 |
TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of July 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, Stu Lewin; ex-officio Gordon Carlstrom and alternate Barry Charest. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong and Planning Assistant Michele Brown.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were John Bunting, Brandy Mitroff, Bob Todd, LLS, Jean McCreary, Kimberly Messa, Anthony Eberhardt, Dave Ely, Dave Elliot, Rick Kohler, Burr Tupper & Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission, Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, Elliot Konner, Joan MacDonald, John Palmer, Al Bell and Christine Quirk.
Planning Board discussion, re: road regulations, multi-family dwellings, residential-agricultural district, etc.
The Coordinator stated that she had spoken with Town Counsel regarding the Board’s question from a previous discussion on multi-family dwellings that had to do with not wanting that type of property to have the option of becoming condominiums. She explained that Town Counsel had informed her that there was no way to prevent that from happening. Don Duhaime asked if the Site Plans for such properties could be noted as not being able become condominiums. The Coordinator replied that this could not be done. Don Duhaime asked if this meant that a multi-family dwelling could become a condominium at any time. The Coordinator replied that that was not necessarily so, however, the definition of subdivision included condominiums and the Town could not
discriminate against that option. She added that there had been many historical court cases where towns opposed condominium proposals from apartments and these towns never won such cases. The Chairman wondered if an option would be to make sure a proposed apartment was designed in such a way that no one would want to own it as a condominium. Don Duhaime suggested that small 2 bedroom apartments might be examples that would be discouraged from becoming condos. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the R-1 District did not have provisions for up to 8 unit apartment buildings. The Coordinator clarified that the stipulation was up to a 12 unit apartment building. The Chairman added that he had heard a radio discussion recently that addressed another concern the Board had raised in previous discussions regarding how to discourage large numbers of people from living in apartments designed for less which was to limit the parking. He noted that this might be
difficult to enforce but it was an option. Gordon Carlstrom thought that it might be a self enforcing issue as other renters would complain if their parking spaces were used by people from overflowing units.
Douglas Hill asked what the disadvantage was to condominiums versus apartments. The Chairman replied that it limited possibilities for individuals/families just starting out who might want to rent before jumping into the buying pool. Douglas Hill wondered if there might not be a property tax advantage that could be offered to owners of apartment buildings to prevent them from turning the units into condominiums. Gordon Carlstrom wondered if a tax break could outweigh the option to condex units and sell them. Douglas Hill noted that even if such units became condominiums they would still be likely to be rentals although that could not be guaranteed. The Chairman agreed that the ownership of an apartment building or individual condominiums might not be a point to debate. Gordon Carlstrom pointed out that
with condominiums came condo fees, higher mortgages and, as a result, higher rents. The Chairman wondered if an investor would opt to purchase an apartment building and convert the units to condos for the cash building factor. Douglas Hill noted that there were investors who opted to own apartments and collect rents instead of converting to condos as they preferred making steady returns on their investment much like the stock market.
From the audience, Dave Ely noted that one main point of affordable housing/multi-family housing was to offer renters the option of eventually affording out of the program, i.e., possibly purchasing a condominium and then building equity in that so that they could move into the main stream of market rate housing. The Chairman wondered if the Board was focusing too heavily on the apartment-to-condominium option. Dave Ely stated that in all likelihood, by offering affordable housing the Town would end up with a mix of apartments and condominiums. Douglas Hill noted that condominiums still provided a rentable option. From the audience, Brandy Mitroff asked how the properties for multi-family housing would be determined. The Chairman replied that the Board had
discussed the option of backlots for such housing with the option of increased side setbacks to create deeper buffers and render the site somewhat invisible to the community. Douglas Hill noted that landowners would benefit from multi-family zoning as it would make their property more valuable. Brandy Mitroff noted that she could see the opposite being argued by abutting landowners who might think their property would become devalued by having that type of zoning next to them. She asked if multi-family zoning would be considered as an overlay district as discussed in the Master Plan. The Chairman replied that it would be if property met certain criteria, for example, acreage, as a 2 acre lot would be too small for a multi-unit apartment building. He added that the Board may want to stipulate aesthetic design for such structures also. Don Duhaime agreed. Brandy Mitroff was unsure how aesthetics could be stipulated unless there was some sort
of design criteria in the Subdivision Regulations. Douglas Hill agreed that establishing such criteria would be a necessary step. Brandy Mitroff added that if the buffered protection the Board had discussed as being desired for multi-family housing sites was on abutting properties it was not guaranteed that it would remain so. The Chairman replied that the buffered setbacks that had been discussed previously for multi-family housing sites would be on those properties themselves and could be noted as visual buffers on their site plans to assure that they would remain as such.
The Chairman stated that another question the Board had discussed was the possibility of allowing larger homes in the Town such as old farm houses to rent rooms to tenants. The Coordinator clarified that this would qualify as an accessory unit in a detached building on a property where currently a rented portion must be attached to the main building on a property. From the audience, John Bunting wished to note that certain fire ordinances would accompany these options and may also be referenced in the Building Ordinance. He noted that code issues may come into play more than zoning issues for these proposals. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the Board was targeting apartments that might be turned into condominiums or remain as apartments. The Chairman replied that per
Town Counsel’s recent response to this question there was no way to prevent apartments from going condominium. Gordon Carlstrom noted that if this could not be prevented then that was considered R-1 District Zoning. Don Duhaime asked if minimizing the square footage of an apartment would deter it from becoming a condominium. Barry Charest recalled previous discussions where the Board had tried to decide a unit’s design related to this issue and he had agreed that a typical family starting out in an apartment was likely to want two bedrooms. Douglas Hill asked what acreage requirements would be needed for multi-family units. The Chairman noted that the Board had previously discussed that backlots would be appropriate for such structures and they had a minimum 5 acre requirements anyway which was appropriate, although a formula for units per acreage would be desirable. Dave Ely noted that the Master Plan had suggested performance based
zoning for land that would meet criteria for multi-family housing such as desirable land for septic system(s), no Steep Slopes, good road access, etc. Gordon Carlstrom asked if multiple septic systems and wells would be proposed for these sites or if individual systems would be installed. Dave Ely replied that it would be dependent on the land on a case by case basis. He added that there was precedent on such matters from other towns and State agencies such as the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority and other agencies in Manchester and Concord, NH. Gordon Carlstrom thought that Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission would also have access to such information.
The Chairman thought that the next step in this process would be to form a sub-committee that could discuss what the Board had gone over this evening. He asked Dave Ely if his wife, Ellen Kambol, would be interested in sitting on this committee. Dave Ely replied that he would ask her and thought that she might be interested in consulting and/or volunteering for the committee. Douglas Hill stated that he would be willing to sit on this committee also. The Chairman clarified that some type of advertisement would be needed to solicit volunteers. The Coordinator replied that that was correct. Douglas Hill asked what the charge would be for the committee that discussed multi-family and affordable housing. The Chairman replied that this committee would
look at Zoning to see what current districts would be suitable for this type of housing. The Coordinator noted that an option would be to rework the current R-1 District. Brandy Mitroff asked if the Coordinator would consider writing up a descriptive charge for the commercial development and housing committee proposals which could be put in the New Boston Bulletin. The Coordinator replied that she could write something brief that could go in the paper. She noted that the committee to discuss commercial zoning (still to be activated by the Board) currently had the following members: Joan MacDonald, Angela Fitzpatrick, Christine Pedzik, Burr Tupper, Jed Callen and Don Duhaime and Peter Hogan. The Coordinator asked the Board if they thought it might be a good idea to ask those who had expressed an interest in being on the committee to discuss commercial zoning if they would like to meet with the Board during the first half hour of a regular meeting so
that the Board could offer them some direction, i.e. a starting point for their discussions. The Chairman thought that commercial zoning along main routes of the Town along with spot zoning for commercial areas were two topics of interest. The Coordinator agreed that small scale commercial planning, combining uses in areas and satellite villages were other examples of these options. Douglas Hill asked that the minutes of the Planning Board meetings when these topics were discussed be made available at the time of the sub-committee meeting on the same topic. Gordon Carlstrom noted that he had seen examples of communities/developments located around small scale commercial businesses in areas like Nashua, NH., which he thought was an interesting concept. The Chairman added that it was also aesthetically pleasing to not have parking for small scale commercial businesses evident from the street. He noted that new neighborhood developments would be
more inclined to incorporate small scale commercial business rather than existing older neighborhoods in town and incentives could be offered to builders of these new developments to consider these options. Brandy Mitroff noted that certain traffic counts were needed in order for certain types of commercial businesses to be enticed to locate in these areas and it would be interesting to have that research done by the proposed commercial zoning subcommittee. The Chairman agreed. Stu Lewin noted that the area of Klondike Corner was also one which had been noted as a place for some sort of improvement and commercial development may be an option. Gordon Carlstrom and the Chairman agreed. The Coordinator noted that the developers that the Board was referencing were residential developers and not necessarily inclined to work in the venue of commercial development within their subdivisions. She also noted that current zoning was not conducive to these
types of commercial use. Brandy Mitroff added that there was not much road frontage in the Klondike Corner area for commercial use nor did she think patrons would travel off the beaten path to access that spot if a store were placed there. Dave Ely noted that this commercial zoning should be considered as a forward thinking concept and may not be just an idea for gas stations or coffee shops but professional offices or mixed use residential areas. Gordon Carlstrom agreed. He also thought that it would be a good idea to have the proposed commercial zoning subcommittee come back to the Board with research on traffic counts needed for successful small scale commercial business locations.
The Board agreed that they could discuss these topics with the members of the proposed commercial zoning committee for the first half hour of the next meeting. The second half of the planning hour would be to discuss road regulations, access issues, subdivision densities, drainage calculations and so on.
McCREARY, JEAN M.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Personal Service Establishment (fitness & therapy center)
Location: 18 High Street
Tax Map/Lot #18/2
Commercial “Com” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Bob Todd, LLS, and Rick Kohler of the offices of Robert Todd Land Use Surveyors, architect Dave Ely, contractor Dave Elliot, Anthony Eberhardt and Kimberly Messa, owners of New Boston Physical Therapy, LLC, and New Boston Health and Wellness Center, LLC, and the applicant Jean McCreary.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the site was commercially zoned with the majority of its
surrounding abutters being residential and some with mixed usage. He then noted the various locations on the plan that surrounded the applicant’s property and added that the road it was located on was a State highway 3 ½ rods wide. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the main structure on the site was a five bedroom house, 33’ high and that there was a barn with an open cellar that was used for parking. He added that the house was served by an offsite leach field and its location was noted on the second sheet of the plan. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the site on which the leach field was located, Tax Map/Lot #18/3, was also owned by the applicant and when said property was sold the connection to the leach field would be severed. He added that the 18 High Street site was 0.48 acres with 197.67’ of
frontage and an average depth of 115’. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the soil was Hinckley Loamy Sand (Group 1) and hydrologic group A, having minimal runoff. He added that there was forest vegetation on the steep slopes from the area of conservation land shown on the plan on Depot Street to the property owned by Gamekeeper Kennels. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the steep slopes on site went to the base of the hill and were greater than 15%. He explained that drainage occurred in a north/northwest direction coming off the highway and the site, flowing north onto the lot and being picked up by a catch basin in a low area adjacent to the barn. Bob Todd, LLS, added that it was assumed that this in turn connected to an underground pipe that joined with an outfall of reinforced concrete and an old stone culvert. He noted that this culvert would need to be addressed as it would interfere with the parking design proposed on the plan and NHDOT had
no drainage easement on top of the lot, therefore, were concerned how it would be treated. Bob Todd, LLS, assumed they would rework the culvert. He stated that the access from the street would be widened to 24’ and the barn would be removed and reassembled elsewhere for preservation. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the plan proposed a new septic system leaching area with a concrete chamber. Douglas Hill asked how this would affect the well on site as it seemed to be within its radius. Rick Kohler replied that they had requested a waiver from the State. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the cellar of the barn would be brought up to the grade of the proposed parking lot which would accommodate 14 spaces, one being a handicapped space. He added that the parking lot would be supported with retaining walls and timber guard rails. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the design concept of the parking lot was done by Sandford Surveying and Engineering and
showed the parking lot with a short turnaround area at the northern end and one entrance to accommodate two way traffic flow. He explained that calculations required 1 parking spot for every 250 s.f. of office space which would mean that the applicant needed 11 spaces, however, 14 were proposed. Stu Lewin asked if one handicapped space would be enough in the parking lot given the nature of the business. Anthony Eberhardt replied that at the businesses present location over the past two years he had barely needed the one handicapped parking spot that was provided, therefore, he felt this was adequate. He added that he did not anticipate expanding the business anymore than the size that it was now.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the applicant had successfully secured a variance from the ZBA for the parking area that was in the setback required for frontage and had a landscaping plan to provide a buffer with vegetation at the north end of the parking lot. Douglas Hill asked what an infiltration trench was as noted on the plan. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this was an excavated area sized to handle a 2 year return interval storm (90% of storms are of this status) and that it was also designed to address a 10 year intensity storm. He explained that the trench would be filled with material to accept runoff from the proposed paved areas and deposit it back on soils on the lot versus abutting properties. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the parking lot was graded to an area so
that runoff would come to a plunge pool at the end of the grassy swale which would gather larger floating debris. He further noted that this would require maintenance when filled to capacity and there would be a catch basin/check dam that would slow the velocity of the runoff before it reached the trench. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that this was why a pipe across the lot would need to be re-engineered to go under the lot and discharge on a slope. He noted that no additional drainage was being added to the site. The Chairman recalled suggesting a two-tiered parking lot in a previous meeting and presumed that this design was unworkable given the design being presented this evening. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this was looked at and found to be an awkward design for the site. The Chairman asked if asphalt paving was proposed for the parking lot. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was. He noted that the existing building coverage was 19% and
impervious surfaces 28% and the proposed design would result in building coverage of 12% with impervious surfaces of 40%.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that landscaping proposed included keeping a large existing maple tree, and adding 2 white fir trees (10’ tall), 2 cypress trees and 4 Eastern hemlock trees in a shady area to complete the proposed buffer. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the applicant had considered installing a 3’ or 4’ fence as a buffer. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that he had spoken with abutters regarding their preferences and thought this might be a good idea as well. Dave Ely noted that the proposed parking lot was lower in grade than abutting properties. Gordon Carlstrom asked the grade differential between the roadway and the parking lot. Dave Ely replied that the parking lot tapered down from the road 3’ to 7’ from south to north. Douglas
Hill asked what trees were noted on the plan to the right of “parking lot 6”. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that these were cypress trees between the edge of pavement and the proposed infiltration trench. He added that an existing perennial bed in front of the house would be replaced with shrub plantings. Brandy Mitroff suggested that a two rail fence might be an aesthetically pleasing buffer from the road and offer a more rural appearance to the commercial business. The Chairman added that something to detract from the parking lot design would be nice. Dave Ely returned to the subject of the Chairman’s suggestion of a two level parking lot and explained that this design was not workable as it would not have given them the parking spots they needed for the business. The Chairman thought that a fence with plantings would be a nice visual that would detract from the sight of the parking area. He added that he had also seen asphalt
surfaces that resembled brick. Dave Ely replied that he had seen these surfaces used in Groton, MA, and knew them to be prohibitively expensive. Anthony Eberhardt noted that he had a fixed amount of funds to spend on the design proposed which included a septic system and if such aesthetics were going to become requirements he might as well not move forward with the application. Dave Elliot wished to note that he had tried to work with different asphalt finishes over the years and found that they did not last more than 2 years. He added that he had never heard of a brick styled asphalt finish and was unsure of how the color would be processed, therefore, he guessed it was likely a colored concrete which would be impractical for a parking lot.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that a business sign was proposed on a granite post with lights shining on the surface. He noted the areas for snow plowing on site and clarified, with the help of Kimberly Messa, that that business hours were proposed as Monday through Thursday, 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Saturday, 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and closed on Sundays. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that 4 part time and two full time employees were proposed. Dave Ely stated that the existing 10’ porch would be removed off the existing house and be replaced with a 12’ heated room. He added that exterior lighting proposed would be rustic styled down lights for the parking lot that would only be on during business hours. He added that exterior lights
proposed on the side of the building would be low wattage (60-100 watts) and shine down on the walkway that led to the building. Dave Ely noted that there would be no spot lights or up lights and with the exception of the lighting on the business sign all exterior lighting would be low intensity lighting. Dave Elliott explained that the drainage issue would require an update to the existing storm culvert and that after meeting with NHDOT it was determined that it would be simple to replace it with an updated pipe which would decrease flows as it would eliminate a catch basin on the property. He added that NHDOT was anxious to have this addressed as they had no drainage easement on the site.
The Chairman asked if there were any questions from the Board. Gordon Carlstrom stated that he liked the idea of the visual break for the view of the parking lot by landscaping and/or fencing. Douglas Hill agreed. The Chairman added that the Board was more interested in having the parking area screened than the house and thought that instead of removing the existing perennial bed it might remain and give a residential look to the business. Gordon Carlstrom suggested that the parking spaces might be reallocated with shrubs placed on small islands in between them.
The Chairman stated that a date for adjournment was needed. Kimberly Messa asked why they needed another meeting. The Chairman explained that there were still several minor issues to be addressed. Anthony Eberhardt asked if a conditional approval of the plan was possible as they were waiting on that to purchase the property from Mrs. McCreary. The Chairman explained that the Board had not gotten through all the required information on the plan and more discussion was needed. Douglas Hill noted that the issue with NHDOT and the septic design waivers by the State were outstanding.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the application of Jean M. McCreary, NRSPR, Personal Service Establishment (fitness and therapy center), Location: 18 High Street, Tax Map/Lot #18/2, Commercial “Com” District, to August 14, 2007, at 8:00 p.m. Gordon Carlstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
SHAKY POND DEVELOPMENT, LLC Adjourned from 7/10/07
Work Session/Design review/Major Subdivision/27 Lots
Location: Susan Road
Tax Map/Lot #15/15
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was applicant Al Bell of Shaky Pond Development, LLC. Interested parties present were Burr Tupper and Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission and Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief.
The Chairman stated that a meeting with department heads regarding the application had not yet taken place. He explained that this was due to the fact that two parties who had major concerns with the plan were unable to attend the department meeting, therefore, it was slated for rescheduling sometime in the next month. He added that the applicants knew the Board’s opinions on the preliminary plan and also knew the opinions of the safety departments of the Town. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, wished to note that the Conservation Commission had since met and reviewed the plan and although they still wanted to go over certain considerations they theoretically supported the new plan. The Chairman stated that an important fact to consider was that in order
for the Board to support the plan which went against the recommendations of safety departments meant that they expected a certain amount of safety to be built into the plan design such as having a cistern installed at the midpoint of the proposed road even though fire sprinklers were planned for the homes on the lots also. Al Bell stated that they had considered this when the issue was raised and would be agreeable to installing a cistern. The Chairman noted that the applicants were likely to encounter aggressive resistance from the safety departments as it was their charge to primarily promote safety and welfare of residents. He added that it was the Planning Board's charge to get the best subdivisions possible for the Town while assuring that all laws were abided by.
Gordon Carlstrom asked if the utilities were proposed above or below ground. Al Bell replied that they were proposed to be underground. Gordon Carlstrom then asked if a green strip noted on the plan was an access to public land proposed by the applicants on the site. Al Bell replied that this was correct and that the access was 50’ wide so that cars could drive into the land and not be obtrusive to abutters by parking in the cul-de-sac. The Chairman then briefly reviewed the plan history so that ex-officio Gordon Carlstrom could be brought up to speed on its details as he had not been seated on the Board at the time the plan originally presented itself. Don Duhaime stated that the issue of increased traffic to the area of town where the subdivision was
proposed still remained. The Chairman noted that this plan was contingent on the results of the Town wide traffic study currently underway by the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission. Don Duhaime asked the applicants if they were agreeable to the fact that the traffic study might come back with results that said this plan could only go forward if an access road was constructed through the Bussiere property which they did not own. Al Bell replied that this was understood and they knew that they were taking a calculated risk which was part of the business. He added that they were currently looking for preliminary approval of their plan. The Chairman stated that the Planning Board’s next step would be to recommend that the plan be brought to final application status so that opinions from other Town committees/departments could proceed. He noted that the applicants still needed to obtain State Subdivision Approval and septic approval,
etc. Don Duhaime wished to clarify the purpose of the 50’ right-of-way proposed at the end of the cul-de-sac. Al Bell noted that this was for the Town’s access to the
public land they proposed from the site otherwise this area would be land locked. He added that in this way the Town might choose to have a dirt road and/or parking area for public access. Burr Tupper noted that the Town might not be ready to assume that kind of area as it may present safety issues. The Chairman agreed that the wrong element could use that area if it were that easily accessible. Cyndie Wilson noted that a 50’ access way would allow the Fire Department to get into the forest area in the event of brush fires in that area. The Chairman stated that they would need to wait on the opinions from the department meeting on that item.
Burr Tupper wished to note that although this plan may not present itself as the best design for the Town it was a great example of how a developer was willing to concede and work with the Town by showing a good faith effort to get a better design given the constraints of a site. Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, did not think a 1,900’ cul-de-sac was a model example. Burr Tupper clarified that he meant that the process of the application was a good example of developers working with the Town, not the design itself. Dan MacDonald pointed out that four departments were not in favor of the design. The Coordinator reiterated that the departments had not had their meeting yet which was scheduled for August 2, 2007.
Al Bell noted that Ray Shea would be present for a site walk the following evening with Stu Lewin (not a Board member at the time of the initial site walk) to familiarize him with the property.
Douglas Hill MOVED to conditionally approve the concept of the preliminary plan for a Major Subdivision/27 Lots, Location: Susan Road, Tax Map/Lot #15/15, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District and to inform the applicant to submit a completed application, pursuant to the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant is hereby notified that the "Conditional approval of a preliminary plan shall be valid for a period of one (1) year from the date of such conditional approval, at which time it shall become null and void, unless the condition has been performed or met, or unless extended in writing by the Board." (Subdivision Regulations, Section IV-E, 9.) Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JULY 24, 2007
1. Approval of the minutes of June 26, 2007, with or without changes, distributed via email.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of June 26, 2007, as written. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Driveway Permit for Elliot Konner, Clark Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/6, for the Board’s action. (drive by prior to meeting if needed)
Elliot Konner was present for this item. The Chairman stated that Town Counsel’s opinion on this matter was that the lot was grandfathered as a legal lot of record. He added that the ZBA had also granted a variance for the inadequate setback.
The Chairman asked about the septic design for the lot given that it was a fifth of an acre in size. Elliot Konner replied that it would be a tight fit and that they had obtained a waiver from the State for the well radius which would be an artesian design drawn up by Sandford Surveying and Engineering with a double cased water line. The Chairman asked what type of house was planned for such a small lot and what price he hoped to list it for. Elliot Konner replied that a two bedroom colonial was planned and he had no idea what it would be listed for as he was only an appraiser.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve Driveway Permit #07-003, Tax Map/Lot #8/6, Clark Hill Road, with the standard Planning Board requirements: this permit requires two inches (2") of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a minimal distance of twenty-five feet (25') 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 driveway shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60 - 90 degrees. Stu Lewin seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote and Stu Lewin and Douglas Hill voted in favor. Gordon Carlstrom and Don Duhaime were opposed. The Chairman voted the break the tie - AYE - and the motion PASSED and the driveway permit was approved.
3. Endorsement of a Site Plan for Mark R. Bilodeau, Tax Map/Lot #14/44, Joe English Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the above noted Site Plan.
4. A copy of a letter dated July 18, 2007, from William Matheson, IV, to the Board, re: Mont Vernon Road, Tax Map/Lot #14/116-2, Farm & Garden Tractor Sales & Service facility, for the Board’s action. (drive by prior to meeting)
The Chairman felt that upon viewing the site that the compliance items had been met which was that the fencing was installed, grass was growing, parking spaces established and the gate was present. Don Duhaime thought that the fence proposed was to be “L’ shaped but noted that the site looked better than it had previously. The Chairman thought that more fence had been installed than the plan had proposed and was pleased with the outcome. Douglas Hill thought that the fencing installed accomplished what it needed to.
Don Duhaime MOVED to confirm compliance for William R. Matheson, IV, re: Mont Vernon Road, Tax Map/Lot #14/116-2, Farm & Garden Tractor Sales & Service facility, and to return the security being held to the applicant. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
5. Distribution of materials, re: technical review committees and discussion of same.
The Chairman asked if all Board members had read the materials noted above which the Coordinator had prepared. All Board members noted that they had done so. Stu Lewin thought it might be a good idea to extend the basic rules to the technical review committee of how a plan could be assessed so that instead of just reviewing the proposed plan they could suggest ideas to make it more palatable. The Coordinator wished to offer some background information on technical review committees. She explained that the technical review committee or All Board meeting was proposed originally by Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, as a way of informally addressing issues that affected the Town by various departments at a joint meeting. She added that she had spoken with Town Counsel
regarding the legality of having such meetings outside the Planning Board and he had informed her that many towns did so and in different levels of complexity. She added that Town Counsel thought that the need for procedures regarding such meetings was minimal but that the Board could consider recognizing a set schedule, having the meetings open to the public and applicants that were being discussed, having minutes taken, etc. The Coordinator noted that such a technical committee would not make decisions on matter discussed but recommendations. She added that some towns opted not to have applicants present at these meetings but could be legally challenged on that point due to the Right to Know Law. Douglas Hill asked if Planning Board members could be in attendance. The Coordinator replied that if a certain number of Board members attended that could be considered a quorum which would require noticing abutters to plans and the concept of this was that
it was not to be a Planning Board meeting but a way that department heads in the Town could come together during their working hours and offer their input on proposed plans. Gordon Carlstrom thought that it made sense to have departments meet together rather than have their own separate meetings on the same issues. Burr Tupper noted that he had attended several of these meetings and thought that the dialogue was very productive. The Chairman thought that if applicants were invited then it would make sense to allow them to speak only if requested to do so. Douglas Hill asked who would chair such meetings. The Coordinator replied that any one of the department heads in attendance could do so. She noted that she had chaired some of these meetings as she brought the plans with her and had the information required for dialogue. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she also took the meeting minutes. The Coordinator replied that she did. The Chairman noted that because the
Coordinator’s minutes were, historically, so detailed as they were for the Planning Board, just reading the minutes she would take from a technical review committee meeting would accomplish the same as attending in person. The Coordinator noted that it might be helpful to come up with a standard meeting day for such meetings so that interested parties would become aware of when they were occurring. The Chairman offered that in an applicant’s case the Board could mention at their hearing that their application would be discussed at the next technical review meeting so that they had ample notice if they wished to attend. Burr Tupper noted that the meeting date could also be posted on the Town’s website. The Chairman thought it appropriate that the Coordinator chair such meetings as she would have all the details to funnel into the Board along with doing the minutes. Stu Lewin asked if such a committee would need to be documented as part
of the Board’s Rules of Procedures. The Coordinator replied that it could be noted as an advisory committee with a set monthly schedule with the stipulation that the Board could move ahead with action on a plan given statute deadlines if the technical review committee had not provided their recommendations in a timely fashion.
Dan MacDonald noted that the All Boards meetings were about synergy to discuss what was good for the Town and he had found it to be a great experience in the meetings he had attended thus far. Burr Tupper agreed that he had found these meetings to be informative, open and dynamic. The Coordinator noted that the next All Boards meeting was scheduled for August 2, 2007, and she would ask at that meeting what day would work best for a standard schedule going forward. The Board’s consensus was that All Board meetings would be productive for the Town. They also determined that they would note to an applicant at their hearing if their plan was due to be discussed at the next scheduled All Board meeting which would be a noticed meeting. The Chairman clarified
that as many Planning Board members that wished to attend an All Boards meeting could do so. The Coordinator replied that was correct as they had decided that the All Boards meetings would be noticed as long as the Board did not use such meetings as a quorum to make decisions about an applicant. Don Duhaime felt that the Planning Board should stay out of the All Boards meetings. Burr Tupper noted that particular departments should not dominate such a meeting and it might work well to have one representative from each department in attendance. The Chairman asked what types of Planning issues would fall under criteria for discussion at an All Boards meeting. Dan MacDonald thought that long range planning for Town property was one item. The Coordinator clarified that it would not be a bad idea to have any current applications in process run by the departments at the meeting in case anyone had comments. Douglas Hill asked if detailed topics
like drainage for site plans would be discussed. The Coordinator replied that she felt that more general overviews would be offered based on the knowledge of various departments. The Chairman echoed the Coordinator's previous statement that it was important for the Planning Board to not render any decisions if they attended these meetings and merely listen to discussion. He reiterated that reading the minutes of theses meetings which would be taken by the Coordinator would be the same as attending as the minutes would be as detailed as Planning Board minutes. Don Duhaime stated that the Board would need to keep an open mind and review what was said at these meetings including issues that were raised. Gordon Carlstrom added that the Board had asked for Town input over the years and an All Boards meeting provided an alternative format to that. Brandy Mitroff noted that all the Town boards worked very hard to accomplish the same goals and getting
them together to discuss similar issues would be more productive for everyone involved.
6. Daily road inspection reports dated, July 9-11 & 13, 2007, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: Christian Farm Estates, LLC, were distributed for the Board’s information.
Gordon Carlstrom commented that it looked as though erosion control had gotten off track. He asked Douglas Hill if things were resolved. Douglas Hill replied that they were.
7. The minutes of July 10, 2007, were noted as having been distributed by email for approval at the meeting of August 14, 2007, with or without changes. (Distributed by email, no copies.)
8. The Cistern Master Plan was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, was present for this item. The Chairman asked Dan MacDonald how he envisioned the Board using the Cistern Master Plan as a guideline given that the Fire Wards’ number one objective was that fire sprinkler systems be installed in all new homes in the town. Dan MacDonald replied that as a representative of the Fire Wards the basis for writing the Cistern Master Plan was to represent areas of Town that were in need of fire fighting water supply. He noted that the eastern side of Town was considered “water rich” because most of the new development was occurring in that area compared to the center and western side of Town. Dan MacDonald noted that because cisterns were considered infrastructure upgrades they had originally
asked if the Planning Board could promote the cause as the Fire Department also needed to ask for equipment upgrades at certain intervals by Town vote. The Coordinator noted that the Board in turn moved the cistern issue to a Selectmen line item as they did not think that the Town would vote for money the Planning Board requested to do such a project. Dan MacDonald stated that the Fire Wards believed that they had delivered in the Cistern Master Plan what the Board had requested of them.
The Chairman wondered if a solution to the cistern issue would be a new water supply truck, i.e., a mobile cistern of sorts, although he was aware that the Fire Department’s equipment seemed to be outgrowing its building. Dan MacDonald noted that while some towns had water supply trucks that held 3,500 gallons theirs held 2,000 gallons which was not always a reliable water supply for a fire. He recalled that the house fire on Inkberry several years prior had used 40K gallons which still had not saved the house. Dan MacDonald added that the limited fire fighting water supplies in Town were what spurred communications with the American Sprinkler Society and the formulation of the Town’s Sprinkler Ordinance as this was considered to be a proactive versus reactive
approach to fire fighting. He further added that research showed that fire sprinklers were successful 85% of the time in extinguishing fires (unsuccessful times were when the fire was in outbuildings, brushfires, or power outages disengaged the system’s operation).
Don Duhaime inquired about the Fire Department’s proposal to deliver notices to residents with offers to check sprinkler systems. Dan MacDonald noted that these notices had been delivered and the Fire Department would be glad to show residents how to maintain their systems as there was a need for that education. The Chairman stated that he had not been aware that the water supply trucks held so little water. Dan MacDonald asked the Chairman if he would like the Fire Department make a presentation on fire strategies to the Board. The Chairman thought that would be a good idea. Dan MacDonald noted that the Town had been cited as a model community for their water supply/cistern program. The Chairman thought that modifications to the Subdivision
Regulations were necessary to accurately reflect the Fire Department’s requests for fire protection in the Town along with an easy to follow rationale for why in some case both cisterns and fire sprinklers may be required for a development. He added that a downside to making these modifications was that the theory behind establishing affordable housing could suffer if a neighborhood of that design was required to install a $60K cistern.
Douglas Hill asked Dan MacDonald if the Fire Department would be requesting both cisterns and fire sprinklers for all new subdivisions in the Town going forward. Dan MacDonald replied that they were not leaning towards that. The Chairman thought than a “not all inclusive” list of criteria was needed for the regulations to establish when both means of fire fighting water supply would be necessary.
Dan MacDonald stated that he would organize a workshop for the Planning Board and Fire Wards to discuss the Fire Department's strategies, equipment, future planning, etc.
9. A copy of an email received July 24, 2007, from SNHPC, to Planning, re: Safe Routes to School, was distributed for the Board’s information.
In response to a comment from Stu Lewin, the Coordinator noted that she had emailed this information to Rick Matthews, Principal, New Boston Central School, earlier that day.
10. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing from the Town of Dublin for August 2, 2007, re: an installation of a telecommunications tower.
11. Christine Quirk was present and requested that the Planning Board inspect her garage for compliance. The Board determined that they would do so on an individual basis. The Coordinator noted that Craig Heafield had requested a compliance inspection for his stump grinding site on River Road. The Board determined that they would drive by this site also. The Coordinator stated that she would leave section copies of each of these site plans in the Board's bins and that she needed to hear from the Board prior to Friday, August 3, 2007, if there were any reasons that a compliance hearing should not be scheduled as that was the date for the notice letters to be mailed.
12. The Coordinator wished to discuss an item not listed on the Miscellaneous Business agenda. She noted that some of the recent confusion regarding cul-de-sac lengths stemmed from the language in the minutes of the Planning Board's meeting with the Fire Wards regarding this issue which ended with the Chairman stating: "…that this, along with the Police Chief and Road Agent's comments would provide the Planning Board with an unshakeable justification for not allowing anything longer than 1,000'." She noted that this was so categorical that at the next meeting the Board: "…noted that since that time the departments had met and determined that no cul-de-sacs should be approved over 1,000'", and additionally, Planning Board member James Nordstrom stated: "…that representatives of the Planning Board, Highway Department, Fire Wards and Police Department had met the previous evening and had determined that there would be no further support for cul-de-sac waiver requests for roads
over 1,000'. The Chairman noted that very compelling reasons were stated at the meeting." Don Duhaime agreed with the Coordinator. The Coordinator stated she was mentioning this because the Board should be aware that they should carefully word their statements as it seemed to the other departments that an agreement had been reached for 1,000' cul-de-sacs and the next proposal by an applicant had the Planning Board immediately considering waivers to that number.
The Chairman noted that he could not imagine a proposal that would make him waive the 1,000' and he was as surprised as the next man that he was willing to do so for this applicant. He noted that there were extremely compelling reasons with this subdivision that were causing him to entertain it but he was by no means setting a precedent.
13. The Chairman wished to end the meeting with an apology to the Highway Department for comments he had made without thinking at the Board's last meeting.
At 10:15 p.m. Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to adjourn. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien,
Recording Clerk
| |
