TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of November 27, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Vice Chairman Douglas Hill. Chairman Peter Hogan was not in attendance. Present were regular members, Stu Lewin, Don Duhaime, and; ex-officio Dave Woodbury. 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 Bob Todd, LLS, Donna Gibbons, Tony and JoAnn Cardone, Bill Davidson, PE, Charlie Cleary, Esq., John Laurer, Esq., Bob and Sharon Huettner, Tris Gordon, Dan MacDonald, Russ Boland, Jay Marden, Ken and Lynn Lombard and Susan Woodward.
Planning Board discussion, re: Planning Board Goals for 2008 and other ongoing Planning Board discussions.
The Coordinator stated that in addition to the positive aspect of the Board setting goals each year assuring that they were addressed and discussed throughout the Board’s year the goals were also part of her performance review. She noted that she had compiled some recommendations from the Master Plan in the form of a document to aid in selecting what goals the Board wished to focus on for the upcoming year. She added that she would distribute this document to other boards, committees and departments in Town as not all of the items listed were topics that the Planning Board needed to take direct action on. The Coordinator explained that this could be viewed as a guiding document from which the Board could determine their focus points.
The Coordinator stated that updating the Town’s Water Resource Management Plan (an option noted in the Master Plan) was last accomplished in 1989 and slated for review every 5 years. She explained that this was a plan which identified all of the major watersheds in Town, looked at streams within them, common wells, and reviewed what potential development should be given where the waters originated from and traveled to. The Coordinator noted that a Source Water Protection Grant recently granted for towns within the State may aid in accomplishing this task and seemed to be a realistic goal for the upcoming year.
The Coordinator stated that Kevin Leonard, Northpoint Engineering, had come up with some suggestions for the Subdivision Regulations regarding road standards to be reviewed along with the Road Committee’s proposals. She also saw this as a doable goal.
In the consideration of mixed use development the Coordinator stated that this had come up in discussions with the Small Scale Planned Commercial Committee who determined that it was a bigger discussion to be had with other Town departments, therefore, this may be on a side burner for 2008 with the Planning Board eventually being the forum for its overall address.
The Coordinator stated that a State funding mechanism previously presented by resident Ellen Kambol (Housing Conservation Planning Program) had recently received funding from the State Legislature and grants were being made available for the upcoming year for towns to participate in a 4 level process. She noted that with the Master Plan update accomplished New Boston was already at level 3 with level 4 being the implementation of goals to integrate conservation and housing.
Stu Lewin asked if the Water Resource Management Plan was voted on by the Town. The Coordinator replied that it worked like the Master Plan where the Planning Board was the
adopting entity, therefore, no Town vote. Stu Lewin asked if recommendations of the Master Plan were set to theoretically implement the objectives of the Master Plan. The Coordinator
explained that for each section of the Master Plan goals and objectives were listed and within each chapter suggestions as how to accomplish these were included. She noted that she highlighted these recommendations so that they were known as they were sometimes more specific than the objectives.
Don Duhaime felt that two important goals to focus on were updating road standards and addressing drainage issues. He added that the Board needed to avoid waiving CFS increases for subdivisions offering an example of 1.5 CFS over a 24 hour period equaling 1 million gallons of water. Stu Lewin asked if the crux of the issue was that there were currently no requirements and regulations in place or that what was in place was not being adhered to. The Coordinator replied that there were regulations in place but the focus needed to be viewing multiple subdivisions in a given area from a global perspective regarding their cumulative CFS runoff. She added that Twin Bridge Management, LLC, had recently proven that they could make their drainage issue work by adding roof
gutters on some of the homes for their proposed lots. Don Duhaime disagreed that Twin Bridge’s 1.75 CFS could be absorbed by roof gutters. The Coordinator replied that by their drainage calculations it worked. Douglas Hill added that a huge part of CFS runoff issues had to do with the amount of vegetation removed from a site but he did not want to see numerous detention ponds installed in the Town as a result of runoff issues as that would resemble an urban neighborhood setting. Don Duhaime noted that underground detention ponds allowed runoff to percolate back into the ground and were invisible solutions. Douglas Hill noted that if trees needed to be cut to install underground detention ponds they might as well be above ground. Stu Lewin asked if GIS software would be helpful in assessing runoffs from developments as they were constructed so that the effects downstream could be easily calculated. The Coordinator noted that GIS
software had been discussed in the past but it had been determined that it was more suitable for a city setting with layers of systems: roads, water, sewers, etc. Stu Lewin thought that traffic impacts could be used as an additional layer also. Douglas Hill thought that it would be interesting to go back 5 years and look at CFS waivers given for subdivisions such as Indian Falls and Carriage Road then plug in the drainage information to such software and see what the impacts were. Don Duhaime still thought underground detention was the way to go noting that he had recently done a review for work on a plan development of 11 lots on minimal acreage that proposed such a system. He added that this idea would fall in line with the Water Resource Management Plan previously discussed. Don Duhaime stated that the runoff needed to be trapped and slowed. The Coordinator noted that flows were generally fine until a storm event and other factors needed to be
considered when thinking about detention such as nearby rivers that might peak at the same time flows were released from basins. Douglas Hill asked Don Duhaime if his stance was to keep water on site and not flow it off. Stu Lewin thought that the regulations seemed to address flow over volume. Don Duhaime suggested that trapping flows and storing them underground would result in less of an issue. Douglas Hill asked if that method was cost effective and technologically sound. Don Duhaime was unsure of the cost effectiveness and noted that it may be a more expensive option but added that the technology was there to accomplish that type of design. He stated that he would contact Kevin Leonard of Northpoint the following day to discuss it.
Douglas Hill concluded that one of the major goals of the Planning Board for 2008 was stormwater management and drainage. He noted that New Boston had hilly terrain, hence stormwater issues and that there were recent developments that experienced the same problems, therefore, he thought this would be a great topic to work on. Don Duhaime felt that drainage went hand in hand with road standards also with drainage issues being a key component given the road wash outs the Town had experienced in recent years. The Coordinator added that the language in the Subdivision Regulations regarding road widths, pavement, and particularly the -3% grade requirement at intersections which section was badly written and all of which needed review. She noted that the
Road Committee had come up with different standards for roads that handled different numbers of car trips per day, i.e., maybe narrower roads could be considered if they were to handle less traffic. Don Duhaime thought it important to note that the Town should still assure that they could have a 50’ right-of-way in the event the road needed to be widened at any time.
Douglas Hill asked Dave Woodbury to see if the Selectmen had any topics they wished the Board to work on. Dave Woodbury replied that in addition to drainage issues he recalled that recreation facilities being provided within new subdivisions had been an important topic in the past, however, it now seemed as though the Recreation Department was not interested in this enough to justify going forward with it. Don Duhaime noted that a month prior the Board had discussed this and considered that the Town could work on earmarking land without assigning it a particular use so that they had it when they needed it for whatever the Town deemed necessary such as Recreation, a substation for the Fire Department, etc. Dave Woodbury stated that the Town needed help from the Board in
identifying parcels of land for sale (or not) that would be reasonable land for Town facilities. Douglas Hill agreed. Dave Woodbury added that presently the idea of a safety complex was uppermost although there was no great need for the Police Department, Highway Department or Transfer Station to make a move from their current locations. Don Duhaime thought that it would be a better scenario to have the Police and Fire Departments in a common area. Dave Woodbury replied that this was the ultimate ideal, however, the Fire Department was the entity that needed more space sooner, not the Police Department. He agreed that it may be more effective to build a complex that would eventually house both. Dave Woodbury added that in reviewing the Fire Department studies the town was likely to be built out at 15,000 residents. Don Duhaime asked when this would occur. The Coordinator checked the Master Plan and noted that it did not state a
particular year and only said “in the future”. Douglas Hill stated that ongoing updates to the Subdivision Regulations should be a continuing goal of the Board. Stu Lewin asked if there were Town regulations for cell towers. The Coordinator replied that there were and recalled that the two sites that had been up for approval previously fell victim to the AT & T/Cingular merger issues which took the applicant past their approval deadline date.
Douglas Hill summarized the list of ongoing Planning Board Goals for 2008 as: stormwater management, road standards, commercial district, ongoing Subdivision Regulations, and areas for future Town expansion. The Coordinator noted that requiring a developer to set land aside would have to be noted in the Subdivision Regulations, however, identifying Town parcels for future Town use would be something that could be handled through the Planning Department rather than by the Board.
Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator and Planning Assistant if the Technical Review Committee was going well. They both responded that it was. Stu Lewin asked the Coordinator if SNHPC’s fiscal impact study for the Town was complete. The Coordinator replied that Jack Munn, SNHPC, was waiting for information from the School study to incorporate into his report and thought that it would possibly be completed by January of 2008. Don Duhaime asked about the Bedford Road study also being addressed by SNHPC. The Coordinator replied that Tim White would meet with the All Boards Committee on December 6, 2007, and would then meet with the Planning Board followed by the Selectmen after reviewing his information with the Highway Department and Road
Committee.
The Coordinator stated that incorporating the Water Resources Management Plan update and Groundwater Resource Conservation District update was a good decision as some of this could be accomplished through a grant due the Town. Stu Lewin stated that he would be interested in working on this.
Don Duhaime wished to address the subject of multi-family housing and added that in his opinion it was not an idea that suited the Town. The Coordinator stated that there were new programs out there that worked to blend conservation efforts with such housing and it seemed to be a good idea. She offered examples of farmhouse style homes with 4 units, nothing too large, which could make subdivisions more affordable. Don Duhaime did not see this as something feasible for the Town given its housing costs. Douglas Hill noted that the success of multi-family type housing was dependent on the land you were working with, i.e. having more homes/units on the same piece of land that would normally support a single family residence was where the feasibility came into play.
The Coordinator added that there were other options as well such as accessory dwelling units, options for size controlled apartments that did not overtake the primary dwelling, i.e., detached buildings. She noted that she was gathering examples from other towns on this subject. Don Duhaime thought that the cost of living in the Town was too high to bring in families with 2+ children and adults that needed to travel distances out of town to their jobs. Douglas Hill noted that there was a difference between affordable living and affordable housing. He asked that “Affordable/Multi-Family Housing” be added to the list of Planning Board Goals for 2008 and added that some of these needs were being met currently with condexing in Town.
Changing the subject, the Coordinator noted that if the Board wished to hold a Public Hearing on language changes/additions to the Subdivision Regulations regarding 200’ squares they needed to finalize these changes this evening as the notice would need to be sent in to the NH Union Leader for timely publication. Douglas Hill stated that not being an engineer he was still unsure about the unintended consequences of the language changes/additions that had been discussed at some previous meetings. Stu Lewin presented his example lots and noted that he had some trouble with the square placements being to scale. Douglas Hill wondered if this meant that the changes being considered were more drastic than previously thought. The Coordinator interjected that the Twin
Bridge subdivision example which was the issue for Stu Lewin was an R-1 District and, therefore, only required a 150’ square which was why his example was skewed. She apologized for not having remembered this when she and Stu Lewin had met the previous week. The Coordinator noted that the Board needed to consider property lines versus setbacks as the denominator in placing the 200’ square and further noted that cul-de-sacs and lots on major curves would be the lots that would most likely be flagged. Don Duhaime thought that the language changes to the Regulation could work if it was stated that the 200’ square needed to be in the setback limits. The Coordinator thought that this might hit some resistance with voters as that could result in adding an extra 40’ to each new subdivision lot (for new development) as you traveled down its road. She noted that she had contacted Ray Shea of Sandford Survey and Engineering on this
topic and he thought that the purpose of the 200’ square served to be what was most reasonable, i.e., what gave light, space, and distance on a lot as a valid public purpose. The Coordinator stated that adding extra distance at the front of a lot would not add much to the scenario and voters may think it unreasonable. Stu Lewin thought that the goal with this issue was to match language and intent. Douglas Hill wondered if opting for the setback requirement and keeping the 200’ square parallel to the frontage of the lot would accomplish what they wished. Stu Lewin noted that some could argue that the lots that failed the intent of the 200’ square based on the proposed language change were non-conforming anyway. The Coordinator thought that the language change would make the biggest difference for cul-de-sac lots where the design of the road would need to be more of a larger loop than a turnaround area to accommodate the appropriate
lot shape/frontage. Don Duhaime asked if the cul-de-sac regulations would need to be changed as a result. The Coordinator replied that they could be or the Board could go with the turnaround regulations that were currently in place which called for a minimum 130’ diameter. Dave Woodbury thought that if the Board believed that the 200’ square needed to be centered and parallel to the frontage then the new language would accomplish this. The Coordinator noted that working with the property line was a key factor and would impact the traditional way cul-de-sacs were designed. Don Duhaime thought that the language should be shown to the Road Agent. Dave Woodbury thought that the changes proposed would be helpful to the Highway Department. The Coordinator noted that they would be helpful only if the cul-de-sac circles had vegetative centers. She added that in speaking with Ray Shea he had suggested that the current 200’
square language be retained while specifying more frontage for lots. Don Duhaime thought that was a sensible option. Dave Woodbury asked what the minimum acceptable frontage for surrounding towns. The Coordinator replied that most towns had 150 to 200 linear feet.
Douglas Hill did not think the Board should move forward on this issue any further until they got more engineering opinions and the Road Agent was contacted. Dave Woodbury thought that the Board should confirm if the system was so skewed now that it needed adjustment. He asked how many bad lots fell into this category. The Coordinator replied that 8 or 10 lots had been in this category since approximately 2002 when she looked back over major subdivisions. She noted, however, that she had not scrutinized every new lot from that year forward so this analysis was not totally scientific. Don Duhaime thought that in regard to cul-de-sacs their radius should be required to be a certain footage. The Board agreed to further consider this issue in the year 2008
versus moving to a public hearing in December, 2007.
Public Hearing on the Capital Improvements Program, Plan of 2008, as proposed by the C.I.P. Committee.
The Vice Chairman read the public hearing notice. He asked if there were any members of the audience who would like to review copies of the C.I.P. table. Audience members Jay Marden, Ken Lombard and Bob Todd requested copies. There were no questions or comments from the public. Douglas Hill then closed the public hearing to enter into the deliberation session by the Board. There were no deliberations and a motion was called for.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to submit the C.I.P. Plan of 2008 as presented, to the Selectmen and Finance Committee. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill recused himself from the Board as he was an abutter to the next application.
FAIRBAIRN, GERALD R. & DONA M. Adjourned from 11/13/07
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 Vice Chairman read the public hearing notice. Bob Todd, LLS, was present and represented the applicants. An abutter present was Douglas Hill.
Dave Woodbury noted that he was a long time friend of the applicants and felt that to remain seated for the hearing might be a conflict of interest. He asked if he stepped down if there would be a quorum of Board members. The Coordinator replied that there would not. Don Duhaime stated that he was unsure if it would be appropriate to hear the applicant tonight due to these circumstances. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the Board’s deadline for action on the application expired on November 29, 2007. He added that the applicants had instructed him as their representative to act in their best interest and he had no issue with Dave Woodbury remaining seated on the Board for the hearing. Stu Lewin thought that it was more likely that a “non-applicant” to the hearing would have issue with this circumstance. Don Duhaime noted
that it would be Mr. Woodbury’s decision alone whether he should recuse himself or not. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the only outstanding issue on the application was Town Counsel’s review of language on the Stormwater Management Plan which had been in his possession for over 60 days, therefore, it seemed to him that its sign off should be an administrative issue since this was separate from the subdivision process. He clarified that he believed there was reason to conditionally approve the plan based on Town Counsel’s review of the Stormwater Management plan in an administrative level. Don Duhaime stated that if Dave Woodbury stepped down there would be no quorum, therefore, no decision could be made tonight on the application. Douglas Hill wished to state for the record that he had no issue
with an approval of the application and would take the Fairbairns at their word in abiding by the stipulations of their plan. Dave Woodbury stated that under the circumstances he felt that it would serve the greater good to move forward with the application tonight, therefore, he would not recuse himself in the interest of getting this accomplished.
Stu Lewin asked if the measures agreed to at the last meeting to address the runoff and a swale in regard to the proposed location for a house on the subdivided lot had been incorporated into the plan. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that while the house had initially been moved to keep a wooded knoll on site from being impacted and since the applicant was not in favor of moving the house to that location they had settled for the midpoint and would provide space to plant/replace a tree buffer after level spreaders had been constructed. He noted a third area on site where within 100’ of wetland needed to be cleared for slope extensions off the proposed septic system. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that a note had been added to the plan which was why Town Counsel’s review was
requested, however, he believed all issues had been covered. The Coordinator noted that the Board’s main concern had been to make sure that if this plan was not used during the construction process that the same ideas for the swale and tree plantings would be carried forward. She further noted that if Town Counsel had language changes to the Stormwater Management Plan they would have the option of complying or they would need to petition the Board to reopen the application. Don Duhaime asked Bob Todd, LLS, if the applicant would agree to this. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that they would abide by Town Counsel’s review. He added that note #’s 6, 7 and 8 were critical to how the proposed lot would be developed. Stu Lewin asked the Coordinator if there were any other issues. The Coordinator replied that there were not and all that remained was the approval of the Driveway Permit. Dave Woodbury noted that although the current
expression of the lot design was not consistent with what the Board would prefer in terms of the 200’ square it met Town requirements.
Stu Lewin MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision, Tax Map/Lot #8/75, Gerald and Dona Fairbairn, Bedford Road and Pheasant Lane, 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;
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD;
3. Submission of a minimum of five (5) blue/blackline copies of the Individual
Stormwater Management Plan for Lot #8/75-1, including any checklist corrections
and any corrections as noted at this hearing. Should the ISWMP submitted at the
time of building permit application differ from that approved by the Planning Board
this evening it must be determined that the new ISWMP contains the same
requirements for reforestation and drainage swale construction as included in the
approved plan.;
4. Submission of a certificate of bounds set (if necessary);
5. Submission of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application or
recording of documents at the HCRD.
6. Receipt and incorporation of Bill Drescher, Esq’s comments from his review of the PEISWMP plan notes.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be February 29, 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 that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #07-028 for proposed driveway, to lot #8/75-1, Pheasant Lane, with the Standard Planning Board
Requirements: the driveway shall have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be
applied to the driveway to a minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft) from the centerline of the road; the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of ten foot (10’) radii minimum; and, the driveways shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill reclaimed his seat on the Board.
VAN TASSELL, ERIC H. & GABRIELE E.
Submission of Application/Minor Subdivision/3 Lots
Location: Cochran Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #10/19
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Vice Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, who represented the applicant. Abutters present were Donna Gibbons, Sue Woodward and JoAnn and Tony Cardone. An interested party was Jay Marden.
Stu Lewin commented to Bob Todd, LLS, that the 11” X 17” plan copies were difficult to read. Bob Todd, LLS, agreed that the required sizing per the Subdivision Regulations
sometimes resulted in illegible plot plans. He offered that the text could be re-edited if that would be helpful and noted that in this case a full scale plan would have been more useful. The Coordinator clarified that the current Regulations required that 4 full scale copies be submitted to the Planning Department and eight 11” X 17” copies be provided for Board members. She added that if the Board wished they could change the Regulations to require a different sizing for distribution and although full scale plans were usually not requested for Board member packets they could opt to specify legibility. The Coordinator further added that certain Town departments did prefer to receive the 11” X 17” format. Douglas Hill asked that this topic be continued for discussion under
Miscellaneous Business.
Bob Todd, LLS, noted the site on the plan as 12.109 acres with a proposal of a three lot subdivision. He noted that the land on the western side of Cochran Hill Road from the site was part of the eastern land. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that each existing structure had its own “driveway” which had been used for access points such as to the existing barn/garage. He added that there was also an existing well on site and test pits had been dug in the field that were logical to where a proposed house would be constructed on one of the new lots. Bob Todd, LLS, noted the location of a proposed driveway for one of the new lots also situated in what they assumed to be a logical location with a house placement. He explained that two lots were proposed on the
land on the eastern side of the site and that an opening along Cochran Hill Road was field land with 25% slope breaking at the edge into forest land, then leveling out at an existing stone wall. Bob Todd, LLS, noted on the plan where breaks in the topography of the site directed runoff flows. He noted that the existing main house did not have a driveway directly associated with it as the residents had been driving their vehicles to the barn area to park in the past, therefore, a new paved driveway was proposed and noted on the plan which would offer a direct access to the entrance of the home. Stu Lewin asked if the existing house was located within the right-of-way. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was and that Cochran Hill Road was a 2.5 rod road, therefore, the applicants proposed a dedication for its future widening that would extend to the west which would result in a large space between the existing stonewall and property line. He noted that the
proposed driveway was a gravel one since the road up to the house turned to gravel just beyond it. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that there was good sight distance in either direction although a tree or two may need to be cut and that the topography showed no breaks in the road with sight distance exceeding 200’ with minimal elevation changes. Stu Lewin asked if two new lots were proposed from the parent lot. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that was correct. He added that although his clients wanted the maximum number of lots considered in the proposal he could not figure any additional lots under the current regulations and if the rules were to change they would need to come before the Board again anyway. Don Duhaime asked the acreage of lot #10/19-2. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was proposed at 5.5 acres. He added that he had made some corrections to the Declaration of Covenants and had submitted these to the Coordinator. Bob Todd, LLS, then
submitted another written waiver request regarding offset boundary requirements to the Coordinator.
Douglas Hill noted that this proposal was a good example of the 200’ square interpretation which the Board had had much discussion on recently. He noted that when coming down to the parallel point with the roadway the 200’ square was out of the property line, therefore, a minimum frontage or centering of the 200’ square within the property line would be warranted by the Board’s interpretations. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that when the language for the 200’ square was composed he was a party to the discussion and wished to clarify that the intent was to assure lot width for building. Don Duhaime stated that in the case of this plan the misalignment was so minute that it did not matter to him. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that some towns provide that
lot lines must be perpendicular to the road or curve radius and have no 200’ square such as neighboring Goffstown, NH.
Interested party Jay Marden asked if the parcel to the north of the site was a legal lot and what its acreage was. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was a legal lot of 3 acres also owned by the applicants. A site walk was then scheduled for Saturday, December 8, 2007, at 8:30 a.m. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the pre-engineered Individual Stormwater Management Plan checklist called for representation of Steep Slopes and wetlands within 400’ of the lot and at that scale this did not fit on the plan. He asked if a reduced scale overlay plan provided, which contained USGS contours, soils, etc., showing drainage patterns with breaks in topography and sheet flows off the existing slopes, was adequate. Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator if this was acceptable.
The Coordinator replied that it was. Bob Todd, LLS, inquired about a new requirement for 1” equaling 400’ line drawings for tax maps. Stu Lewin explained that this was to get a better handle on future development in the abutting areas of site plans before the Board. Bob Todd, LLS, asked if a transparency format was desired for this information. The Coordinator replied that they were typically using a cut and paste method but that a transparency would be even better. Douglas Hill asked if the Steep Slopes noted on the plan fell away from the road or inclined. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that they fell away from the road and noted the 15% line on the plan. He returned to the subject of the driveways and noted that the existing access ways had been on site for approximately 50 years, however, to change their status to a residential driveway would require a permit. The Coordinator clarified that the Town had nothing on file
for some of the access ways and added that there was a plan showing a driveway to the existing barn but for recording purposes details of the history should be enough and a permit could be applied for the new proposed driveway. She noted that it was unusual to have three driveways/access ways on one lot and that under the current Driveway Regulations the ones to the two existing buildings would not be permissible because they were within 200’ of each other and the proposed driveway. Don Duhaime stated that this issue could be reviewed at the site walk.
Abutter Tony Cardone asked the location of the driveway to the existing house and how many lots were proposed. Bob Todd, LLS, noted the existing access way to the house and Douglas Hill added that two lots were proposed to be subdivided from the parent lot. Tony Cardone asked the acreage for proposed lot #10/19-2. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was 5.5 acres. Abutter Sue Woodward asked if Cochran Hill Road would be altered to provide for the existing house to not be located in the right-of-way as it was now. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was common practice to ask subdividers to assure a 50’ width to construct/maintain a public way and this was a 2.5 rod road (42’ wide) which was 8’ too narrow. He added that the existing house sat on
and slightly into the right-of-way, therefore, they had chosen to widen the road to the west instead of the east which would yield an 8’ strip between the stonewall and lot line. Susan Woodward noted that she abutted the site at this location. Douglas Hill explained that in the event of a future road upgrade the applicant dedicating that width would assure that there was ample space to do so, although nothing was being done with the road currently. Susan Woodward asked if such an easement for the road width would cut into the existing stonewall in that area. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it would extend beyond it and go into the field on the western side. Susan Woodward clarified that if the road were ever widened this meant that it would impact that stonewall. Jay Marden expected that if this were the case the Town was likely to make efforts to move the wall back to preserve it. Douglas Hill agreed. Tony Cardone asked if there
was any way to prevent this subdivision given that it was proposed in a rural area. Douglas Hill replied that as an abutter Mr. Cardone had rights and privileges to speak out while the Board was required to abide by the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning requirements to assure that proposals fit within their parameters. Susan Woodward wished to clarify that the placement of the 200’ square illustrated the space needed to make a legal lot but was not necessarily the spot where a house had to be constructed on a lot. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that was correct but in this case the proposed house would go in the location of the 200’ square. Susan Woodward asked how many feet behind the right-of-way line a 200’ was required to sit. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the measure was 50’. Susan Woodward asked if the applicant would consider further subdivisions of this site. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the geometry of the site did
not allow for it. Susan Woodward asked if a backlot was possible on site. Douglas Hill replied that it was not possible according to the current Subdivision Regulations. Bob Todd, LLS, clarified that due to the width and placement of the square on the proposed lots there was not enough area to establish a backlot also. JoAnn Cardone stated that New Boston was a small town and asked why more subdivision was needed. Douglas Hill replied that it was a property owner’s right to subdivide. JoAnn Cardone thought that the Board had the discretion to say no to such applicants. The Coordinator noted that Zoning Regulations were adopted by the Town based on ideas and input from the Master Plan. She noted that the Master Plan had been updated in 2006, therefore, the way for disgruntled residents to make changes to these practices was to get involved in the process of changing the regulations.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the application of Eric H. & Gabriele E. Van Tassell, Minor Subdivision, 3 Lots, Location: Cochran Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #10/19, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to December 11, 2007, at 8:30 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
TWIN BRIDGE MANAGEMENT, LLC Adjourned from 11/13/07
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 Vice 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.
Bill Davidson, PE, stated that the review comments from Northpoint Engineering had been revised on the plan and the only remaining issue from their final review letter was an underdrain detail required for the plan set. He explained that they had shown filter fabric wrapped around crushed stone whereas the Road Agent preferred to see the fabric on top and this was a minor change to make. Bill Davidson, PE, stated that at the last meeting it was brought to their attention that the Board would no longer waive minor CFS increases, therefore, on lot #’s 2/62-8, 9, and 10, they proposed leaching basins for drainage to alleviate this increase. Don Duhaime wondered how this adjustment could accommodate 1.75 CFS. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that he had erroneously
listed some type A soils as C soils in the drainage calculations which was why the calculation had stated that a culvert would overtop the road, therefore, in correcting the soil type and incorporating three leaching basins (concrete structure with holes and 1.5’ of stone on bottom and sides) this would redirect the flow. Don Duhaime asked if the revised drainage calculations had been resubmitted to the Town Engineer. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that they had and they were satisfied with the results.
Bill Davidson, PE, stated that at the previous meeting the Board had questioned the development ramifications of bringing a road through Tax Map/Lot #3/5. He noted that they had supplied a tax map showing the gravel lot's potential for subdivision with the possibility of 5 lots from lot #2/62-12 and 17 from lot #3/5. Bill Davidson, PE, further noted that this conceptual design was done by Bedford Design in 2004 for the applicant. He clarified that the 17 lots assumed that the Steep Slopes in that area be cut and flattened to create a reasonable roadway. Douglas Hill asked if SNHPC had provided notes on this topic. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that he had seen such a copy some time ago. He added that he had received a letter from Richard Radwanski, NHDOT,
which he submitted to the Board. Don Duhaime asked if the town of Weare, NH, had responded to the Planning Board’s second notification letter regarding the subdivision proposal. Douglas Hill replied that he had information on this from a telephone call from the planning board chairman, Paul Morin, which was that Weare did believe that the subdivision posed a regional impact and that the problems with the intersection at Twin Bridge and NH Route 114 played a part in that which they were aware of and was a problem on their side. He noted that no one representing the town of Weare appeared to be at the meeting tonight. Stu Lewin asked if the subdivision would have street lights along the proposed road. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that it would not. Charlie Cleary, Esq., noted that determination of a regional impact merely gave Weare the option to exercise abutter status. He added that tonight’s hearing was the fourth public hearing
Weare had been notified of and they had still not made any effort to attend. Douglas Hill agreed. The Coordinator then gave a copy of the offsite road improvement figure to the applicants.
Bill Davidson, PE, noted a road constructed to enable the additional lots previously conceptualized by Bedford Design would need to cut through to West Lull Place and then Lull Road and encounter both substantial grades in topography and a 1,500’ cul-de-sac that was unlikely to be waived. Dave Woodbury asked where the Town Engineer review stood. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that all that remained was a correction to an underdrain detail. The Coordinator submitted a copy of the construction monitoring estimate to the applicants and noted that the Board’s deadline for action expired on November 29, 2007. She added that the Driveway Permits had not yet been acted upon but could be done later and that a final legal sign off was needed by Dwight Sowerby, Esq.,
who was currently hospitalized. Douglas Hill asked if these items would procedurally delay an acceptance. The Coordinator replied that they would not as a conditional approval could be made. Bill Davidson, PE, asked if the applicant’s fair share estimate for road improvement costs was set in stone. Douglas Hill replied that a lot of time and effort went into the formula that derived such estimates. He noted that because Twin Bridge Road had recently been paved this benefited the applicant. The Coordinator noted that the applicant’s case presented an unusual issue since there was no remaining buildable land near the site to offset the fair share formula. Charlie Cleary, Esq., stated that in the past they had interpreted that the Town’s imposed fair share costs based on impacts a developer caused. He added that in the case of Twin Bridge Road the Town had already improved it and was preparing to topcoat and it seemed
to him as though the formula should apply to the next topcoat in the future since the Town had already expended funds for the current one. Don Duhaime stated that he disagreed as the developer would impact the road by their construction of the subdivision. Charlie Cleary, Esq., stated that he disagreed with the formula and asked if Dwight Sowerby, Esq., or Bill Drescher, Esq., had reviewed it. The Coordinator replied that Bill Drescher, Esq., had reviewed the formula at the time it was derived for the Beard Road issue. Tris Gordon wished to note in contrast that the cost to base coat the proposed 1,000’ road would be $23K. Douglas Hill noted that the Board had not been involved in the crafting of the fair share cost formula, however, it had been approved by Town Counsel, therefore, they supported it. Charlie Cleary, Esq., asked if the formula was in a Town ordinance. The Coordinator replied that it was referenced in the Subdivision
regulations and had been used since 1989. She noted that SNHPC had aided in its formulation at the onset.
Don Duhaime wondered if one more courtesy letter should be sent to the town of Weare, NH, notifying them of the pending approval for this application. Bill Davidson, PE, stated that he had questioned Richard Radwanski, NHDOT, where the funding came from to improve State roads and was informed that the gas tax was the source with $0.18 from every gallon. He noted that the Twin Bridge Road intersection was not on their 10 year plan of repairs.
Tris Gordon asked if their bond needed to be in place to pull permits for the lots. The Coordinator replied that for “Page Lane” this was necessary, but unless the plan was revised to show phasing the Town would need all conditions precedent completed before permits were pulled even for the road frontage lots on Twin Bridge Road and submittal of the bond was included in that. Tris Gordon asked if the price of the inspection monitoring was likely to change if they put off construction for a year from approval. Douglas Hill replied that it should not unless the Town Engineer’s hourly rate increased. The Coordinator noted that this was a slight possibility as the Town Engineer’s contract would not be renewed during the same time frame. Dave
Woodbury thought that it also depended on the “date certain” of the conditions of
approval. The Coordinator asked if all wetland crossings and the cul-de-sac were included in the bond estimate. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that they were.
Jay Marden stated that he did not see any representatives from the Conservation Commission or Piscataquog Watershed Association present and asked if the commitments promised for protection of the Piscataquog River could be reviewed. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that a 250’ easement was given along the backside of 3 lots on site. Jay Marden asked if these lot owners would own to the river edge. Bill Davidson, PE, replied that they would and that the minimum requirements for Shoreland Protection Act were being utilized. The Coordinator noted that the only issue in not constructing Page Lane right away would be that a preconstruction meeting is a condition precedent needed before the plan was recorded. Douglas Hill asked if this preconstruction meeting could
be postponed. The Coordinator replied that the applicants would then need to come before the Board again to change their conditions precedent. Charlie Cleary, Esq., questioned why a traffic count number from 2005 was plugged into the offsite improvement calculation rather than a more updated one. Stu Lewin pointed out that the number in question was the same one used in the applicant’s traffic study. Charlie Cleary, Esq., replied that they were not aware that this number was to be used in another formula. He asked if the Board would allow time for them to review the formula. Douglas Hill agreed that the applicant should have received the offsite improvement calculation sooner than this evening but this was when the Road Agent had submitted his paving cost for Twin Bridge Road. He suggested that the applicants could review the formula and be adjourned to the next meeting. Charlie Cleary, Esq., clarified that he was not
questioning the calculated amount but merely wanted to review the correctness of the formula used. The Board determined that this could be done by incorporating the request as a condition of approval.
Stu Lewin MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plan of Land of Clifton Wilson, prepared for Twin Bridge Land Management, LLC, Tax Map 2 Lot 62 and Tax Map 3 Lot 3, Twin Bridge Road, for the consolidation of Tax Map/Lot #2/62 & 3/3 and the subsequent subdivision of 22 new lots with one remainder lot, 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.
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F, 3.
4. Receipt of Northpoint Engineering, LLC's approval of the road plans and profiles.
5. Submission of the language of the form of the security for review and approval by
Town Counsel, the cost of which review shall be borne by the applicant.
6. Submission of the security, in the amount of $299,607.55 and in the form of letter of credit, for the construction of Page Lane as shown on the approved plans and profiles.
7. Submission of the estimated construction inspection fees regarding the construction of Page Lane in the amount of $31,410.00. A mandatory pre-construction meeting is
required to be held with the developer/agent, road contractor, Town's Road Agent, and representatives of the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen, as well as the Town's consulting engineer, prior to the start of the road construction project.
8. Submission of the off-site improvement fees in the amount of $19,200.00.
9. Approval of the language of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, Warranty Deed and Slope and Drainage Easement by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
10. Submission of executed Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions regarding sprinkler systems. The cost of recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
11. Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.
12. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
13. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
14. Approved Pre-Engineered Individual Stormwater Management Plans may be resubmitted as the final Individual Stormwater Management Plans at the time of application for a building permit provided the builder complies with those plans. If critical areas are to be disturbed beyond those shown on the Pre-Engineered Individual Stormwater Management Plans, revised Individual Stormwater Management Plans shall be prepared and submitted for approval. If the Pre-Engineered Stormwater Management Plans are not to be used at the time of application for a building permit new Individual Stormwater Management Plans shall be submitted for approval. In any event, the bonds for the Individual Stormwater Management Plans must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be February 29,
2008, the 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
dwellings on Lots #2/62, 2/62-22 & 2/62-23.
2. Page Lane is to be constructed in accordance with the Application for Inspection
and in accordance with the approved plans and profiles. After the base (binder)
course of pavement is approved by the Road Agent/town's engineer, the developer
will allow the road to set over one winter, during which time the developer will be
liable for the roads, including, but not limited to, winter maintenance thereof. The
wearing (finish) course of pavement shall be applied no later than one (1) year from
the date of application of the binder course. The Application for Inspection must be
turned into the Planning Department after the road is 100% complete, in order to
initiate final inspection and acceptance of the road, and the release of the security
for same after a compliance inspection and hearing is held.
3. Driveway locations for lots on Page Lane shall be approved at sub-grade and
driveways shall be installed through binder to the satisfaction of the Road
Agent/town engineer and in conformance with the Application for Inspection and
approved driveway permits.
4. Per Subdivision Regulations Section V-S, 1, J), As-Built plans showing the final
location of any slope/drainage easement areas, and driveways, and the final road
construction details, in the form of three paper print copies and one electronic file,
certified by the applicant's engineer that the layout of the line and grade of all
public improvements is in accordance with the approved construction plans of the
subdivision, shall be submitted for review by Northpoint Engineering, LLC, prior
to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy within the subdivision.
5. Submission of executed Deeds of Easement to the Town of New Boston for any
slope and/or drainage easement areas identified on the plans. The cost of recording
at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
6. Submission of executed Warranty Deed for Page Lane. Payment of recording fees at
HCRD shall be made by the applicant.
7. Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set, and the appropriate fee for recording
same with the HCRD.
8. The applicant shall install road identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) to the satisfaction of the Road Agent.
9. Driveway permits must be approved for completed acceptable installation by the Road Agent and Planning Board prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy (CO's) for the related lots.
10. 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 (for Lots #2/62, 2/62-22 & 2/62-23) and the driveways are installed and approved by the Road Agent and the Planning Board and the road is installed
through binder pavement and the road identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) are installed to the satisfaction of the Road Agent/town's engineer, guard rails are installed, if necessary, and the As-Built plans have been reviewed and approved by the town's engineer.
11. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD.
The deadline for complying with the conditions subsequent shall be December 01, 2009,
the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing to be
held on the application. Prior to the acceptance of the completed road by the Town, an
acceptable two year maintenance bond must be submitted by the applicant for the road in
the amount of 10% of the performance bond value.
Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Stu Lewin MOVED to accept the Conditional Use Permit application as complete, and
to grant the Conditional Use Permit and approve the plans of Twin Bridge Land
Management, LLC, to effect two (2) wetland crossings on land of Clifton Wilson at
approximate sta. 9+50 for Page Lane construction and on Lot #2/62-14 for driveway
construction, as the four conditions for granting the Permit have been found to exist,
subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
Submission of the financial security for the wetland crossing installation as part of the
total amount of the bond as noted in Condition Precedent #6 in the Board's motion to
approve the subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #2/62 & 3/3.
Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be
signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be February 29, 2008,
the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by
the Board. Should the conditions to approval not be fulfilled by the deadline date, and a
written request for extension is not submitted prior to that date, the applicant is hereby
put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to
revoke the approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
Completion of the site improvements as related to the two (2) wetland crossings, as
shown on the approved construction design plan.
The financial security shall not be released and no Certificates of Occupancy for Lots
on Page Lane or Lot #2/62-14 shall be issued until the site has been inspected upon
notification to the Planning Department by the applicants that the project has been
completed, and a compliance hearing is held and confirms that the project has been
satisfactorily completed by no later than December 01, 2009.
Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 27, 2007
10. Memo dated November 26, 2007, from Russ Boland, Fire Inspector, to Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: building code modifications, for the Board’s review and discussion. (Dan MacDonald and/or Russ Boland will be present)
Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief and Russ Boland, Fire Inspector were present.
Russ Boland referred to the above noted memo which implemented changes to the New Boston Building Code. He began with Chapter NB-4.0, a wording change for attached garages. He noted that the previous language had read: “Attached garages shall include a heat detector interconnected with required smoke detectors” and was now changed to: “Attached garages shall include a heat detector (in each stall) interconnected with required smoke detectors.” He explained that the reason for this change was to address garages with multiple stalls that were only installing one heat detector. Douglas Hill asked if items 3-7 of the memo dealt with sprinkler systems. Russ Boland and Dan MacDonald replied that was correct. Dan
MacDonald noted that the Sprinkler Ordinance was introduced 4-5 years prior and since that time Town related issues had arisen. Russ Boland continued to read from the memo with Chapter NB-5.4, item 3: “Pumps and tanks shall be installed no less than 7” and no more than 9” above the permanent floor. The material used to accomplish this shall be permanent, solid and not allow any voids under the pump or tank”. Russ Boland clarified that this had to do with offering as much versatility for contractors with the noted range. He added that he included “tank” in this language as they originally considered just raising the pump, however, in contacting sprinkler companies none could assure him that the pump would draft, therefore, by raising the pump and not raising the tank the risk of losing approximately 8” of water on the bottom seemed possible given the surface area. Russ Boland stated that he did not
want to run the risk of someone constructing a picture frame type structure and placing the tank on top of it which could cause sagging over the years. From the audience Jay Marden asked if a concrete base would be used or if cinder block would suffice. Russ Boland replied that cinder block would be fine or pressure treated landscape timber as long as there were no large voids. He continued with Chapter NB-5.4, item #4: “Circuit breakers responsible for supplying power to the sprinkler system shall be equipped with a lockout device”. He explained that this was so that residents would not accidentally shut down the system. Russ Boland continued with the next item (#5): “Valve handles shall be removed and stored in the sprinkler head box”. Dan MacDonald stated that this was a protection measure also. Russ Boland continued with item #6: “The power feed for the sprinkler system shall be protected
in a method approved by the authority having jurisdiction”. He explained that EMT tubing was originally going to be required but they wanted to provide flexibility for contractors to make their case for other materials. Item #7: “Sprinkler systems shall be equipped with a fire department connection and external alarm approved by the authority having jurisdiction”. Russ Boland explained that this would provide a connection on the outside of a structure that would couple with the sprinkler system and continue to provide water to the house since current sprinkler systems were designed with a 2 head calculation designed to run for 10 minutes. Douglas Hill asked what the cost would be. Russ Boland replied that sprinkler companies he had consulted informed him that the cost was approximately $200.00. They felt that this hydro-connection could be installed under the exterior alarm bell. Dan MacDonald noted that they
would be flexible on the location, i.e., it did not necessarily need to be on the front of the house. Jay Marden noted that if the power was out due to a storm, etc., the sprinkler system would not work anyway. Dan MacDonald noted that this was a calculated risk the Fire Department took when they opted for sprinkler systems in the Town.
The Coordinator stated that a Public Hearing would be held regarding these Building Code Modifications on December 11, 2007. Douglas Hill stated that the only question he had regarded use of the word “void” for the phrase “not allow any voids” in the language for item #3 but that if the Fire Inspector was comfortable with it given the use of cinder blocks he was fine with it. The Coordinator asked if this term would remain in the language as she would need to know before notice of the hearing was posted. Russ Boland replied that this term could remain in the language.
1. Approval of the minutes of October 9, 2007, with or without changes, distributed by email.
Stu Lewin Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of October 9, 2007, as written. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. A copy of an email received November 19, 2007, from Keith Diaz, Arrowwood Road, to the Planning Department, re: extension request for conditions subsequent, was distributed for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator stated the Diaz’ had received a subdivision approval apparently somewhat prematurely given that they had requested an extension to the conditions precedent previously and were happy to hear about the change to allow submission of an ISWMP bond at the building permit stage rather than at the time of subdivision. She went on to note that the conditions subsequent deadline was also expiring and the applicants, therefore, wanted an extension to that deadline also. The Board felt that an extension request for 4 years seemed extensive based on the usual requests received.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to extend the conditions subsequent for Kieth Diaz, Arrowwood Road, to 11/30/08. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3a. A copy of a letter dated October 3, 2007, from David Preece, SNHPC, to David Woodbury, Chairman and the Board of Selectmen, re: Regional Assessment of the Availability and Quality of Ground Water Resources in the Merrimack River Watershed, New Hampshire, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Addressed with item #3b.
3b. A copy of a memo dated October 16, 2007, from Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, to the Planning Department, re: Merrimack River Basin Groundwater Study, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Dave Woodbury noted that this was a worthwhile study given the minimal cost of $3,500/year for 3 years to the Town. The Board’s consensus was to move forward with this study.
4. A copy of a letter dated November 13, 2007, to Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, from David Preece, SNHPC, re: John Stark Scenic Byway Proposal Update, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that a viewing of the proposed scenic byway was required by members of Scenic Byway Council members before anything could move forward as the last two times a group viewed the sites involved no one in attendance was a member of this council.
5. A copy of a memo dated November 15, 2007, from David Preece, SNHPC, re: NH DOT Ten Year Transportation Plan 2009-2018, was distributed for the Board’s information.
6. A copy of an article from American Planning Association magazine titled Banking on a Loss, was distributed for the Board’s information.
7. A copy of a letter dated November 16, 2007, from NHDES, to Robert Smaha, Vista Road, LLC, re: Alteration of Terrain Permit Application, Byam Road Cluster Subdivision, Tax Map/Lot #6/33, 40-1, 40-2 & 4-3, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator noted that this was the land located behind the Byam farm and she was under the impression that when these applicants approached the board it would be with a final application, not a preliminary.
8. Read File: Public Hearing Notice from the Epsom Board of Adjustment for December 5, 2007, re: construction of a personal wireless services facility.
9. The minutes of November 13, 2007, were noted as having been distributed by email, for approval, with or without changes, at the meeting of December 11, 2007.
11. Daily inspection reports for Vista Road, LLC, dated October 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 23, 25 and 26, 2007, were distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that Vista Road, LLC, was getting ready to request a compliance site walk, however, because loaming and seeding had only just been done the Board may want to consider holding funds back. She noted that there was also issue with a grate on the outlet in the detention pond and that they were awaiting a final review list from Northpoint.
12. Daily inspection reports for SHB Properties, LLC dated October 2, 5, and 15, 2007, were distributed for the Board’s information.
Stu Lewin asked if any home construction had occurred on any of these lots as of yet. The Coordinator replied that none had occurred.
13. A copy of the Small Scale Planned Commercial District meeting minutes from November 5, 2007, was distributed for the Board’s information.
14. A copy of the Notice of Decision and meeting minutes dated November 20, 2007, from the ZBA, re: Kimberly Messa and Anthony Eberhardt, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that Kimberly Messa and Anthony Eberhardt had been granted a special exception to do physical therapy at the sport shop located on Meetinghouse Hill
Road for which the Board would probably soon see a site plan. She added that nothing was planned to go forward with the property on High Street and the gym facilities would apparently remain at the Apple Barn site.
15. A copy of a letter dated November 2007, from Michael Castagna, Plan NH, to the Planning Board, re: Design Assistance for New Hampshire Projects, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that the above noted group chose worthwhile design sites for which they did design charettes free of charge but only if the scenario intrigued them.
16a. A copy of Public Hearing announcement for December 13, 2007, from Stephen Griffin, Goffstown Planning and Economic Development Coordinator, to the Town of New Boston, re: Placid Woods Subdivision, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that the above and also item #16b had to do with the proposed 92 condominium townhouse project in Goffstown.
16b. A copy of Goffstown Planning Board meeting minutes from October 11th and 25th, re: Placid Woods, was distributed for the Board’s information.
17. The Coordinator distributed the daily road inspection reports for Christian Farm Estates.
18. The Coordinator distributed copies of a letter and spreadsheet from Northpoint regarding the Board’s request to have their yearly breakdown of hours and billing. She noted that there was a narrative and numerical format for their work done over the past year which she would forward to the selectmen.
19. The Coordinator noted that previously distributed information provided by Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering which included suggestions for inclusions and modifications to the Subdivision Regulations would be discussed at the next meeting.
20. The Coordinator noted that previously distributed copies of a memo from Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, to the Board regarding gravel pits would be discussed at the next meeting.
21. The Coordinator stated that Susan Carr from the Energy and Climate Committee would be speaking for 20 minutes at the beginning of the next Planning Board meeting followed by discussion on tonight’s previous item #’s 19 & 20.
Stu Lewin stated that he would not be in attendance at the next Planning Board meeting as he would be traveling for work.
At 10:22 p.m. Dave Woodbury MOVED to adjourn. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk
| 
