NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of November 13, 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; ex-officio Dave Woodbury and alternate Barry Charest. Also present were Planning Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were Gordon Carlstrom, Susan Carr, Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, Bill Davidson, PE, Charlie Cleary, Esq., John Laurer, Esq., Bob and Sharon Huettner, Tris Gordon, Art Siciliano, LLS, John Ashworth, Ruth Trussell, Craig Heafield and Tom Miller.
Planning Board discussion, re: Planning Board Goals for 2008 and other ongoing Planning Board discussions.
The Coordinator stated that Selectman Gordon Carlstrom was present to present some information he had gathered at a recent conference regarding stormwater management. She added that Board member Stu Lewin had information regarding the 200’ square which had been discussed at previous meetings and since an upcoming hearing this evening would need to be adjourned due to Town Counsel’s pending review of its plan language, this would enable the Board to have an extra half hour of discussion on these topics along with their goals for 2008 and any other ongoing topics the Board wished to cover.
Gordon Carlstrom stated that he had submitted information regarding watershed drainage systems to the Board which discussed the concern of cumulative small effects from various developments which could cause larger drainage impacts. He noted that there were new requirements from NPDS which sought alternative measures to keeping drainage onsite but avoiding the use of detention basins and large culverts so that fiscal and financial impacts were minimized. He noted an item on the packet he had provided that showed a storm hydrograph which illustrated pre and post development scenarios for drainage and how over time these effects could cause major issues for towns to deal with. Gordon Carlstrom stated that the conference touched upon different practices as solutions such as
groundwater management, forested buffers, unimpacted vegetation and low impact development, i.e., leave as much existing vegetation as possible which would be cheaper for the developer also. He added that there were various websites which offered suggestions such as infiltration devices given that requirements were being altered toward 2, 10 and 50 year storms with peak runoffs along with new rules for groundwater recharging. Gordon Carlstrom noted that hydrology studies were now calling for increased runoff calculations of 0 or less. The Chairman added that while minor CFS increases had been routinely waived by the Board in the past they should now be focused on saying no to any increases presented by a plan. Gordon Carlstrom went on to state that some examples of best practices for runoff were concave vegetation islands as seen at gas stations and malls where the rain water was allowed to absorb into the island rather than run off a convex shape onto the
pavement. He added that allowing pavers along the edge of new constructed driveways would aid runoff as the pavers were porous and more absorbent. Gordon Carlstrom also pointed to places like the University of New Hampshire which had installed a porous surfaced parking lot found to need less sanding in the winter as the sun was better able to absorb precipitation. Don Duhaime noted that Stoneyfield Yogurt in Londonderry, NH, had done the same for their parking lot and thought that it was triple the maintenance costs as the porous surface needed to be kept free of sand, dirt, etc. Gordon Carlstrom agreed that such a surface needed to be vacuumed and kept clean but thought the concept was worth looking at. Dave Woodbury asked if Town regulations or NHDES Site Specific would regulate these options. Douglas Hill thought that it would be dependent on the size of the project, for example, to require a 10 year storm calculation. Gordon Carlstrom
reiterated that the State was now going between 2, 10 and 50 year storm requirements given the recent rain events of 2006 and 2007. Douglas Hill noted that any project that dealt with the construction of a new road would be covered by Site Specific and alternative smaller examples that might employ such drainage calculations based on storm periods would be new driveways off main roads. The Coordinator agreed. She added that Kevin Leonard of Northpoint Engineering had suggested that the Board review the 50 year storm requirements for road culverts and there was currently nothing in the Site Plan Review Regulations for large commercial development. Gordon Carlstrom summarized that the crux of the issue was to discuss stormwater management alternatives versus calling for detention ponds. He noted that there was an idea posed in the packet he had distributed that dealt with retrofitting existing detention basins with vegetation to better manage water on
site versus having it go off site, therefore, keeping a site’s hydrograph at the same levels. Don Duhaime added that there were also options of having detention basins constructed underground which did involve maintenance but also offered an invisible solution. Dave Woodbury asked if the Board had the authority within the Regulations to prevent clear cutting on subdivisions. Gordon Carlstrom replied that the Board may be able to offer developers a choice, for example, fix an increased CFS by leaving existing vegetation or spend money for detention basins. Dave Woodbury was concerned that if the Board did not have the power to enforce some requirements such as those discussed then they were only in an advisory position. Douglas Hill noted that the State’s authority may cover many of these issues anyway. Don Duhaime noted that it was possible to pinpoint aquifer areas on a site so that water could recharge into these areas.
Douglas Hill asked Gordon Carlstrom if he thought drainage issues were a future problem for residential or commercial developments. Gordon Carlstrom thought that they would be issues for both because as more marginal land was used treatment on site would be necessary to slow the water down. The Chairman thought that it would be important for the Board to cease granting waivers to incremental flows. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the board might also want to start requiring hydrology studies due to the cumulative effects these drainage issues were causing. The Chairman stated that the Town had regulations in place that said no flow was acceptable. Don Duhaime asked Gordon Carlstrom where he had obtained his information for this evening’s discussion. Gordon Carlstrom replied that it was at the yearly conference by the Local Government Center.
Stu Lewin stated that he had recently attended an NFPA tour through the Fire Department and had obtained copies of their regulations on cul-de-sac lengths which was based on the lengths their equipment could handle. He added that turn-arounds at certain lengths of a road with a cul-de sac design were noted as a possible solution to problems for trucks getting water to dump sites/portables and then being able to conveniently exit out again. Stu Lewin noted that another suggestion was multiple access routes based on the number of lots in the subdivision. Gordon Carlstrom thought that turn-arounds seemed sensible and offered the example of a recent barn fire on Bunker Hill Road which was not a cul-de-sac but an old dirt road that had presented tight conditions for
trucks serving the site. The Board agreed that 22’ roads with 2’ shoulders would be a good solution to truck travel issues during fire emergencies. Gordon Carlstrom recalled that the Board had been discussing narrower road widths at a previous meeting for new subdivisions but thought that the cul-de-sac widths should remain wider due to their design. Stu Lewin recapped that the NFPA information suggested that the length of a cul-de-sac should only be as long as the hose the Fire Department had available; should have multiple accesses based on the number of households; and if any extra road length was requested intermediate turn arounds should be provided along the way.
The Board thanked Stu Lewin for bringing this information to their attention.
With regard to 200’ squares Stu Lewin stated that he was not sure of the context used in Zoning versus the language to be used, however, the points of clarification were to define what “parallel” meant in regard to aligning the square on the lot and the requirement to keep it within the side lot lines and setbacks so as not to go off the edge of the property line. He noted that the next several pages in his packet put certain examples to the test with the first being a straight line of frontage, the next two being concave and convex and the final two showing oddly shaped lots. He thought that applying these requirements would prevent misplacing the 200’ square and would keep it in line with a lot’s frontage rather than leaving the requirement open
to interpretation. Douglas Hill stated that 95% of lots proposed were usually ok, however, it was the cul-de-sac lots that could be an issue along with a sprinkling of other lots. Gordon Carlstrom agreed that there were marginal lot where applicants became clever with easements, etc., to enable the 200’ square. Dave Woodbury commented that he appreciated the fact that in his research Stu Lewin tried not to change the current intent of the 200’ square but noted that the requirements he now suggested seemed to suggest a 240’ X 200’ rectangle which he did not object to but seemed a departure to the concept. Douglas Hill recalled that the Board had discussed the rule of unintended consequences at a prior meeting and meant that the intent should be to stay within the property lines. Stu Lewin offered that the term “setbacks” could be removed from the language but keep the requirement of being within property lines.
Gordon Carlstrom recalled examples on Pheasant Lane where the 200’ squares were offset and not even close to aligning with their frontages. Douglas Hill noted that because squares had been set this way in the past a precedent had been set. Dave Woodbury did not see this as a reason to continue making the same mistake. Gordon Carlstrom thought that a lot’s frontage should be parallel to its 200’ square. The Chairman thought that care needed to be taken so that changes to Zoning terminology did not become too detailed and hard to understand. Dave Woodbury stated that the Board needed to decide if the 200’ square had served its purpose or if it should be changed to a 250’ square. Gordon Carlstrom noted the example of the Fairbairn application where the square was placed in a wet portion of the lot to gain a palatable configuration.
Douglas Hill thought that a 200’ square seemed enough measure for septic systems, etc., and could not think of reasoning to expand it unless the goal was less lots.
FAIRBAIRN, GERALD R. & DONA M. Adjourned from 9/25/07
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. No abutters or interested parties were present. The Chairman added that because the outstanding item of Town Counsel’s review was pending for the plan’s language regarding stormwater management and tree planting the hearing would be adjourned to the next available date and time.
Douglas Hill 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 27, 2007, at 8:00 p.m. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Planning Board discussion, re: Planning Board Goals for 2008 and other ongoing Planning Board discussions, cont.
The Chairman wondered what the impact would be in increasing the measure of the 200’ square requirement. The Coordinator replied that it would indirectly disqualify some proposed lots in cul-de-sac subdivisions. She noted that in researching the measures used by other towns she found that a 200’ linear measure was used for frontage requirements in many cases and she had not seen measures higher than that nor any other towns that used a square for their frontage measurements. Douglas Hill noted that one benefit of increasing the measure would be that it would force more open space design in development. The Chairman added that it could also tempt more backlot proposals. Gordon Carlstrom agreed but added that conformity would still be necessary.
Dave Woodbury clarified that the Town could not ask for 200’ of frontage on a “pie” shaped lot. He stated that he had no issue with the terminology “within the setbacks” versus “within the property lines”. Gordon Carlstrom felt that this would properly address the 10-20% of lots that were issues. Stu Lewin added that he would be meeting with the Coordinator in the Planning Department to go over some lot examples and review the effects of this language. The Coordinator reminded the Board that because the December Planning Board meeting would include a public hearing on Zoning they should clarify and be satisfied with all points on this issue by the next meeting.
The Chairman wished to continue with the Planning Board goals for 2008. He noted that he and the Coordinator had not been present for the last meeting but that he had reviewed the minutes. In regard to some of the research being done by the Small Scale Planned Commercial Committee he felt that some of the poorer definitions from Zoning should not be referenced such as “vehicle sales and repair facility” as that had caused confusion in the past. The Chairman noted that auto repair businesses were permitted in RA districts in the Town because they were located inside buildings on a site, however, the sales aspect of the definition was pulled from Commercial zoning and overlaid onto this. He further noted that this sales aspect was not something that the
Town strived for with lines of cars parked along a roadway under bright lights and the combination of sales and repair would mean that parking out back would be added to this scheme. The Chairman felt that the term “vehicle sales and repair facility” should be redefined so that it could be properly identified in the case of an appeal because taking the overlaid definition from Commercial Zoning would require a special exception. Don Duhaime suggested that this definition be eliminated from the small scale commercial district’s topics. The Chairman felt that it could be left in as long as it was noted to require a special exception from the ZBA and the definition could then be severed to include a second definition for auto repair businesses. He noted that the Sizemore business on NH Route 77 was an example of vehicle sales by special exception that would be desired for its location because it was in a Commercial district. Gordon Carlstrom
thought that vehicle sales of 3 or 4 cars at a time might be palatable in an RA district. Douglas Hill thought that vehicle sales should be allowed strictly in Commercial districts. The Chairman recalled a vehicle sales proposal that was brought before the Board to be on a backlot with word of mouth advertising and the cars stored in a barn on site. Don Duhaime thought that vehicle repair was a common proposal and not a bad home business as it had minimum impact. Stu Lewin stated that he was not sure he agreed as an auto repair business which, for example, involved muscle cars might not be good for a residential area as they were performance cars that were noisier than standard vehicles. The Chairman noted that such noise would violate an applicant’s site plan and the definition of a home business called for not changing the character of the neighborhood which it was in.
The Chairman stated that the Board was unable to cover the topic of Planning Board goals and would do so at the next meeting. The Coordinator noted that other than what was included in the write-up provided on goals Board members may have other topics they would like to bring up and if so could also contribute these at the next meeting. The Chairman added that more discussion should also be had regarding 200’ squares.
TWIN BRIDGE MANAGEMENT, LLC Adjourned from 9/25/07
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 with 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 applicants, Tris Gordon and Bob Huettner of Twin Bridge Management, LLC. An interested party present was Roch Larochelle, Road Committee.
Bill Davidson, PE, stated that since the last meeting he had met with Kevin Leonard of Northpoint Engineering to discuss his engineering review of the plans which had gone well.
He went on to say that the major change to the plans from the last meeting was the lot line adjustment between lot #’s 2/62-12 and 2/62-22. Bill Davidson, PE, noted the location of a 250’ easement in the back of three lots along the river which was shaded in pink on the plan. He added that another comment on the review dealt with establishing a 12’ wide looped gravel access easement for the Road Agent to access ditch lines and a detention basin at the rear of the site. Bill Davidson, PE, stated that Kevin Leonard’s second review of the plans had 19 comments one of which involved having 8” of crushed gravel and loam on the access road to accept truck traffic but still be somewhat aesthetically pleasing. He explained that the Town Engineer was concerned that lot owners might not realize
it was there because of the desired loam/grass effect but the applicants had no issue in placing signage to mark its location. Douglas Hill thought that signage might be overkill and did not feel that it was necessary. The Chairman asked if there was any likelihood of a septic system in this location. Bill Davidson, PE, replied there was not and referenced a note on the plan which read: “All private facilities shall not be located within proposed access and easements.” He stated that another comment on the review dealt with Kevin Leonard’s concern that lot #2/26-12 which encompassed an existing gravel pit could have two uses: house lot and gravel pit. He noted that the area adjacent to the trailers on site had been reclaimed, loamed and seeded and that the intent was not to have the pit in operation while the proposed road of the subdivision was under construction. Bill Davidson, PE, further noted that the next time the gravel
permit was up for renewal a Site Specific Permit would be required for its operation. Tris Gordon and Bob Huettner concurred. The Coordinator asked if 100K s.f. of the pit was open for gravel. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that now nothing was open and the proposed road and detention basin would encompass 94K s.f., therefore, the road construction and gravel pit operation could not be occurring concurrently as it would exceed 100K s.f. The Chairman asked if gravel from this pit would be used in the road construction. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that it would but in this case it would not be hauled off site. The Chairman stated that he was unsure of the relevance of where the gravel was going. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that if a large area of the pit was open with multiple trucks for off site hauling that would encompass a larger area than what would be required for the road construction. He noted that the proposed road’s square
footage was just below the threshold of requiring Site Specific. The Coordinator asked the life expectancy of the gravel pit. Tris Gordon replied that he had not anticipated this. Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, asked how the gravel pit would be stabilized once it was closed. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that vegetative stabilization measures would be used. He added that the pit was virtually flat. Bill Davidson, PE, stated that a note could be added to the plan stating that the graveling operation and road construction would not be going on concurrently. Charlie Cleary, Esq., added that house construction on the gravel pit lot would not occur with the pit in operation either and this too could be noted on the plan. Don Duhaime thought that this meant that gravel from the pit could not be used for the road construction. The Coordinator explained that this was incidental to construction and in such cases $0.02/yard was charged and
a permit was not required.
Bill Davidson, PE, stated that Richard Radwanski of NHDOT had no issue with the intersection of NH Route 114 and Twin Bridge Road regarding the impact of this subdivision on the intersection but he did not have anything in writing yet. He went on to refer to comment #14 of the review which involved adding pre-engineered individual Stormwater Management plans to lot #’s 2/62 & 2/62-24. Bill Davidson, PE, explained that this issue arose because the lots’ proposed driveways were within 20’ of the side lot lines which were critical areas due to the grading that would occur for their construction, therefore, the driveways could be shifted over to get away from those lot lines. The Coordinator thought that the easiest solution would be to move the
driveways. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that this would be done.
Bill Davidson, PE, stated that comment #18 of the Town Engineer’s review dealt with a 1.74 CFS increase in a two year storm for two of the lots. The Chairman stated that the Board had had a one hour discussion earlier in the evening regarding CFS increases and had consensus on not accepting any increase given the many issues that arose during the spring floodings of 2006 and 2007. Bill Davidson, PE, stated that the drainage calculations for a 25 year storm had shown that an existing culvert on site would overtop the proposed road by 0.4 CFS which he did not believe but, nonetheless, these were the results. He added that proposing detention basins in close proximity to the river could work against them given the river’s peak times and the detention basin’s
drainage pattern, i.e., holding onto the flow may create a worse situation than letting it go. Bill Davidson, PE, noted that the CFS increase could be solved by incorporating infiltration systems for roof drainage on the affected lots as he did not believe that a detention basin was the best alternative for this situation which was why Kevin Leonard had suggested a waiver for this requirement. The Chairman noted that Kevin Leonard was likely going by historical situations regarding the waiver suggestion whereas the Board had since discussed drainage increases in depth and had arrived at their no tolerance decision. Bill Davidson, PE, stated that the remaining comments were minor and the applicants had no issue with corrections.
The Coordinator asked the Board’s decision regarding the marking of the access easement to the drainage structures. Douglas Hill thought it unnecessary. The Chairman asked if a separate curb cut would be constructed. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that it would along with two culverts and a paved apron. The Chairman thought that these items would suffice for marking the easement. Dave Woodbury added that the easement should be noted on the paper plans, deeds, etc., and thought that the paved apron sounded reasonable. The Board agreed.
Stu Lewin recalled that there had been some previous confusion regarding the school bus stop turn around when the plans came before the Technical Review Committee. Bill Davidson, PE, thought that initially the Town would want the school bus to pull off to an existing turn around at the Town line, however, it now seemed more likely that the bus would travel the proposed cul-de-sac to turn around. Stu Lewin asked if the size requirement for the cul-de-sac turn around would need to be increased as a result. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that this would not be necessary as it was already sized for fire truck travel. Don Duhaime noted that Twin Bridge Road had been recently paved and asked if the applicant would be responsible for contributing to those offsite improvements. The Coordinator replied that the Road Agent was getting back to her regarding the topcoat and what portion the applicant would be responsible for. Don Duhaime then asked if the Board had heard back for the
Town of Weare on this plan as they abutted the property. The Coordinator replied that they had heard back from SNHPC but not Weare. Don Duhaime thought that a second notice should be sent to them as a courtesy before the plan was approved. The Chairman commented that the subdivision road name “Page Road” needed to be changed to “Page Lane” or “Page Drive” due to Fire Department identification requirements for non-through roads. Bill Davidson, PE, noted that he had incorrectly labeled his presentation with “Page Road” but that it was correctly labeled as “Page Lane” on the plans. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if there were any other outstanding items. The Coordinator replied that the Board needed to vote on the release of Town Counsel’s letter to the applicants.
Douglas Hill MOVED to release Town Counsel’s letter dated October 10, 2007, to the applicants. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill provided his copy of Town Counsel’s letter to the applicants.
The Chairman stated that it was assumed that the open lot, #2/62-12, on the plan would be subdivided at some point in the future and in such cases the Board was now requiring conceptual designs for such lots so that they could be incorporated into a regional impact density scheme for the Town. Bill Davidson, PE, noted that the original plans proposed a cul-de-sac in this area, however, without a waiver for the road length it would be unfeasible, therefore, they would need to connect through a piece of land off Lull Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/5. He added that he could not envision more than 4 lots on #2/62-12 with no connection. The Chairman asked what number of lots could be subdivided from the gravel pit land. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that at this point he could not
answer that question as he was unsure of the pit’s land configuration and the number of acres. He then asked the Chairman if he was referring to the 18 acre gravel pit with the access to Weare, NH. The Chairman replied that he was. Bill Davidson, PE, noted the location where a road could come in from and thought that maybe 5 or 6 lots could be subdivided. The Chairman clarified that this meant a total of 10 to 12 additional future lots that the Board needed to take into consideration. Tris Gordon noted that nothing could be subdivided from the 33 acre open space lot as a waiver to the cul-de-sac which it would needed was unlikely and the other 5 lots that the pit could yield would need approval through the Town of Weare also. The Chairman asked how many lots the applicants’ traffic study was based on. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that it had been based on the original plan’s lot number of 39 even though the current plan had
decreased to 23. He noted that the traffic study had shown no significant impact given the proposal as NH Route 114 was already problematic at the existing intersection with Twin Bridge Road and operating below capacity. Bill Davidson, PE, added that Twin Bridge Road was found to be classified as a “C” “D” or “E” rating regardless of the proposed subdivision and clarified that shifting between these classifications was a difference of approximately 1,000 cars, not 50. Roch Larochelle asked if the State had seen the traffic study as they would have jurisdiction over exiting traffic onto NH Route 114. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that he had had limited discussions with Richard Radwanski on this topic. He noted that he had worked on a similar project in Londonderry, NH, where an existing intersecting near a proposed subdivision had failed and the subdivision had not been found to compound the issue which was noted to be
the State’s problem. Bill Davidson, PE, highly doubted that Mr. Radwanski would require the applicants to do offsite improvements to the intersection at NH Route 114 based on the same reasoning. Roch Larochelle thought that the distribution of trips to NH Route 77 versus NH Route 114 needed to be considered. Don Duhaime recalled that Weare, NH, had not wanted to see any through trucking from New Boston at the time when the applicant had proposed trucking gravel off the same site. Tris Gordon noted that there was a 16 lot subdivision proposed in Weare just beyond Daniels Lake Road which was within a meeting or two of being approved by their planning board and no traffic study had been required of them. He added that he had met with the town of Weare and the State and chairman Bruno of the Weare planning board had stated to him that the State would need to assume the problems with the Twin Bridge Road intersection. He clarified that this was
the same time period in which they had proposed to truck gravel from the site (3 years prior). The Chairman stated that he felt applicants versus residents should be responsible for paying to have such intersections repaired. Tris Gordon replied that he had offered the town of Weare funds towards repairs but was told that it was the State’s problem. Bill Davidson, PE, noted that the Twin Bridge Road intersection had been in a failed state for a long time and did not see how the applicants should be tagged with funding its repair when they were proposing a subdivision 1.5 miles down the road.
The Chairman felt that the traffic study based on 39 lots satisfied the aspect of the proposal plus any conceptualized lots. The Coordinator noted that the land linked to East Lull Place which might yield some of the future lots was similar to the Bedford Road scenario and the McCurdy/Lorden/Bussiere development plans. Douglas Hill asked if the applicants could include these tax maps on their plans so that the board might have a better picture of the area. The Chairman clarified that the Board was looking for an idea of how major pieces of land surrounding the site would develop out without doing surveying at this point in time. Bill Davidson, PE, stated that he would do so.
Bill Davidson, PE, asked how the CUP application would be addressed with the plan. The Chairman replied that the Board looked at the criteria requirements and that this process was more a formality than anything else. He added that he had never seen one that had not met the criteria and it could be incorporated into the final motions for the application.
Dave Woodbury 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 27, 2007, at 9 :00 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Info Session with Arthur Siciliano, LLS, to discuss the potential subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #8/1 & 4/62 owned by Ruth Trussell.
Present for this discussion was Ruth Trussell, Art Siciliano, LLS, and a consultant to Ms. Trussell, John Ashworth.
Douglas Hill stated that he owned property that abutted the site being discussed. He stated that the proposal would not affect his land in any way but that it was up to the Board or the applicant if they wished him to step down for the discussion. Ruth Trussell stated that because this was a preliminary discussion she did not object to Mr. Hill remaining seated on the Board.
The Chairman noted that even if the applicant had objected it was a Board member’s prerogative to remain seated if they wished. Douglas Hill clarified for the record that if at any point during the process the applicant wished him to step down, he would oblige.
Art Siciliano, LLS, stated that the site was located on Clark Hill Road with a small amount of frontage on Dennison Road and encompassed two Tax Map/Lot #’s: 8/1 & 4/62. He submitted copies of these tax maps to the Board and noted that aerial topography had been performed to determine the contours of the site while wetlands had been delineated by Thomas Carr. Art Siciliano, LLS, stated that of the 12 lots shown 5 were proposed as backlots and 7 as front lots accessed by 5 shared driveways off Clark Hill Road (with the exception of lots 11 & 12). He stated that the wells and septic systems were shown on the plan along with the 200’ squares and all were approximately 75’ away from existing wetlands. Art Siciliano, LLS, noted that he would also
add a 50’ buffer per discussions had with the Coordinator on this requirement. He stated that although there were power poles on Dennison Road the portion of Clark Hill road in relation to the site would need to have power installed. Art Siciliano, LLS, added that the only wetland impact to the site involved a Dredge and Fill for lot #12 off Dennison Road. Dave Woodbury asked if lot #12 could accurately be considered a backlot to a front lot (#4/97) on Dennison Road. The Coordinator replied that it could. Dave Woodbury questioned the layout of some of the lots as they did not seem to be direct backlots and felt some many be examples of stacking. The Chairman though that lot #7 seemed stacked and offered that the geometrical layout of the lot caused confusion since its driveway went to the right, giving the illusion that lot #7 was behind lot #8. He asked if this lot was protected at one time. Ruth Trussell replied that at one
time the Open Space Committee was interested in buying her land, however the appraisal had come in too low and she needed to reconsider as this was her retirement funding. Art Siciliano, LLS, offered that the lots in question could be reshaped to eliminate the stacking issue. John Ashworth questioned why the direction of a driveway would determine a backlot. The Chairman clarified that if the corner piece were removed between lot #’s 6 and 8 that would retain lot #7 behind lot #6 assuming lot #8 still had 5 acres.
In regard to the common driveways proposed the Chairman stated that they were only allowed at the lot line to a maximum of 100’ before splitting off to their respective lots. Stu Lewin noted that some of the driveways on the plan seemed to go for 400’ before splitting off. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that these could be adjusted. The Chairman asked the length of the longest driveway on the plan. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that it was approximately 1,000’. The Coordinator asked if fire fighting water supply for the lots had been considered. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that fire sprinkler systems were planned. The Chairman thought that lot #4 looked rugged. Ruth Trussell noted that much of the site could be kept in current use
and on lot #4 the house could be constructed at the front portion. Douglas Hill noted to the applicant that there was no tax benefit to keeping a portion of the site in current use. The Chairman asked that the driveways be reconfigured to what was discussed. He noted that the Board preferred to see common driveways stretch for 50’ and then split off, however, up to 100’ was allowed. The Coordinator noted that the notes from the Technical Review Committee meeting had stated that the applicant should coordinate with the Road Agent and Principal Rick Matthews regarding the school bus stop for this proposal. She clarified that while the maintenance of the road, bus stop area, ditchlines was a Town issue the initial construction of these was the applicant’s responsibility. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that this was understood. He added that he would submit the Dredge and Fill for a meeting to be held with the Conservation
Commission.
PLANTIER, DAVID A. & ALEXIS B. Adjourned from 10/09/07
Compliance Hearing/Conditional Use Permit/Wetland Crossing
Location: Bedford & Campbell Pond Roads
Tax Map/Lot #12/82 & 12/71
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. No abutters or interested parties were present.
The Coordinator stated that there had been some questions concerning the driveways for this application at the last meeting for which she was not in attendance but she had since written up and distributed information to the Board. The Board was satisfied with this explanation.
Don Duhaime MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the construction of two wetland crossings on Tax Map/Lot #12/71 &12/82 by David and Alexis Plantier, and to release the security being held for said installation. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 13, 2007
3. Discussion with Craig Heafield and Tom Miller, re: New Boston Sand and Gravel, Tax Map/Lot #6/16, River Road.
Craig Heafield and Tom Miller were present for this discussion. Tom Miller stated that he was a retired State worker and wished to operate a small retail lumber yard on Mr. Heafield’s property as he had retail space available but was unsure what was required by the Town to do so. Stu Lewin asked Craig Heafield if Mr. Miller’s proposed operation would be located where the existing building stood on his property. Craig Heafield replied that was correct. Dave
Woodbury asked if there was any relationship between the proposed business and Mr. Heafield’s existing stump grinding operation. Tom Miller replied that there was not. Stu Lewin asked if a saw mill was planned on site. Tom Miller replied that a portable one would be used. The Coordinator asked if the lumber would be processed and sold from this location. Tom Miller replied that it would and that the operation would be a small one tailored to customers who may have one or two trees from their property and did not want to throw the wood away. Dave Woodbury wondered if this business would be a hobby or the nucleus of a growing business.
Tom Miller replied that he would be a one man operation under the LLC that he had established and that the business would mostly encompass custom saw projects done on weekends. The Chairman asked if logs would be hauled to the site. Tom Miller replied that he could do this for customers or they could transport the logs themselves. Don Duhaime noted that a saw mill required a special exception from the ZBA for this site. The Chairman suggested that Mr. Miller present his case in similar fashion to the ZBA and added that he did not anticipate an issue. Dave Woodbury agreed. The Coordinator noted that in a Commercial District such as this site a professional survey plan would be required according to the Site Plan Review Regulations, however, the Board could consider a waiver to this if they chose.
The Chairman stated that he would want to view the site before entertaining such a waiver and added that a locus map would also be helpful.
1. Approval of the minutes of September 25, 2007, with or without changes, distributed by email.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of September 25, 2007, as written. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. The minutes of October 9, 2007, were noted as having been distributed by email, for approval, with or without changes, at the meeting of November 27, 2007.
4. Discussion, re: maintenance bond for Indian Falls Road.
Don Duhaime stated that there was a significant crack that ran down the middle of Indian Falls Road (an observation he had noted in previous meetings) which had never been repaired. The Chairman felt that the Town Engineer should view the road and determine if repairs were needed before the maintenance bond expired. The Board agreed.
5. Discussion, re: traffic, fiscal and environmental impact studies.
The Coordinator had supplied the Board with a handout composed by her which gave an overview of these studies and their relevance. Douglas Hill commented that he agreed with the Coordinator’s opinion in this handout which regarded these study findings as being supported by the reputation and stamp of the professional charged with doing them. Don Duhaime thought that it might be worthwhile to have the Town Engineer review these study results for a certain time frame and if they seemed not to raise any concerns with “boiler plate” calculations then they could back off. He added that he agreed with Selectman Carlstrom’s previously raised concerns that some firms may be using such techniques to do these studies. Douglas Hill wished to note that in
some cases traffic study results were boiler plate results as they dealt with traffic counts on the same road ways and in the same time periods. He added that in these cases it should be up to the Board to decide if they wanted more depth of information from traffic studies. Douglas Hill went on to say that, in his opinion, fiscal impact studies were worthless and environmental studies could not be considered “boiler plate” as they dealt with specific pieces of land. Dave Woodbury thought that the Board should be able to determine valid study results from invalid ones based on their own experience. The Chairman continued that in cases of invalid studies the Board could forward the studies to the Town Engineer for their review as Don Duhaime had suggested. Dave Woodbury agreed with Douglas Hill’s comments regarding the worthlessness of fiscal impact studies. The Coordinator noted that the reoccurring positive impact calculated by
many applicants’ fiscal impact studies was not typically off the mark especially with the higher priced homes being constructed in the Town. She added that in looking at the Town budgets New Boston was not being negatively impacted by development, i.e., experiencing suffering infrastructures. The Coordinator noted that Jack Munn, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission (SNHPC), was currently working on a fiscal impact study for the Town that would be able to provide per lot impact figures for each town department.
6. Endorsement of a Subdivision Agreement for Carol S. & Robert J. LaChance, Tax Map/Lot #2/112-2, NH Route 77, aka Weare Road, Lull Road, Middle Branch Road, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman endorsed the above noted Subdivision Agreement.
7a. A copy of an email received October 24, 2007, from Stephen Griffin, Goffstown Planning and Economic Development Coordinator, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: potential regional impact of a 92 townhouse style condominium project on Bog and Mountain Roads in Goffstown, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Addressed with item #7b.
7b. A copy if the Summary and Recommendations page from Traffic Impact Study by Laurie Rauseo, PE, PTOE, 12/26/05, revised 6/04/07, and Addendum to same dated 9/04/07, re: the project described in item 7a., was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator stated that she did not see much impact occurring to New Boston as a result of this project as most of the traffic would be headed away from the Town. Dave Woodbury asked what SNHPC’s thoughts were. The Coordinator replied that she was unsure if they had responded as of yet. Don Duhaime stated that he would be interested in reviewing their letter of response once it was available.
8. A copy of a memo dated October 9, 2007, from Ed Hunter, Building and Code Official, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: suggested Zoning Ordinance modifications, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that the point Ed Hunter, Building Inspector, was making in his memo regarded the fact that the current Sign Ordinance had been written a long time ago and stated that a business sign was only supposed to identify the location of a business and not have a phone number listed. She noted that this was meant to discourage individuals from stopping their car in the road or pulling over to write down a phone number, however, he did not think that such hazards were applicable in the current day. The Board’s consensus was that a phone number and/or website was allowable on business signs. The Board also felt that Ed Hunter's suggestion that the restrictions imposed for commercial signs regarding lighting should be added to those for residential
home businesses as the language currently read that incandescent lighting was allowed and did not expand on that. The Commercial section provided for shading requirements and a certain no-nuisance factor.
9. A copy of a letter dated October 1, 2007, from Kristine Filteua Contracting, LLC, re: Rising Generation Daycare, 643 North Mast Road, request for extension on conditions subsequent, was distributed for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator stated that there had been concerns raised at the previous meeting by the Board regarding the length of time it was taking for the applicant to complete the conditions subsequent of their approved plan. She noted that a response from Kristine Filteau on this matter was that phase 1 of the project had been completed and phase 2 was underway but needed an extension on the completion date.
Don Duhaime MOVED to grant an extension to the conditions subsequent for Rising Generation Daycare, 643 North Mast Road, to September of 2009. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
10. A copy of a fax received October 31, 2007, from Locus Field, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #13/15, Kettle Lane, re: request for an extension of conditions subsequent deadline, was distributed for the Board’s action.
Don Duhaime MOVED to grant an extension of the conditions subsequent for Locus Field, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #13/15, Kettle Lane, to November 1, 2008. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
11a. A copy of a letter dated October 15, 2007, from Kevin Leonard, PE. Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to the Planning Coordinator and Planning Board, re: SHB Properties, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #12/65, Pulpit Road, bond release recommendation, was distributed for the Board’s action.
Douglas Hill MOVED to recommend the reduction of the bond for SHB Properties, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #12/65, Pulpit Road, from $62,090.82 to $29,090.82. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
11b. A copy of a letter dated October 15, 2007, from Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to the Planning Coordinator and Planning Board, re: SHB Properties, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #12/65, Pulpit Road, as-built review comments, was distributed for the Board’s information.
12. A copy of an email received October 26, 2007, from Jeff Madon, PE, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to the Planning Department, re: outstanding items for Hutchinson
Lane, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that it should be brought to the Board’s attention that the second list of as-built review comments was longer than the initial list because when the applicant was addressing some initial items they caused additional issues on site.
13. A copy of a letter dated October 10, 2007, from William Drescher, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Golding, et al v. New Boston, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that the Superior Court’s decision was being appealed by the abutters.
14. A copy of an article from New Hampshire Town and City, October 2007, entitled, “The Housing and Conservation Planning Program”, was distributed for the Board’s information.
15. The minutes of the Small Scale Planned Commercial Committee from October 15, and 29, 2007, were distributed for the Board’s information.
16a. A copy of a letter dated November 5, 2007, from Pat Panciocco, Esq., to New Boston Conservation Commission, re: logging operation on Right Way Builders, Inc./Garretson property, Tax Map/Lot #5/52, Beard Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Addressed with item #16b.
16b. A copy of a letter received November 8, 2007, from Betsey Dodge, Chairman, New Boston Conservation Commission to Garretson Revocable Trust, re: above-noted logging operation, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that due to a delay in the subdivision for Right Way Builders, Inc. of which the Garretson land was a consolidated piece, the Garretsons had decided to log their land without notifying Right Way Builders, Inc. She stated that, in addition, debris from the logging had been deposited on conservation land and land that was to be deeded to the Town by Right Way Builders, Inc. These matters were still under investigation.
17. A copy of a letter dated November 2, 2007, from Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: Christian Farm Estates Entrance, Tax Map/Lot #5/16, N.H. Route 136 a/k/a Francestown Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
18. A copy of a letter dated November 7, 2007, from Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: Suggested Modifications to the Subdivision Regulations for Consideration by the Planning Board, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Douglas Hill thought that this discussion should be given some time at the start of the next meeting due to the late hour and the fact that Mr. Leonard had included very good suggestions. The Board agreed.
19. A copy of a memo dated November 2, 2007, from Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, re: gravel pits, with attached documentation, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator felt that this discussion also warranted some time and could be better addressed at the start of the next meeting. The Board agreed.
20. A notice of a workshop to be held Monday, December 3, 2007, from 4 – 8 p.m., PSNH Energy Park with Randall Arendt, FRTPI, ASLA (Hon.), re: Conservation Subdivision Design as a Tool for Building Open Space Networks. (Coordinator to attend. Board to determine availability.) (No Copies.)
The Coordinator explained that this workshop was part of the education and outreach for the NH Route 93 widening project and, although the towns of New Boston and Weare were not noted to be affected by this project, they were able to attend the workshop at no cost.
21. A packet of information re: Context Sensitive Solutions project for New Boston with Notice of Public Workshop to be held Saturday, November 17, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.. (Coordinator cannot attend. Board to determine availability.)
Dave Woodbury stated that he would be attending this workshop. No Planning Board members were available.
22. A copy of an article from Fall 2007, Supply Lines with The Source, the newsletter of the NH DES Drinking Water and Ground Water Bureau entitled “Important Changes to the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act”, was distributed for the Board’s information.
23. A copy of an article form November 2007, Planning, entitled “The Ins and Outs of Stormwater Management”, was distributed for the Board’s information.
24. A copy of a NH Supreme Court case, Suzanne Doyle v. Town of Gilmanton, re: minimum lot sizes, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that in the above noted case the NH Supreme Court upheld that minimum lot sizes served a valid public purpose even if they were small (lot in case: 30K s.f.).
25. Information from Granite State Fair Tax Coalition, was distributed for the Board’s information.
26. The Planning Board calendar for November & December 2007 and 2008, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator noted that at the next Board meeting there would be a CIP public hearing. She added that the last day for a public hearing regarding Zoning changes was January 8, 2008, and the last day for a first public hearing on same was December 11, 2007. The last day for Zoning Ordinance Petitions was December 12, 2007 (start date was November 15, 2007-none received yet). She also noted that Town and School deliberative sessions were scheduled in February and that Town voting was March 11, 2008.
27. The Coordinator stated that Kevin Leonard of Northpoint Engineering, LLC, had recently reminded her that Northpoint’s one year contract with the Town was up on November 15, 2007. She asked the Board if they would like to meet with Kevin Leonard at a Planning Board meeting to discuss anything or if they would consider renewing the contract through the Selectmen possibly for 2 or 3 years versus 1. The Chairman stated that he was not aware of any issues with Northpoint’s performance over the past year. Stu Lewin asked if Northpoint could provide a one page summary of their accounting with the Town over the past year for his information. The Coordinator replied that she would get this information. The Board decided that a one year contract renewal could be recommended
to keep Northpoint “on their toes”.
28. The Coordinator stated that Rick Martin of Right Way Builders, Inc, had requested a one year extension to his conditions precedent given the appeal of Golding, et al v. New Boston.
Douglas Hill MOVED to extend the conditions precedent for Rick Martin, Right Way Builders, Inc., Tax Map/Lot #5/52 & 5/50, Beard Road for one year to November 1, 2008. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 10:40 p.m. Stu Lewin MOVED to adjourn. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk
| 
