TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of September 25, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, Douglas Hill, Stu Lewin, Don Duhaime and alternate Jeff St. John. 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 were Brandy Mitroff, Rick Kohler, Bob Todd, LLS, Chris and Sue Misiorski, Bill Davidson, PE, Tris Gordon, Bob and Sharon Huettner, Charlie Cleary, Esq., John Laurer, Esq., John Young, Ken Pyzocha, Chuck Young and Burr Tupper.
Planning Board discussion, re: subdivision density, 200 foot square, lot shapes, etc.
The Chairman stated that the Board needed to clarify the language for utilization of the 200’ square placement on proposed lots as it was not always being interpreted in the way the Board would like it to be. He added the percentage of the 200’ square that needed to be behind the frontage needed to be better defined. Stu Lewin noted that he had some examples to present to the Board, graphically, for the next meeting as he was still compiling information. Don Duhaime stated that he had always interpreted the 200’ square as the building envelope and thought that the Board might just require a minimum 225’ of frontage on proposed lots to simplify the issue. Douglas Hill wished to clarify that they were discussing traditional lots versus
open space designs/cluster neighborhoods which would not always be able to have that frontage measure due to their configuration. The Coordinator replied that was correct and noted that in the R-1 District where lot sizes required less acreage the square only needed to be 150’ so there was a relationship between the type of lot and the characteristics of the square. The Chairman suggested that for traditional lots the language could read that the 200’ square needed to be set at the 50’ setback line and behind the lot’s frontage. Stu Lewin asked if the 200’ square needed to sit within the side setbacks of a lot also. The Coordinator replied that it did not need to and could go right to the edge of the property line. Don Duhaime thought it might be a good idea to have the 200’ square sit within the setbacks of a lot on all 4 sides. The Chairman added that the square should still line up behind the lot’s
frontage as well. Don Duhaime suggested that the 200’ square and the building envelope be tied together more closely by definition. The Board then reviewed some of the example lots that the Coordinator had copied to the Board at the last meeting’s discussion on this issue.
Douglas Hill noted that Pheasant Lane had a very large cul-de-sac as the lots off of it had 200’ of frontage, however, other cul-de-sac subdivisions in the Town had smaller cul-de-sac circles and their lots did not have 200’ of frontage. He wondered how a 200’ square was feasible on lots like those. Don Duhaime felt that even angled lots such as those on cul-de-sacs had widths of 200’ at some point in their setbacks even thought the frontage itself might not be 200’. Stu Lewin stated that this was why he felt the measure of the frontage should consider the tangent of the curves where the lot line met the road. The Coordinator stated that the Board did not have a good basis to say they could not approve lots with this ambiguity
without changing the language in the Regulations and tightening the intent. Don Duhaime noted that the Subdivision Regulations stipulated that 200’ squares be behind the 50’ setback not the frontage of a lot. He asked why in the R-1 District the square was 150’ versus 200’. The Coordinator replied that this was due to the fact that a single family lot in the R-1 District needed to be minimum 1.5 acres versus 2.0. Don Duhaime thought that language to tighten up the intent could state that in the R-1 District, for example, a 150’ X 150’ square needed to be located within all setback limits. Stu Lewin still thought that the square should be centered behind the center of the frontage measure. The Chairman asked, for clarification purposes, what the Board would be trying to prevent by assuring that 200’ squares were centered behind a lot’s frontage. Don Duhaime thought that this would
prevent 200’ squares from being located in wetlands on a lot in order to qualify it as buildable. Douglas Hill thought that this was the purpose of building envelopes. Don Duhaime suggested that 200’ square locations and building envelopes be tied together in their requirements. The Chairman asked if the Board would want the 200’ square to represent a certain configuration of a lot such as utilizing its 200’ frontage much like proposed driveways needed to be through the frontage for a lot in order to make the lot viable. He asked Bob Todd, LLS, who was in the audience for an upcoming hearing, his thoughts on the issue. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that a building envelope for a lot was tied to its 200’ square by either encompassing it or being some fraction of it. The Chairman offered the example of a lot on Arrowwood Drive where three quarters of its 200’ square was located in wetlands on the lot and the driveway
accessed the house by skirting around these wetlands. He noted that while this was an example of manipulating the 200’ square this lot was actually a good building lot because of how it had been configured. In contrast he added that he did take issue with the Fairbairn application which was to present later in the evening due to its placement of the 200’ square in relation to its frontage. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that his understanding of the intent of the 200’ square was to prohibit “bowling alley” shaped lots as they would not accommodate the required 75’ well radius, 4K septic site and house site. He added that there was no rule for the Town that stated building construction must occur in a lot’s 200’ square. The Chairman agreed as if that were the case then the house would always need to be at the front portion of the lot. Don Duhaime reiterated that to accomplish the intent the Board was after
the 200’ square should be within the front and side setback limits of its lot. The Chairman added that the 200’ square should also be centered behind its frontage. Don Duhaime thought that the frontage was irrelevant as building could not occur within the first 50’ of the lot but if the 200’ square was kept within the front and side setbacks the intent could be accomplished. Douglas Hill noted that he did not think this could be accomplished on a cul-de-sac lot. The Chairman clarified that in order for this to work there would need to be bigger lots, more back lots and bigger cul-de-sacs in certain subdivisions. Douglas Hill agreed and added that having the 200’ square comply to the setbacks mentioned would be another way to encourage open space development in the Town. The Chairman noted that if the 200’ square were to be required to be located in line with a lot’s 200’ frontage then many lots
would not be lots and this needed to be clarified sooner rather than later. Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator what percentage of lots in Town had this issue. The Coordinator replied that it was a small percentage. Douglas Hill thought that the intention the Board was trying to convey in the placement of the 200’ square was most important rather than having literal language added to the Regulations that might result in some unintended consequences for other lots. The Chairman thought that the setting of the 200’ square behind a lot’s frontage was intending that a road was in front of the lot but as different scenarios were presented to the Board they could make the clarification that the 200’ square was within a lot’s setback limits, parallel, and behind road frontage.
Public Hearing for PSNH regarding pole placement and transmission lines and for RSA 674:30 regarding waiver of conditional use permit requirements.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Ken Pyzocha and Chuck Young of Ambient Engineering. No interested parties were present.
The Chairman stated that the Board had seen the plan previously and understood the proposal. The Board had no issues with the waiver requested and a formal motion was all that was required.
Douglas Hill MOVED to waive the conditional use permit requirement for PSNH regarding pole placement and transmission lines for 0.7 miles of transmission line and 8 poles, some of which are located in the wetland or wetland buffers, per allowance of RSA 674:30 for the furnishing of utility service for the public health, safety or general welfare and noting that the replacement of the poles in the same location as currently situated and the reduction in total numbers of poles are compelling reasons to do so.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 7:25 p.m. the Board took a 10 minute break.
Douglas Hill recused himself from the Board as he was an abutter to the next hearing.
FAIRBAIRN, GERALD R. & DONA M. Adjourned from 9/11/07
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Minor Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: Bedford Road and Pheasant Lane
Tax Map/Lot #8/75
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Bob Todd, LLS, and Rick Kohler of Robert Todd Land Use Surveyors. An abutter present was Douglas Hill. Interested parties present were Chris and Sue Misiorski.
Rick Kohler stated that at the previous hearing the Board had voted to grant the waiver requested for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan being stamped by a PE, however, the Soils Map, Traffic and Fiscal Studies had not been addressed for waivers due to the Board’s request that the plans be revised to include a building envelope for the proposed lot. He noted that this was indicated on both the Stormwater Management Plan for the lot and the Subdivision Plan. The Chairman requested that Rick Kohler highlight the building envelope on the plan.
Rick Kohler did so. He noted that the building envelope encompassed all the proposed drainage improvements on the Stormwater Management Plan. The Chairman asked what was represented by the cross hatched area on the plan which the building envelope ran through. Rick Kohler replied that this was the 4K area of the site and showed that proposed setbacks from structures would be maintained. He noted that per concerns expressed after the site walk was held the orientation of the house and garage had been changed to reflect a distance from the pins of 80.7’ and 80.3’ versus 30’. Rick Kohler added that the southern end of the proposed garage was 190’ from the parent house and the northwest corner was over 200’ from the corner of an abutter’s garage. The Chairman asked why
the lot line had been moved so far from the parent house. Rick Kohler replied that this had been done to maximize the wood buffer. The Chairman stated that he would prefer a superior design on the upper hill portion of the site even though it would be closer to the parent house. Rick Kohler replied that it was his understanding from the last meeting that there had been concern over the lack of woods buffer and that they were now proposing the revised design as it was also considered the best way to control stormwater runoff unlike the previous design. The Chairman thought that the previous design would take care of water issues versus having a terraced lot which would limit yard space and usage. The Chairman asked how the Board could gain the assurance that this would be done. Don Duhaime suggested that a “no cut” line could be established 25’ off the property line. Rick Kohler noted that some tree removal would be
necessary since the existing terrace on the site was sparsely wooded but he did not see where the developable portion of the lot would be on critical slopes without a legitimate plan. The Coordinator noted that if anyone proposed something different than the approved plan a new one would be needed before the Building Inspector could issue a Building Permit.
From the audience, Douglas Hill questioned an item drawn in the building envelope that did not seem specific to the terrain on site. Rick Kohler explained that this was a proposed swale which was considered a structure by the Zoning Ordinance definition. The Chairman asked if items within the building envelope could be noted as “a” and “b” with “a” for living area and “b” for drainage. Douglas Hill commented that if no engineering design were done for the plan then all the trees were likely to be removed. Don Duhaime asked if permanent structures could be built within setbacks. The Chairman replied that they could not but asked the Coordinator if drainage structures were allowed. The Coordinator replied that
they were as defined by Zoning. Interested party Chris Misiorski asked what limitations were involved. Rick Kohler replied that they would involve the proposed limits on where the drainage structure could be located. The Chairman suggested that within the drainage design envelope “b” could note that no vegetation was to be removed within 20’ of the lot line. Rick Kohler clarified that a line could be proposed on the plan for tree preservation. The Chairman stated that this would force the engineer to work within those lines. Bob Todd, LLS, added that if areas proposed for reforestation were part of the lot’s individual Stormwater Management Plan that could be a requirement. The Chairman agreed and clarified that the plan could note that any removal of the existing woods buffer would require reforestation. Douglas Hill asked that the Board consider the abutting subdivision on Pheasant Lane and the fact that if
this site had been proposed when that subdivision was in process it would not have been considered since it did not fit within the requirements Pheasant Lane was held to. The Chairman noted that this was a unique scenario as the road for the Pheasant Lane subdivision went in abutting the site not through it, therefore, this property was never part of the existing subdivision. He added that he thought the 200’ square should be directly behind the frontage by which the proposed lot was represented. The Chairman further added that the Board’s prior enforcement and interpretation of this did not support that opinion as well as it should. He asked if Town Counsel should review any language noted for this on the plan so that the Board had the assurance that it sufficiently represented their preferences. Don Duhaime thought this should be done. Chris Misiorski asked if the proposed lot had the required road frontage. The Chairman
replied that the Board had much discussion on the issue and while the short answer was “yes” only because the 200’ square fit within the 50’ setback lines, the long answer was “no”. Chris Misiorski asked if the proposed lot could be considered a backlot. Rick Kohler replied that the proposed lot would then be required to have 50’ of frontage and that would need to associate with the frontage on the parent lot. He explained that the proposed lot’s acreage was just under 4 and the existing house lot was then left with 3.4. Rick Kohler noted that they could reduce the parent lot to 2.4 acres to get the required backlot acreage (5.0) for the proposed lot but would need to choke its frontage down to 50’.
The Coordinator noted that the waiver for the requirement of a PE stamp for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan which Rick Kohler had referred to at the start of the meeting had actually been granted on another application they were associated with, not this one. She added that other waiver requests the Board needed to consider were for 3 copies of the Soils Maps along with Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. The Coordinator noted that there was a plan proposed to address environmental impacts even though it was not a formal study per se.
Don Duhaime MOVED to grant the waivers requested for three copies of the Soils Maps and the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies per Bob Todd, LLS’s memo of 7/27/07. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Stu Lewin MOVED to accept the application of Gerald R. and Dona M. Fairbairn, Minor Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Bedford Road and Pheasant Lane, Tax Map/Lot #8/75, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the Board’s deadline for action was November 29, 2007.
The Chairman questioned how the driveway to the parent lot had ended up where it was as it appeared to cross over the old Class VI road that was originally part of Bedford Road. He noted that a Driveway Permit from 1984 stated that this driveway was intended to cross over the lot’s frontage. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the Class VI road’s status was unknown but he did know that it was never properly discontinued. He added that he had researched this back to the date when Bedford Road was relocated and it would need to be determined if the driveway crossed the half of the old road that would go with the parent lot or not. Don Duhaime thought this would only apply if the road had been abandoned but noted that Bob Todd, LLS, had said that the Class VI road
had not been discontinued. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it still did not encroach on the abutter, however, there were no records of any variances granted. The Chairman asked when this portion of Bedford Road was moved. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this was done in the early 1960’s. Chris Misiorski noted that there had also been some discussion on whether the land owner on the opposite side had given up land rights when this was done. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this was a dedication issue in the selling of the property and that an attorney doing title work may be able to decipher how this had played out but he was unsure of the answer.
Rick Kohler returned to the subject of reforestation and stated that the wording discussed could be added to the plan. The Chairman thought that either version of the plan was satisfactory as the second one dealt with the water issue on site while the first one avoided it. Don Duhaime thought that the reforestation language should contain something about no saplings being replanted. Bob Todd, LLS, clarified that a planting schedule specific to tree species and size could be determined. Rick Kohler stated that he would confer with the applicant. The Chairman reiterated that neither plan design bothered him but he wanted the assurance that the stipulations/schedule discussed would be noted on the plan that they ended up going with. Rick Kohler replied that
this was understood. The Chairman thought that with the right restraints and planning the site would work well for what was proposed.
The Coordinator reminded the Board that they needed to act on the waiver requested for the requirement of a PE stamp for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
Don Duhaime MOVED to grant the waiver requested by Bob Todd, LLS, in his memo dated 8/30/07, for the requirement of a PE stamp to the Stormwater Management Plan. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Stu Lewin MOVED to adjourn the application of Gerald R. and Dona M. Fairbairn, Minor Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Bedford Road and Pheasant Lane, Tax Map/Lot #8/75, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to November 13, 2007, at 7:30 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
TWIN BRIDGE MANAGEMENT, LLC Adjourned from 9/11/07
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/23 Lots
Location: Twin Bridge Road
Tax Map/Lot #2/62 & 3/3
Manufactured Housing Park "MHP" District (single family per "R-1" District)
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Bill Davidson, PE, of Meridian Land Services, Charlie Cleary, Esq., John Laurer, Esq., Sharon Huettner and the applicants, Tris Gordon and Bob Huettner of Twin Bridge Management, LLC.
Interested parties present were Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission and Brandy Mitroff. No abutters were present.
Bill Davidson, PE, stated that the site walk had been held recently with members of the Board. He added that they had submitted Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies per the Board’s request along with a Traffic Study with updated numbers from a previous subdivision plan. He noted that the applicants sought acceptance of the completeness of the application this evening along with discussion on the engineering review process. The Chairman asked if fire sprinkler systems were proposed. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that three of the lots proposed fire sprinkler systems as they were beyond the limits required from an existing cistern. He added that this was noted on the plan and in the covenants for the subdivision. The Coordinator noted that there was a
waiver requested for the timing of naming the road. Bill Davidson, PE, explained that John Bunting had been on vacation and as a result they were unable to get on the Selectmen’s meeting agenda to discuss the road name.
Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the waiver requested regarding submission of road name approval and to allow acceptance of the application as complete without it. Road name approval to be submitted at a future date. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Stu Lewin MOVED to accept the application of Twin Bridge Management, LLC, Major Subdivision, 23 Lots, Location: Twin Bridge Road, Tax Map/Lot #2/62 & 3/3, Manufactured House Park “MHP” (single family per R-1 District), as complete. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the Board’s deadline for action was November 29, 2007.
Burr Tupper asked if any consideration had been given to proposals for conservation easements on the site and if the applicants were aware of the Wetland Ordinance requirements for 50’ setbacks from wetlands and vegetative buffers. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that they were aware of the 50’ setback requirements and these were shown on the plans. He added that two proposed lots in the rear of the site would have “no cut/no build” limits as was discussed at a prior meeting. The Chairman recalled that the applicants had been willing to offer these concessions. Burr Tupper recalled that there was a past history with this applicant with cutting trees near the Piscataquog River for other subdivisions. He also wished to note that NHDES was now
enforcing wetland crossings at 1.2 times the full bank width and asked if that was how the crossings on this project had been designed. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that he was aware of this and that the box culverts proposed for the subdivision incorporated this width. Burr Tupper asked if any considerations to a conservation easement were thought of for lot #2/62-12 which seemed to have fairly significant wetlands. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that at the time of the wetland permitting process this lot was excepted from the no further disturbance requirement and the applicants had shown where two wetland crossings would go if any subdivision was done off the site in the future. The Chairman noted that another answer was the fact that with a 1,000’ cul-de-sac the applicants could not get past a second crossing and would need to come in from another direction. Burr Tupper noted that the applicants could extend their road through if they purchased
additional property. He added that, in his opinion as a resident, it would be good public relations on the applicants’ part if a conservation easement was added to the plan.
The Chairman asked what was represented by the square outline at the base of the plan. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that this was Lot #3/3 as it existed currently. Burr Tupper noted that the Conservation Commission was in the process of having small tag signs prepared that marked 50’ buffers from wetlands in perpetuity and they had been asking developers in the application process it they would be willing to have such signs posted where applicable for their subdivisions. Tris Gordon and Bob Huettner replied that they would be agreeable to having such signs posted. The Coordinator asked Tris Gordon if a future connection off the lot at the rear of the plan, Tax Map/Lot #3/5, was likely. Tris Gordon replied that it was not likely at this point in time although it
was a future possibility. The Coordinator stated that Paul Morin of the Weare, NH, planning board had asked her to pass onto the Board that they would like the applicants’ subdivision considered for regional impact status. She noted that, given this consideration, the next step would be to consider the formulation of a motion. Tris Gordon noted that he had supplied a full set of plans and a copy of the Traffic Study to SNHPC. The Coordinator replied that SNHPC would be getting back to the Board regarding their review of that material by October 9, 2007. Burr Tupper asked if the Conservation Commission had received a copy of the Environmental Impact Study. The Coordinator replied that the Board had a copy but that it had not yet been distributed out. Don Duhaime referred to the three lots at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac and asked why the Board had required no further subdivision on only 2 out of the 3. The Chairman replied
that the two lots noted had no further subdivision stipulations for environmental reasons and there was no reason that the third lot in question would not be subdivided at some point in time because it contained the gravel pit and it would be a good candidate for a subdivision once the pit was reclaimed. Don Duhaime stated that he would want the assurance of a safe buffer being maintained from the Piscataquog River and asked how far it was from the property line to the river. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that it was 120’. Douglas Hill asked the applicants if they would be willing to add additional footage to this. Tris Gordon replied that they would be willing to abide by the stipulations of the Shoreland Protection Act; a 250’ distance. Douglas Hill asked if there were offsite road improvement issues associated with the plan. The Coordinator replied that another layer of pavement was being planned for Twin Bridge Road currently.
Burr Tupper noted that the Technical Review Committee and the Fire Department had questioned the turnaround ability for school buses in this area since it abutted the town line. Bob Huettner noted that there was a widened turnaround area at the town line already for this purpose.
Burr Tupper stated that he liked the plan’s revised design better than the previous one and asked that the applicants consider conservation easements to lot #2/62-12 because it would buy some good will with the Town and also because there was a significant wetland area with a lot of animal traffic in the surrounding wild life corridors which could see road crossings at some point in the future if permits to cross those areas were ever initiated. Attorney John Laurer noted that there were no plans currently to do anything with that lot and if there were in the future, the applicants would need to appear before the Board again. Tris Gordon noted that although he had no plans for that lot he did not want to tie his hands at this point in the process.
Douglas Hill asked if a full plan of the surrounding area could be provided for the next meeting. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that this could be done. The Chairman thought that it would not hurt to move the lot line of Lot #2/62-22 to encompass all the wetlands between that lot and #2/62-12, and expand the lot that the applicant was granting conservation easements on. Tris Gordon replied that he would be agreeable to doing so. Burr Tupper thought this would be a better scenario. He offered the example of another owner/developer, the Lorden family, who had come back with a plan for subdivision that included large vernal pools and a wetland lot along with a vegetative buffer linked to conservation land. The Chairman agreed with Douglas Hill’s request noting
that an overview of subdivision going on in the area to the site would be helpful. Tris Gordon asked if the plans would need to be revised for the State in making these changes. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that this would not be needed as the lots in question were over 5 acres. The Chairman suggested that setback lines be used to mark the area and that if as much of the wetlands could be encompassed as possible it would enable the wording for the conservation easement within that lot to be simple and lean. Burr Tupper added that it would also make for easier monitoring. The Chairman wished to clarify that the applicants had agreed to a conservation easement for this lot. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that the requirements of the Shoreland Protection Act could be carried for the easement. Burr Tupper noted that it would be easier for the Piscataquog Watershed Association to hold such an easement versus the Conservation Commission. The
Chairman asked if the applicant was willing to grant an easement for the “no cut/no build/no disturbance” areas. Charlie Cleary, Esq., replied that the applicants could agree to this but it was really unnecessary as this was a condition of approval. Bob Huettner stated that the PWA could contact him on this matter if they wished. The Chairman clarified that the applicants were willing to discuss these matters but did not want to be unnecessarily delayed or have to pay a lot of money to do so. Burr Tupper offered to approach the PWA regarding this matter.
The Coordinator noted that the topic of regional impact needed to be considered as, without a formal motion by the Board, the other parties would not be afforded the status of abutters.
Stu Lewin MOVED that this subdivision be considered as having regional impact according to the criteria provided by SNHPC #1, “Proposed developments directly adjacent to a municipal boundary” and that the steps listed in SNHPC's guidelines be followed. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Charlie Cleary, Esq., questioned the motion. The Chairman stated that the plan shared a lot line with an abutting town. Douglas Hill added that the plan met the first guideline of the set of criteria to be considered a regional impact which was the minimum required.
The Coordinator stated that the plan could now be forwarded to the Town Engineer and to Town Counsel. She added that an additional full set copy was required for the Town Engineer. Bill Davidson, PE, then provided this set to the Coordinator.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the application of Twin Bridge Management, LLC, Major Subdivision, 23 Lots, Location: Twin Bridge Road, Tax Map/Lot #2/62 & 3/3,
Manufactured House Park “MHP” (single family per R-1 District), to November 13, 2007 at 8:00 p.m. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
YOUNG, JOHN H. & RITA K. Adjourned from 9/11/07
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/4 Lots
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/41
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, and Rick Kohler of Robert Todd Land Use Surveyors and the applicant John Young. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Rick Kohler stated that they had met with the Road Agent regarding culverts on site and he was satisfied with proposed 18” culverts being placed relative to the dedication line versus the existing property line in case Beard Road was upgraded. He noted that this was reflected on the plan. Bob Todd, LLS, added that a building envelope had been placed on lot #5/41-4 and a third culvert was proposed east of an existing culvert that ran diagonally to the road. He noted that the location of an existing drainage easement was added to the plan. Don Duhaime still thought that there would still be sight distance issues from the proposed driveways and that three existing power poles should be relocated. The Chairman wondered if these poles would cause sight
interference. Rick Kohler noted that the Road Agent was aware of the pole placement relative to the proposed driveways but anticipated their realignment toward the dedication line as part of the Beard Road upgrades. The Coordinator asked if there would be a time frame for sight distance work given the fact that gaining sight distance for one proposed driveway may rely on the clearing of vegetation from another. She noted that she had checked with the Road Agent about vegetation being cleared from the right-of-ways even if it was in front of another lot and he had said that this was allowed. The Chairman noted that the proposed driveways would not gain approval until sight distance was established. Bob Todd, LLS, clarified that the final inspection culminated with the Road Agent’s sign off. The Chairman added that the Planning Board also reviewed driveways before sign offs if they felt there was a grade issue. The Coordinator stated
that the point she was trying to make was a scenario where one lot was sold and its driveway constructed, however, sight distance from that driveway was impeded until the abutting lot of the subdivision was purchased and cleared and a CO could not be issued until that was resolved. Don Duhaime stated that this had been his point and he thought that the necessary clearing should take place first with the poles moved before the road was upgraded. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the poles in question were not intercepted by lines of sight on the plan. Don Duhaime felt that the proposed driveway to the first lot was affected by two poles. The Chairman did not think that these poles would impede sight distance and block the view of a car coming down the road.
The Coordinator asked if Rick Kohler could point out the lot on the plan that would require the most excavation for installation of the driveway. Rick Kohler noted this on the plan and added that the lot would require major excavation and removal of an existing wall made up of large boulders. The Chairman noted that this area was likely to have bank work done while the equipment was on site. John Young stated that the problem was that they did not know when or if the upgrades to Beard Road would be done. Douglas Hill explained to John Young that his plan design proposals were based on the road in its present condition and that the Town would do their upgrades in accordance with the site work that was done. Douglas Hill asked if the cost of the culverts proposed
by the applicant could be deducted from the offsite improvement costs since that would have been the Town’s responsibility in road upgrades. The Chairman stated that he did not agree with that rationale and felt that sight distance for the lots needed to be addressed before they were sold. Bob Todd, LLS, clarified that the sight distance would need to be based on As Built conditions. The Chairman agreed and noted that when the Road Agent widened the road he would be dealing with the road shoulders in his own way and he was unsure how the applicant could anticipate where to set the proposed culverts based on this. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the culverts could be set back to the dedication line. The Chairman stated that the culverts needed placement and sight distance established based on current road conditions. Don Duhaime thought that more site work for this cause would be involved than what the Board was discussing. Rick Kohler noted
that the sight distance for the first driveway on the plan was a vegetation clearing issue along with the removal of some stonewall remnants. Don Duhaime added that when the third proposed driveway on the plan was constructed it would take care of any sight issue that the fourth would encounter as clearing would need to take place easterly and westerly of the backlot. John Young stated that he would establish the sight distance himself with his own equipment provided he could get a permit from the Town to do so. Douglas Hill replied that he did not think the applicant would need a permit to do this. The Chairman reiterated that he had never considered a telephone pole to be a significant sight distance issue due to its width. The Coordinator clarified that the crux of the issue was that securing a Driveway Permit required sight distance, however, sight distance was needed to do the driveway constructions in this case. The Chairman offered that
the Board could consider approving the subdivision but hold the driveway permits and then view the driveways once notified that sight distance was established. Douglas Hill added that another option would be that the applicant could sell the lot, however, the owner could not get a Building Permit until sight distance was established.
John Young asked how long money for offsite improvement fees was kept in escrow and what triggered its return. The Coordinator replied that the money was kept in escrow for up to 6 years from the date it was collected and was then returned if the Town had not used the funds.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the Major Subdivision/4 Lots, Land of John and Rita Young, Tax Map/Lot #5/41, Beard Road, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of five (5) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,
including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing and revised stormwater management plans;
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD;
3. Submission of the offsite improvement fee in the amount of $20,636.55;
4. Submission of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application or
recording of documents at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be April 01, 2008, 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 the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. Sprinkler systems shall be installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee before the occupancy of any dwelling in the approved subdivision, in accordance with Chapter NB-5.0 of the Town of New Boston Building Code before the occupancy of any dwelling in the approved
subdivision.
2. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until the sprinkler systems are installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee, in accordance with Chapter NB-5.0 of the Town of New Boston Buildin Code. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2007
1. Discussion, re: Planning Board goals for 2008.
The Coordinator explained that as part of her review the Town Administrator liked to have the Planning Board’s goals for the upcoming year. Don Duahime stated that commercial zoning and multi-family housing were some of those goals. The Chairman suggested that the Board think about these goals and this would be the first part of the discussion at the next meeting. Stu Lewin asked if he could have a list of last year’s goals for review. The Coordinator noted that the Board also had discussion scheduled with the Small Scale Commercial Committee from 6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the next meeting which meant that the time for Planning discussion was limited to a half hour (7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.).
2. Discussion, re: New Boston Energy Committee events on November 03, 2007.
The Coordinator stated that this function would occur at the Community Church and they would like to have a representative from the Planning Board attend. Stu Lewin offered to attend the event.
3. Approval of minutes of August 28, 2007, with or without changes, distributed by email.
Stu Lewin MOVED to approve the minutes of August 28, 2007, as written. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
4. A copy of a letter received September 21, 2007, from George Merrill, Route 114 Self Storage, to New Boston Planning Board Members, re: request for extensions on conditions subsequent, for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator explained that the plan had been approved on 12/10/02, with a compliance date of 10/01/05 and the first extension was granted to 11/01/07.
Don Duhaime MOVED to extend the conditions subsequent for George Merrill, Route 114 Self Storage, to September 01, 2009. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
5. A copy of a faxed letter received September 21, 2007, from Jaqueline M. Bussiere, to New Boston Planning Department, re: request for 12 month extension on conditions for approval for Tax Map/Lot #12/88 (13 Lots), for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator explained that road bonding was being coordinated between Great Pine Construction and the coinciding developers in the area: Bussiere and One Chestnut Hill. She added that this was the predicted request for an extension to the conditions subsequent that she referred to at the last meeting when they granted Great Pine’s request for a similar extension.
Don Duhaime MOVED to extend the conditions for approval for Jaqueline M. Bussiere, Tax Map/Lot #12/88 (13 Lots), to September 6, 2008. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
6. A copy of a Contract Agreement, re: Bedford Road Safety Study, dated September 12, 2007, by and between Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission and Town of New Boston, was distributed for the board’s information.
7. A copy of a letter received September 12, 2007, from JGI Eastern, Inc., to Mr. Kevin Leonard, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: MSE/Gravity Wall Design for Christian Farm Estates, was distributed for the Board’s information.
8. A copy of a memorandum dated September 13, 2007, from Jeff Madon, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: SHB Properties, was distributed for the Board’s information.
9. A copy of a memorandum dated September 13, 2007, from Jeff Madon, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Hutchinson Lane Subdivision, was distributed for the Board’s information.
10. The minutes of September 11, 2007, were noted as having been distributed by email, for approval, with or without changes, at the meeting of October 09, 2007.
11. Driveway Permit Application from Lee Brown, Briar Hill Properties, LLC, 48 Briar Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/18, for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator explained that this driveway permit was issued in 2002 for a backlot and during construction the existing driveway on a neighboring lot was used for access which they now sought to keep as a shared driveway on a permanent basis. She added that it was not known if this driveway ran across the front lot’s property and legal language would also be required if this were the case. The Board decided that they would view the driveway for clarification. The Chairman noted that the lot lines would need to be marked. The Coordinator stated that she would have Mr. Brown attend the next meeting.
12. A copy of a letter dated September 25, 2007, from Kevin Leonard, Northpoint Engineering, to the Planning Board, re: bond reduction for SHB Properties, LLC, for the Board’s action.
Douglas Hill questioned a large amount that was proposed to be kept back by Kevin Leonard, PE, for culverts. The Coordinator explained that this amount was for driveway culverts which were originally approved as box culverts and then amended to RCP pipe. She noted that a copy of DES’s approval of this amendment had never been received in the office and until it was Kevin Leonard, PE, was suggesting keeping the cost of the original box culverts in the bond amount. Douglas Hill was satisfied with this explanation.
Douglas Hill MOVED to accept the bond reduction as suggested by Northpoint Engineering, by letter dated 9/25/07, for SHB Properties, LLC to reduce the bond to $62,090.82. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
13. A copy of Alternative Geometric Roadway Design Standards Residential Streets, distributed at the SNHPC Regional Roundtable meeting of September 25, 2007, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Douglas Hill stated that this was an interesting topic. The Chairman suggested that it be discussed at the meeting of 11/13/07. He also suggested sending a copy to the Fire Wards for their review and comment. The Coordinator stated she would forward one to the Road Agent also.
14. A copy of a letter dated September 20, 2007, from Ed Hunter, building and Code Officer, to Bob Waller, re: home business, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that the Planning Board had offered to work with Mr. Waller to do a site plan for his business which was not on file with the Town (reported by an abutter), however, he refused and the Selectmen were now willing to pursue the matter further.
15. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing from the Town of Windham for October 09,
2007, re: an installation of a telecommunications tower.
At 10:15 p.m. Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien,
Recording Clerk Minutes Approved:
| 
