Site Plan for Thomas & Christine Quirk, Tax Map/Lot #7/11, Cochran Hill Road, by the Planning Board Chairman.
Because of multiple signature sheets the Chairman stated that he would do this
endorsement at the end of the meeting.
12. A copy of a letter dated April 20, 2007, to the New Boston Planning Board, from Kathleen Sullivan from Wadleigh, Starr & Peters, PLLC, re: Application of Shaky Pond Development, LLC, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman stated that due to the trend of water wash outs in the area of Bedford Road these properties were located on there was strong justification to opt for calling large density plans proposed in that area scattered and premature. He added that a secondary means of egress from the Klondike Corner area was also needed. The Chairman asked if Shaky Pond Development, LLC, wanted another meeting with the Board. The Coordinator replied that they did. Don Duhaime asked where the Town stood regarding the Bedford Road design study. The Coordinator replied that the minutes of the All Boards Meeting had information on that and that they were waiting for a scope of work to be written by SNHPC to see if they could do the study or if an outside consultant would need
to be hired. She thought that at best the study would not be completed until the fall of 2007. Don Duhaime asked if the Town would appropriate the money for the study. The Coordinator replied that the money was slated to come for somewhere in order to do the study. She noted that Shaky Pond Development, LLC, was requesting one more work session with the Board. The Chairman felt that the fact that the area in question washed out during the last major rain event and isolated that end of the community was a safety issue. The Coordinator cautioned that the board needed to look at the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations before they started calling plans scattered and premature. The Chairman asked if they should seek Town Counsel’s advice on how to word themselves to such applicants. The Coordinator replied that there were regulations in force and until the Board decided what they were going to do to change those regulations
their hands were tied. The Chairman thought that two issues needed to be considered, the first being the secondary access from the Klondike Corner area. The Coordinator noted that that would be part of the Bedford Road traffic study which would most likely not be done until the end of the year and until then applicants could still apply for their subdivisions knowing that they may be obligated to pay fair share improvements to Bedford Road or contribute funds toward its traffic study but whether the secondary egress is needed or not will be part of the study and cannot prevent applicants from going through their plan process before it is addressed. She added that the Board needed to think about what was needed to prevent subdivisions like this from applying in sensitive areas going forward if they felt that strongly about it. The Chairman asked about the cul-de-sac issues. The Coordinator replied that the plans the Chairman referred to met the letter
of the law. Don Duhaime agreed. Douglas Hill noted that the key to this issue was the poor condition of
Bedford Road and the amount of traffic that it handled. The Chairman stated that he was still offended by the offerings of a secondary access by the applicants involved which later became a possibility and then a possibly unlikely event. The Coordinator noted that the secondary access was always referred to as a possible option by the applicants. Douglas Hill was unsure of how it would hold up in court that the Board wanted the applicants to build a secondary access road over property they did not own. The Coordinator noted that the Bedford Road traffic study would put the Board in a more solid position to defend their feelings on this issue if it provided evidence that Bedford Road could not handle increased traffic. Don Duhaime noted that because the traffic study would not be addressed until later in the
year these applicants may be able to get their subdivision approved in the meantime following the Regulations in place. The Coordinator noted that they could be approved with conditions based on the outcome of the study although that would be foolish on their part as it could leave them open to anything. Douglas Hill thought that the likely outcome would be that the applicants would need to contribute offsite improvement funds to fix Bedford Road. The Coordinator noted that other landowners would be assessed for improvements also. Douglas Hill added that it would at least set a precedent for other subdivisions that would follow and would add up. He asked if it would be possible to negotiate with a developer so that they would put up more than their fair share to get their subdivision approved. The Coordinator replied that would work unless the study came back saying that there should be no more subdivisions done in the area. The Chairman
clarified that at best the applicants would have a conditional approval of their plan before the study was done. The Coordinator replied that was correct and given the scheduling of meetings and site walks, etc., it would take until the fall of 2007 anyway to get any new subdivision plan to that point. Douglas Hill asked if the applicants had their State permits. The Coordinator replied that they did not but she understood that the Shaky Pond plan along with the Lorden easement was over and above what the State was requiring for mitigation due to wetland impacts, therefore, they were making those concessions.
13. The minutes of April 10, 2007, were noted as having been distributed via email, for approval at the meeting of May 8, 2007, with or without changes.
14. Inspection reports for SHB Properties, LLC dated April 16th, 19th and 20th of 2007 from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, were distributed for the Board’s information.
15. A copy of NHDES Environmental Fact Sheet, re: Stump and Brush Management, was distributed for the Board’s information.
16. Read File: Public Hearing Notice for May 8, 2007, from Windham Board of Adjustment, re: construction, operation and maintenance of a wireless telecommunications facility.
17. Future planning issues discussion.
The Coordinator noted that because time had run out during the first hour of the meeting her memo had suggested that the board discuss these future planning issues under miscellaneous business instead since they were so important.
The Chairman stated that he had surveyed responses including those from Board members as to how the word “sprawl” as it applied to development was defined and noted that none had defined it in the same manner the Smart Growth Audit prepared by Jack Munn, SNHPC. He added that sprawl was rather, the type of development that those polled wanted to see in Town. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she was surprised by his comments. The Coordinator replied that she was. The Chairman stated that he did not wish to live on half acre parcel and preferred 10 or 20 acres. The Coordinator clarified that the Master Plan made reference to the fact that the Town should be considering different types of development and styles of subdivisions rather than having
all conventional designs. The Chairman quoted parts of the Smart Growth Audit that he found contrary to living in the Town: “…excessive land consumption…low densities compared with older centers…” where these were things that he preferred in a rural setting. Douglas Hill noted the quote: “…wide gaps between development and a scattered appearance…lack of choice and ways to travel”. The Chairman agreed that this was also a trait he liked about the Town. The Chairman noted another quote that he felt did not apply to the Town: “…lack of choice in housing types and prices…” which he said was a made up concept because prices varied from unaffordable to really unaffordable. He felt that “…separation of use in distinct areas…” was a true point but that whenever the Board tried to introduce something that might be workable such as a neighborhood store or small
commercial use the feedback was a “not in my neighborhood” response. The Chairman continued with “…repetitive one story development…” which he said did not apply, along with “…commercial buildings surrounded by acres of parking…”. He stated that “…lack of public spaces in community centers…” seemed to be a shortcoming that the Master Plan did not support, therefore, he would agree that there issues in New Boston but “sprawl” was not one of them. He referenced the earlier informational session which dealt with the proposed removal of a barn in the Village and noted that he thought the presenter was making a joke to reference the fact that some type of protective covenant was needed in this area, when in fact the consideration was a serious one. Douglas Hill noted that the two paragraphs below the quotes discussed mainly dealt with cars and travel times.
He thought that longer travel times to amenities were something people residing in New Boston accepted as a benefit of living in a rural area. The Chairman agreed. He felt that his children’s health and safety was more secure tucked away in his little sprawl versus in the city of Manchester, NH. He added that he believed the definition of “sprawl” was one of the most misunderstood definitions thrown around by anyone who wanted to prevent growth which was unfortunate. He returned to the subject of the barn proposed to be removed in Town and noted that he did not think that was the intention of supporting Commercial use. Don Duhaime noted that the barn was planned to be relocated somewhere else in Town and ornamental plantings placed at the removal site might work. The Planning Assistant noted that if the barn was a hardship to selling the property as she had heard then the owner could tear it down without any permission
needed anyway. The Chairman asked what problem the barn posed. The Planning Assistant replied that it inhibited Commercial use of the property because it took up space that could be used for parking. Douglas Hill noted that part of growth was inviting Commercial use into a town.
Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator her opinion on this issue. The Coordinator replied that the Future Land Use Chapter of the Master Plan gave this summary. She stated that the Master Plan committee had reviewed the entire Town in a best effort to get every department’s feedback along with forums, questionnaires, etc. The Coordinator added that a forum had been held at the School last April of 2006 which discussed how the Future Land Use Chapter would be organized. Douglas Hill asked if that was the forum that had also dealt with the issues of Open Space. The Coordinator replied that it was and that this was still being worked on with the Open Space Committee and Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission (SNHPC). The Chairman stated that he had
heard several people say that larger lots would be a good thing for the Town. Douglas Hill noted that that statement went against what was suggested for future planning as larger lots created longer roads and wasted more land for less density which was the whole point of suggesting open space designs. Don Duhaime thought that the opinions may differ between home buyers and developers and he thought many residents in Town liked to have their own space. Douglas Hill agreed. Don Duhaime inversely noted that if lots leaned more towards five acres this could slow down growth in the Town. Christine Quirk added that it could also increase the cost of housing. Douglas Hill stated that, as a developer, he saw that people moving to areas like New Boston had a different mindset than those who lived in more urban New Hampshire towns.
The Coordinator stated that the issue at hand was what should be done in the Town, given the 10,000 remaining open acres of land and whether open space should be considered as part of every development or some other combination of development design. She added that it was the Board’s charge to look at the information and opinions that were compiled by the Town to decide what it should look like in the future. Douglas Hill thought that it was a big responsibility for four people on the Planning Board to undertake. Don Duhaime noted that he had not seen anyone come before the Board since the concept of Open Space was introduced to suggest that type of subdivision design. The Coordinator noted that the pending preliminary subdivision applications were for
conventional designs and these applicants had gone through all their required engineering and were not going to switch gears at this stage just because a new Town ordinance said they could get two extra lots because of a density bonus. She further noted that unless the Board made such designs mandatory in certain areas they may not see it proposed as they would like. She referred to Douglas Hill’s comment of being “just four people” and noted that the Master Plan provided a compilation of input on the issue from a large portion of the Town to help them in their decision making process which could then be taken back to the Town for a vote. The Chairman did not think that the input of 25% of the Town should decide what, for example, Jim Dodge who owned 800 acres should do with his property. The Coordinator replied that the whole Town had an opportunity to provide input and regarding its outcome on those with large tracts of land this was part
of the Zoning and planning process. The Chairman thought that was outrageous. He thought that what needed to be challenged were the crazy people who have varied from the concept of New Hampshire as the “Live Free or Die” State as the Town kept coming up with regulations to place limits on landowners and he did not want to see conventional designs all over the Town. The Coordinator noted that there were options to prevent that and combinations of designs and setbacks that could work well within the Town’s Future Planning but it was up to the Planning Board to set these ideas in motion. Don Duhaime stated that many developers’ plans focused more on how many lots they could get instead of how pleasing the design appeared. The Chairman clarified that the Coordinator was suggesting that the Board could strive to change the Subdivision Regulations to reflect the types of development design they would like to see going forward.
He felt that these types of developments could be optional but should not be mandatory. The Coordinator noted that the ideas from the Master Plan that suggested multiple Zoning Districts and overlays were not meant to create more districts but rather to take what was in place and change it for the better so that, for example, the characteristics that people loved about the Village could remain. She added that once such Districts were in place the Subdivision Regulations could be changed to include open space even in conventional designs, different road standards, etc. The Coordinator noted that many people in Town thought that Zoning should be changed to accommodate what the Town could look like 20 to 30 years in the future but nothing would be accomplished without the Board considering these changes as applicants would continue to abide by present Regulations while the Board complained about what they would rather see. She stated that the Board needed
to come up with an agenda of points to discuss so that they could make some headway on these issues. Christine Quirk thought that the Board should read the packet distributed to them on future planning and be ready to discuss it at the next meeting. The Board agreed.
The Planning Assistant reminded Douglas Hill and Don Duhaime that they had signed up for the Annual Spring Planning Conference and that Stu Lewin, Planning Board, Bob Todd, LLS and Greg Mattison, ZBA, were also attending.
The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the Site Plan for Thomas & Christine Quirk, Tax Map/Lot #7/11, Cochran Hill Road.
At 10:35 p.m. Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn. Don Duhaime seconded the
motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien, Recording Clerk
| 
