TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of December 11, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, Douglas Hill, Don Duhaime, and; ex-officio 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 Susan Carr, David Preece, Director, SNHPC, Mike Carter, Karen and Jim Roach, Mike Dahlberg, LLS, Rick Martin and Lyn Lombard.
Meeting with the Energy and Climate Committee
Present for this discussion were members of the New Boston Energy and Climate Committee including their spokesperson Susan Carr and David Preece, Director, SNHPC.
Susan Carr stated that she had sent material to the Board prior to this evening and had brought along additional packets of information. She explained that the Town had voted to have this committee formed to cover topics as they related to global warming. The Chairman stated that he did not want to get into a debate but wished to note that he had spoken with Susan Carr at the voting booth in March, 2007, and she had informed him that the inception of this Committee, if voted in, would not result in any costs to residents, while the material he had since reviewed noted the contrary. Susan Carr replied that it had cost no money to form the Committee as it was all volunteer and their mission was to learn about certain related topics to reduce global warming and to educate the
residents about the money the Town spent on energy versus that energy’s efficiency. She noted that given environmental concerns and what the State was saying this issue represented our tax dollars due to the rising costs of fossil fuels. Susan Carr explained that the Committee’s primary charge was to ask if the Town would consider an inventory of their buildings so that in an effort to lower costs an action plan could be put into place to see where the Town was spending too much on energy. She noted that a community energy challenge made sense as it would document current practices and find out where action should be taken. Susan Carr added that the Committee had shared information at least two times with the Selectmen and had also attended conferences in other towns who were in the same process to discover that they were in fact saving money. She stated that the Committee would like to research what was going on with the Town’s
renovations to buildings like the Town Hall and School and see where money could be saved energy wise. The Chairman stated that although everything Susan Carr said sounded very good he wished to note that in reading the New Boston Climate and Energy Goals he felt they were loaded with information that he did not believe the Board would support. He offered the example of statement #1 in these goals: “…where scientific consensus has developed that carbon dioxide and other green house gases released from the atmosphere have an effect on the earth’s climate…” The Chairman stated that he did not agree with this statement and did not think that half of the scientists in the United States or, for that matter, the world would agree. He felt that the United State’s concept was that fossil fuels usage was governed by supply and demand. The Chairman thought that the Selectmen would agree that any energy conservation the
Town could come up with would be done with the knowledge that it would be the tip of the iceberg of a larger mandate including carbon footprints, etc. He
believed that for the Board to sign on for 43 years of research and development as the materials suggested was questionable.
Susan Carr explained that the 25% Times 25 Plan passed by the State suggested that towns should want 25% renewables so that in doing their research they would be trying to provide a sample of how to look at that. The Chairman noted that the Town did a better job balancing their budget than the State, therefore, he was unwilling to look at what the State of New Hampshire did, or Massachusetts or California. He added that the Selectmen did a far superior job of managing the Town and knowing its needs. The Chairman stated that he did not want to give the Committee the impression that they had his support, therefore, he did not think he could sign on to this proposal. Susan Carr wished to note that as a Committee the members had done research and it was their
responsibility to share a variety of information with the Board, one question being whether the Town would consider an energy inventory of its buildings. Douglas Hill asked if this meant residential homes or buildings in Town. Susan Carr replied that she was referring to Town buildings. The Chairman asked what measures the Committee felt should be taken other than the use of “…80% gas and 80% fuels…” as noted in their materials. Susan Carr replied that an inventory cost and plan to look at fossil fuel reduction could be instituted, i.e., checking on insulation, windows and looking at renewables. The Chairman stated that he was unsure if the Planning Board had the authority or desire to order that. Dave Woodbury noted that for this instance the Selectmen would have more decision making power but they had suggested that the Committee also come before the Planning Board since in the meeting with the Selectmen they had
shared proposals from the town of Epping, NH, that seemed to impact their zoning ordinance and while it was too late in the year to do that in this Town it could be a consideration of the Committee during 2008 as it would look at things like impacts to Zoning, Building Codes, Subdivision Regulations and the mandate for “green building”. Susan Carr admitted that as a volunteer group they were unsure of the procedural process, therefore, they were sharing information with several Town departments such as the Selectmen, School Board and Planning Board in order to share all they had researched thus far.
The Chairman asked who would come up with Building Code issues in regard to the “green building” the Committee had referenced. The Coordinator replied that the Building Inspector could make suggestions along with the State. She added that she had information she could copy to the Board on energy efficient development and OEP information that they may choose to discuss in the upcoming year if they thought it a suitable subject for the 2009 Town vote along with “green building” conservation. The Coordinator clarified that any building energy inventory issues would fall to the Selectmen’s discretion. The Chairman asked if the State required an energy audit for construction as he knew this to be was something required but never followed up
on in the 1980’s. Douglas Hill replied that this was something checked on now as buildings needed to be energy code compliant. The Coordinator added that the Building Inspector looked at this before a Building Permit was issued.
David Preece, Executive Director of SNHPC, explained that the Community Energy Challenge dealt with how the Town could take measures to be more energy efficient and save money in the long run. He noted that communities that had adopted this challenge had made back their cost to retrofit buildings with better lighting, insulation, etc., in the first two years of implementation. David Preece stated that this was one reason the Committee was asking for an energy audit of current buildings and what steps could be taken. The Chairman agreed but noted that the Planning Board had no authority to authorize this and that it was the Selectmen’s discretion. David Preece replied that they would like the Planning Board’s endorsement/support of an energy audit to the
Selectmen. Secondly he noted that SNHPC had come up with an energy efficient development model ordinance and suggested that it could be considered for the 2009 vote. David Preece explained that this model ordinance noted ideas such as housing placement to maximize passive solar benefits. Douglas Hill asked if such an ordinance would be considered a requirement if adopted. David Preece replied that it would be more incentive based where if a property owner/developer wanted to put such measures into their development it could make that a very marketable property to their benefit. He noted that the Coordinator had copies of this model if the Board was interested. For now, he reiterated that the Climate and Energy Committee’s main request was that an energy audit be done on Town buildings. The Chairman thought this had been a good discussion but noted that it was not at all what he took from reading the New Boston Climate and Energy
Committee Goals. He agreed that in going forward measures should be taken in the Town to make buildings more energy efficient. David Preece stated that they sought the support of the Selectmen and School Board to work together to cut down on energy usage.
Dave Woodbury stated that when the Committee met with the Selectmen one week prior he had been unsure from the documents they had submitted what the Community Energy Challenge obligated the Town to do. He asked if there was any type of “contract” or “bottom line” to sign as the sign-on letter did not seem to list any terms of agreement. David Preece explained that the Committee first wished to have energy audits on Town buildings and second, were trying to reach a goal of a 10% reduction in energy consumption. A representative from the EPA stated that there was an online tool available -Portfolio Manager- that would enable the Town to assess its energy use. She noted that the Town’s commitment would be to reduce energy usage by 10% but
the time frame to do so would be up to the Town. She further noted that most municipal buildings had a 30% waste of energy. The representative stated that this tool would give each building a score of 1-100 so that Town officials would have a good idea of how well each building was performing. She also noted that Portfolio Manager enabled all building records to be stored in one place rather than scattered in the individual departments. She ended by noting that 63 communities in NH had already signed on to the Community Energy Challenge. David Preece noted that there were three committees signed on in the SNHPC region which could compare notes with New Boston if they too took on this challenge. He added that the commitment was nothing and SNHPC could help with an energy audit and what steps should be taken. Dave Woodbury noted that one of the Selectmen had not been present at their meeting a week ago, and given tonight’s additional
information they would seek a better description of the program at some point. He still thought it unusual that there was not some type of constitutional document that offered the groundwork/basis for the challenge. Dave Woodbury added that the Selectmen would likely need assistance in implementing such a program. The EPA representative noted that this program offered technical assistance and free workshops.
The Chairman stated that if such a program helped to keep the Town’s tax bill in line that would be great recognition. Douglas Hill noted that until energy conservation reach a point where the technology allowed you a faster return many people did not invest for the long run savings. He thought more “green building” would be seen when its technology became more cost effective. Susan Carr stated that the Committee’s goal was to provoke conservation, efficiency and renewables in the Town and that she felt many shared the vision of protecting their property and saving money.
Discussion: Kevin Leonard’s letter re: proposed subdivision regulations and Burton Reynold’s memo re: gravel permits, previously distributed. (No Copies)
The Coordinator explained that she had distributed two memos to the Board regarding suggestions put forth by Kevin Leonard, Northpoint, who had now worked with the Town’s Subdivision Regulations and Zoning for a year and had come up with some helpful ideas from that experience and also in speaking with the Road Agent and Fire Chief.
The Coordinator noted the first comment to be a definition conflict between the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning that would require a review to determine which definition should override. The second item dealt with Stormwater Management Plans and suggested using a 10 year storm frequency in drainage calculations along with rip rap in ditches with slopes greater than 5%. She added that the Road Agent would also like drainage structures such as manholes to be more than 300’ apart for maintenance and cleaning and underdrains to outlet in headwall structures. The third item addressed septic systems where bed bottoms were listed to be 48” above the estimated seasonal high water table. She explained that the State now had allowances for different
technologies, therefore, Kevin Leonard was suggesting a wording change to the Subdivision Regulations: “…or as otherwise permitted by NHDES Regulations…” since this was a standard commonly referenced. The next item dealt with the -3% platform at road intersections and noted that the language did not work. Kevin Leonard had suggested that the Highway Department, Road Committee, Planning Board and whatever other departments were deemed necessary get together to reword this section properly. The Coordinator noted that in research the language she found that up to 1993 it stated that the maximum platform grade 50’ from an intersection should be 3%, then after that year changes to 75’ and -3% with no reason listed for the change. The Chairman thought that if the word “maximum” was stricken this could solve the wording problem. The Coordinator agreed that this might work and that she would check with the
Road Committee as they had preferred that this requirement be included. The next item dealt with road standards and suggested that the pavement/wearing course depths be changed from 2”/1” to 2.5”/1.5” to give a longer life and deeper binder course during construction. Don Duhaime noted that asphalt prices were steadily increasing and the Town (not just developers) would feel the cost impacts. He felt that road construction itself was an issue and called out the example of Indian Falls Road which had an improperly compacted sub-base that had resulted in substantial surface cracking. The Coordinator noted that Kevin Leonard was currently reviewing the daily reports for that road to investigate what happened with it before determining whether or not test cores should be taken to see if it was, in fact, sub-base problems. Dave Woodbury felt that the Town should not compromise their road standards in favor of reducing costs.
Don Duhaime was going to check into the State’s requirements as a comparison. Douglas Hill thought that other than Bedford Road the Town did not have enough traffic on its roads to see the benefit of this.
The Coordinator stated that the next item regarded changing cross slope shoulders from the current 0.25” per foot requirement to 0.5” per foot which was a more common measure and allowed for steeper sloping along shoulders for drainage.
The Coordinator next addressed Kevin Leonard’s suggestion regarding cul-de-sac design being based on the Road Agent’s preference for maintenance and to better accommodate the Town’s fire trucks and school buses. Don Duhaime asked if this meant a wider radius. The Coordinator replied that it might but that the Road Agent also wanted more flare on the pavement where the road came down around the turnaround and back down the straightaway. Douglas Hill asked if the Road Committee had signed off on this yet. The Coordinator replied that these items were procedurally presented to the Planning Board first.
The Coordinator concluded by mentioning that there were also some suggestions for additions to As Built guidelines and talking to the Fire Wards regarding Cistern Regulations to see if the language in there currently was suitable or if it should be revised/narrowed down. Lastly she noted that the Subdivision Regulations included a way of calculating cistern costs based on the Engineering News Record which allowed for the base cost from a certain year to be increased without having to update the regulations every time costs increased. She noted that the Town had a set amount on the bond worksheet and Kevin Leonard’s suggestion was to make that a moveable item in the same way of moving costs forward with inflation. Douglas Hill noted as an aside that if asphalt
prices were increasing this should also be considered in the road bond estimate.
Douglas Hill asked if rip rap or grass was the preference for the ditchlines previously discussed. The Coordinator replied that for slopes of 5% or more rip rap was the preference and that for under 5% the Road Agent wanted to get away from rip rap as it became a maintenance issue with silt and weed buildup. The Chairman thought that rip rap maintained such slopes and if it became filled in with dirt and grass it would still take on the runoff it would have anyway plus the slope would be more stabilized against erosion in a storm event. The Coordinator noted that rip rap with silt in between the rocks lost its ability to slow the velocity of runoff. Don Duhaime noted that such buildup was a maintenance issue for the Road Agent and looked unsightly. He added
that matting in place of rip rap could be tacked in place so that grass could grow through it without rutting and storms would not wash it away. Don Duhaime further added that it was easier to mow. The Chairman thought that the better choice depended on whether rip rap was in place to slow run off or prevent erosion.
The Coordinator stated that she had distributed a memo regarding gravel pits to the Board by Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator which discussed instances where gravel pit owners in Town were allowing material to be trucked into their sites, processed and trucked out. She noted that the Selectmen had informed the Town Administrator that the trucking “in” was not part of the gravel permit under RSA 155-E and wondered, therefore, if these pit owners should be required to come before the Board for a Non-Residential Site Plan if they wanted to continue this. The Coordinator wondered if the issue was big enough to even consider. Don Duhaime asked what types of materials were being trucked into the pit sites. Douglas Hill thought that loam was likely a major item. He asked if many complaints were being received. Dave Woodbury replied that there was a distinction of many complaints with the main issue being operating too early, running of trucks on incorrect routes and noise.
The Coordinator thought that a major issue was likely truck traffic and noted that during the gravel permitting process routes and times were established. Dave Woodbury added that in some cases these gravel pits were relinquished but the “trucking in” business was still going on. Douglas Hill stated that with a permitted working pit he would have no issue with the “trucking in” factor. The Chairman added that if the pit was not operational for gravel then the site was not actually authorized to do anything. Don Duhaime stated that his only concern would be contaminated soil from what was being trucked in, therefore, pit owners should provide documentation to verify non-hazardous materials were entering the site. He added that materials like salt that were not stored properly on site could cause groundwater issues. The Coordinator noted that the Zoning Ordinance covered this issue where in the Groundwater Conservation
District proper storage of such materials was required. Dave Woodbury stated that for a transitional site trucking materials a Non-Residential Site Plan Review would be warranted, however, the theory of such a duel usage site had not yet been tackled. He noted that if the site was legitimately operating as a gravel pit then the Gravel Pit Regulations would trump anything else. Don Duhaime thought that if the second use was going on the owners might submit an advisory note to the Board. The Coordinator stated that an additional question on the Gravel Permits might also suffice. Dave Woodbury stated that the question was did the Board care if such business was going on possibly unregulated. Douglas Hill replied that he saw no drawbacks other than hazardous materials. The Board decided that it was likely commonplace that materials would be trucked into gravel pits anyway for mixing. The Coordinator stated that she would forward these
comments to the Town Administrator.
Public Hearing on Amendments to the Building Code proposed by the Planning Board. SEE SEPARATE NOTICE
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. No public was present and there were no questions or comments from the Board. The Chairman closed the public portion of the hearing. There were no deliberations and a motion was called for.
Douglas Hill MOVED to propose the amendments as presented at this public hearing for a ballot vote in March, 2008. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Public Hearing on Amendments to the Building Code proposed by the Planning Board.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. There was no public input and there were no questions or comments from the Board. The Chairman closed the public portion of the hearing. There were no deliberations and a motion was called for.
Douglas Hill MOVED to propose the amendments as presented at this public hearing for a ballot vote in March, 2008. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2007
1. Approval of minutes of November 13, 2007, with or without changes, distributed by
email.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of November 13, 2007, as written. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Driveway Permit Applications for John and Rita Young, Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #’s 5/41 & 5/41-2, through 4, for the Board’s approval. (Drive by check for sight distance; applicant states he has met requirements) Plan in read file.
Don Duhaime stated that he did not see how the driveway for one of the lots in question could be assessed for proper site distance until its grade was cut by three feet. Douglas Hill asked if an As Built or engineered driveway plan would solve this issue. The Coordinator noted that this discussion was had at a prior meeting with the applicant and it had been determined that the application could be approved ahead of the driveway work. The Chairman wondered if the above noted permit should be held pending a site walk. The Coordinator noted that the applicant had completed the work the Board told him they wanted done to the site at the time the application was approved. She added that they could drive by the site and highlight any issues at the next meeting.
Dave Woodbury asked if the driveways were staked. The Coordinator replied that they should be. Don Duhaime thought that the applicant had only cut brush along the edge of the road to prepare the site. The Coordinator stated that the applicant had said he would do more than clear brush and that he had an excavator which he could use to do earth work on the driveways. Don Duhaime stated that he would drive by the site prior to the next meeting.
3. A copy of a letter received December 3, 2007, from Vincent H. Iacozzi, Vista Road, LLC, to Ms. Strong, Planning Board, Town of New Boston, re: Request to Release Bond, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Don Duhaime asked if the outstanding items on Kevin Leonard’s, (Northpoint), review list had been satisfied. The Coordinator replied that they had not received a final punch list but the process was at the point where the Town normally looked at things like pavement. She noted that a portion of the bond was sometimes held for things like loaming and seeding given the season. The Coordinator added that one major issue outstanding was the absence of the correct grate on an outlet for the detention pond which was still being manufactured. Douglas Hill stated that he would be comfortable going by the Town Engineer’s opinion on this site. The Chairman noted that because the incorrect grate was on the outlet the Board would need to deny the request for
bond release.
4. Discussion re: Jay Marden’s driveway, Tax Map/Lot #6/12-12, Beard Road.
The Coordinator noted that parties to this discussion were to be here later in the evening. She explained that the driveway to the above noted lot had a curb cut permit issued in 1988 and when Ed Hunter, Building Inspector, had visited the site he noticed that the 10% maximum grade might have been exceeded during construction. The Coordinator noted that Jay Marden had rationalized that the driveway was grandfathered due to the 1988 curb cut permit, however, since the land had been subdivided since that time the Subdivision Regulations requiring the 10% maximum grade took effect. She added that she had put a packet together for the Board highlighting these details. The Chairman noted that Jay Marden had assured the Board when the application was in progress that the
10% maximum grade would be abided by. The Coordinator read from the minutes of the meeting the Chairman referred to: “Jay Marden stated that when the driveway was completed it would comply with Town specifications.” The Board decided to continue the discussion when the applicable parties were present later in the evening.
5. A copy of a letter received December 5, 2007, from Keith F. Diaz, to Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant, re: 23 Arrowwood Road, request for meeting with Planning
Board, re: subdivision status, was distributed for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator explained that Mr. Diaz did not want to do the work to the site that he had been approved for yet and wanted a guarantee from the Board that if he waited a few years the lot would still be fine and he could proceed as he wished. There is a statutory provision that states an applicant is grandfathered for 4 years as long as some type of work is done to the site and she believed his question to the Board was did this provision apply to a single lot where a road, driveway and wetland crossing could suffice as that “work”. Douglas Hill stated that he did not have an issue with that. The Planning Assistant noted that at the last meeting under Miscellaneous Business the Board had granted Mr. Diaz a 1 year extension versus the 4 year that he asked for
and this was what he wished to question the Board about. The Coordinator assumed that Mr. Diaz would come before the Board in January, 2008, for clarification.
6. A copy of a letter received December 4, 2007, from David J. Preece, AICP, Executive Director, Southern NH Planning Commission, to Mr. Stephen B. Griffin, AICP, Director, Goffstown Planning and Economic Development Department, re: Woodland Village-Development of Regional Impact, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Dave Woodbury stated that it seemed as though all the traffic from the above noted development would be heading towards Goffstown and not New Boston. Don Duhaime added that he did not see how the letter could infer that Bog Road would not be burdened by traffic from this development when it was being paved because it was said to be heavily traveled. Dave Woodbury clarified that he did not think the Woodland Village Development would add to the traffic impacts on Bog Road but noted that it was a justifiable road to be paved.
LOUIS, NICHOLAS AND LARA
JENNINGS, PATRICIA
Submission of Application/Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: Kennedy Lane
Tax Map/Lot #11/54-25 & 11/54-26
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Mike Carter was present and represented the applicants. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Mike Carter noted that the situation was that the Louis’ lawn area in front of their house was half on Pat Jenning’s property. He noted that the lawn was obviously associated with the Louis’ house and could not, in fact, be easily accessed from the Jennings’ house due to the grade. He noted that the proposal was to add some bends in the previously straight shared lot line. He further noted that in making this line adjustment the 200’ square would no longer fit on the Jennings’ lot so an application for variance was made to the ZBA who granted the request. The Chairman asked if further subdivision was planned. Mike Carter replied it was not. He noted the contours of the site with a flat area followed by a drop toward
Bailey Pond. The Chairman asked if money had been exchanged in the land swap. Mike Carter replied that Patricia Jennings would be giving up what the plan showed to be Parcel A to Nicholas and Lara Louis, therefore, he assumed a transfer of cash was made but he was not involved in this part of the dealings. Dave Woodbury stated that there seemed to be no impacts to anyone given the proposal except the parties involved and that Parcel A appeared to be useless dead space that Patricia Jennings could not see from her house anyway.
Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the waivers requested for Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies along with other waiver requests made in the memo by Bob Todd, LLS, dated October 25, 2007. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Nicholas L. and Lara K. Louis and Patricia H. Jennings, Trustee, for Tax Map/Lot
LOUIS/JENNINGS, cont.
#11/54-26 & 11/54-25, Kennedy Lane, such that Parcel A of 0.102 acres is annexed from Tax Map/Lot #11/54-25 to #11/54-26, leaving #11/54-25 with 5.598 acres and Lot #11/54-26 with 9.282 acres, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be January 31, 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. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
8. The minutes of November 27, 2007, were noted as having been distributed via email, for approval, with or without changes, at the meeting of January 8, 2008.
9. Discussion regarding the Planning Board writing a letter to Rick Martin of Right Way
Builders, Inc. re: no problems with Donald Garretson having done the logging.
Because Rick Martin was to be present later in the evening for this discussion the Board determined that they would address it later.
10. A copy of a memo dated December 10, 2007, to the Board from Michele Brown,
Planning Board Assistant, re: Clay Drew, 181 Riverdale Road, was distributed for the
Board’s review and discussion.
The Planning Assistant explained that she had received a phone call from a neighbor of Mr. Drew’s who said that he left his truck parked running all night on many occasions (due to refrigeration trailer) and that his truck was often parked in the road. Douglas Hill asked if Mr. Drew had a permit to park in the road. The Coordinator explained that this scenario could potentially be considered a home shop under “Trucking”. Dave Woodbury thought that such sporadic activity might be a police issue in regard to the on road parking. The Coordinator noted that she had personally seen the truck parked on the road many times as she traveled it frequently. Douglas Hill thought that the Board could meet with Mr. Drew and inform him that he was not
allowed to park his truck on the road in the manner that he was. The Planning Assistant noted that Mr. Drew thought he had no issue since the Neville and Thibeault trucks did the same. The Coordinator added that it seemed more of a convenience for Mr. Drew to park where he was parking rather than go up his driveway to hook up the refrigeration trailer. Dave Woodbury asked if this was a constant occurrence. The Coordinator replied that it seemed to be as his home site was his business base. She suggested that Mr. Drew could come before the Board to provide more details. Dave Woodbury added that his trucking log should be able to provide detailed information. The Coordinator stated that she would arrange to have Mr. Drew come in for a January, 2008, meeting.
11. A copy of a letter dated December 7, 2007, from William R. Drescher of Drescher &
Dokmo, to the Planning Coordinator, re: Golding v. New Boston, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that a motion for reconsideration had been filed and denied by the Superior Court with no appeal forthcoming. The Chairman asked if there was an estimate from Town Counsel on what it would cost to recoup the Town’s legal fees. The Coordinator replied there was not. The Chairman thought this should be pursued and noted that it had been the expressed intent of the plaintiffs to bankrupt Rick Martin. Dave Woodbury stated that such efforts would be unsuccessful as the courts were historically reluctant to oblige except in flagrant cases. The Coordinator stated that she could check into the matter with Bill Drescher, Esq..
9. Discussion regarding the Planning Board writing a letter to Rick Martin of Right Way Builders, Inc., re: no problems with Donald Garretson having done the logging.
Rick Martin, Right Way Builders, Inc., was present for this discussion. The Chairman asked Rick Martin his thoughts on recouping his own legal fees given the outcome of Golding v New Boston. Rick Martin replied that he did not believe there was much that he could do as a plaintiff has a right to appeal.
He stated that he had recently reviewed a letter from the Conservation Commission which noted their concerns regarding the logging operation that had ensued on the Garretson property which was pending ownership transfer to him for his subdivision once the court case had closed. He noted that the loggers had crossed over boundaries, tore down fencing and benchmarks and gone onto Town property. Rick Martin added that this had also caused issues with erosion control on site. He further added that he had received an email from the Piscataquog Watershed Association (PWA) noting their terms and conditions regarding the approved subdivision’s open space which was compromised by the logging. Rick Martin stated that many of the things that had happened to the site had
been out of his control and he was now in a situation where he was unsure of the Town’s stance on the matter. He noted that given the season he had concerns about not being able to see the effects of the devastation to the site until spring time and did not want any currently unanswerable PWA/Conservation Commission questions returning to haunt him a few months down the road. Rick Martin asked the Board what their feelings were on the matter. Douglas Hill asked who had ordered the logging. Rick Martin replied that the Garretsons had done so and that his purchase of their property had been contingent upon the subdivision’s approval. The Chairman felt that the approved subdivision was theoretically suspended when the court case was in process and the property owner chose to log the site. Other Board members disagreed. Douglas Hill asked Rick Martin if he was now at odds with the Garretsons. Rick Martin replied that he was
because the clear cut site no longer resembled the wooded terrain shown on the plan. He asked if the conditions of his subdivision’s approval could be suspended 6 months until he could see the full effects of the logging to the site in the spring. Don Duhaime thought that the logger would be responsible to any impacts to the site. The Chairman replied that this was true to a point but that because Rick Martin had been granted the subdivision by the Town he also bore a measure of responsibility to the site which he was aware of and therefore, wished to speak to the Board about tonight. He reiterated that he felt the land was “unsubdivided” and overseen by the rightful owner at the time of the court appeal with Rick Martin’s right’s over the land essentially stalled and, therefore, Rick Martin wanted assurance from the Board that they were on board with his thinking. The Chairman felt that the responsibilities lay mostly
with the loggers and the land owner. The Coordinator asked if the PWA was taking a conservation easement on the land in question. Rick Martin replied that they had planned to do so. The Coordinator asked Rick Martin if he would be willing to put restrictive covenants in place such as “no build” areas on this land in the event that they backed out of this easement once they saw the impacts that had occurred. Rick Martin replied that he would do whatever he could to appease the situation. Dave Woodbury thought that Rick Martin should seek legal advice on this matter as it seemed to him as though he was asking for the Board’s reaction to issues that may be raised months from now. Rick Martin replied that he wanted the assurance that the Board would not come after him later given what had happened with the land which had been out of his control. Dave Woodbury noted that the Board could not guarantee reactions from the
Conservation Commission. Douglas Hill asked what the Board’s recourse would be in such a matter. The Coordinator replied that the Board could revoke the approval. The Chairman noted that Rick Martin could either fix the issues or walk away from the subdivision, therefore, it was in the Town’s best interest that he remain with the plan as they could not force the Garretsons to fix the problem. He felt that through this discussion Rick Martin now had a better feel for the Board’s position on the issue. Rick Martin stated that he was still concerned about what the spring season would show regarding erosion control measures that could be forced upon him if the site revealed major issues in the spring due to the logging. The Coordinator noted that in reviewing the Statute for revoking a plan there was nothing indicated that noted tree cutting could support revocation but it would not hurt to have Rick Martin seek his legal counsel’s assurance on this.
VAN TASSELL, ERIC H. & GABRIELE E. Adjourned from 11/27/07
Submission of Application/Minor Subdivision/3 Lots
Location: Cochran Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #10/19
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Mike Carter who represented the applicant. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Mike Carter noted that there had been a miscommunication with the office and field surveyors regarding an existing well located on the west side of the road on site marked “filled in” on the plan as the site walk had revealed the presence of a large fieldstone well in this location. He noted that it was now shown on the driveway plan and noted for removal. Dave Woodbury clarified that the well was not functioning. Mike Carter replied that was correct. He added that the proposed driveway’s location was also shifted to service the existing house as there was no driveway on that side of the road. He stated that the exact lines of sight were now spelled out on the plans and some were in excess of 300’.
Mike Carter noted that proposed lot #10/19-1 was approximately 3.6 acres of high and dry land with some Steep Slopes in the rear section but ample room to build in the front area. The Coordinator asked about a small piece of the proposed driveway on the property with the existing barn that would be impacted and the driveway/barn rendered useless if the road was ever realigned/widened based on the dedication with the proposed property lines. She asked if this were to occur would there be another way to access the barn. Mike Carter replied that there were possibilities but noted that this barn was likely to be razed at some point anyway. Don Duhaime suggested that a note could be added to the plan that stated if the road were ever widened this driveway would be
terminated. The Coordinator added that during the recent spring rain events Cochran Hill Road had emerged as a usable crossing point in and out of Town, therefore, it may need attention in the future. Dave Woodbury asked if the traveled way would extend to the right-of-way. The Coordinator replied that it would not. Dave Woodbury thought this should be noted on the plan. Mike Carter suggested that a note could be added to the plan that read: “When such time arises that the road is improved to expand into the new dedicated area the driveway serving the barn shall be discontinued”.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to grant the waivers requested for Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies, and 3 paper print copies of the soils map as listed in Bob Todd, LLS’s memo of 10/15/07. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill MOVED to allow Bob Todd, LLS, to prepare the Stormwater Management Plan in lieu of a professional engineer per his memo dated August 29, 2007, and to offset the granite bounds at the stonewall between Lots #10/19 and 10/19-1 per his memo of 11/27/07. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
In regard to the offset bounds Mike Carter asked if the Board had a preference for 4” square granite bounds offset from the stonewall corner or placing a hole in the granite base stone. Dave Woodbury noted that his property originally had drill holes in the stones half of which were not evident today. Mike Carter noted that drill holes were now 1” deep with a slug and lead nail to seal the stone, therefore, it was more obvious as a surveyors’ monument since it could be located with a magnetic detector. He added that another option was a drilled hole in a stone with a hooked piece of rebar inserted as this was easily visible.
The Chairman asked if the proposed driveways would be gravel or paved. Mike Carter replied that they would be gravel as they were entering off the gravel portion of Cochran Hill Road. He added that the plan had received State Subdivision Approval. The Chairman asked if the site could be further subdivided. Mike Carter replied that this could not be done according to present Subdivision Regulations.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the application as complete and to approve the Minor Subdivision, Land of Eric H. and Gabriele E. van Tassell, Tax Map/Lot #10/19, Cochran Hill Road subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of five (5) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD;
3. Submission of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application or recording of documents at the HCRD.
4. The approved Pre-Engineered Individual Stormwater Management Plan may be resubmitted as the final Individual Stormwater Management Plan at the time of application for a building permit provided the builder complies with this plan. If critical areas are to be disturbed beyond those shown on the Pre-Engineered Individual Stormwater Management Plan, a revised Individual Stormwater Management Plan shall be prepared and submitted for approval. If the Pre-Engineered Stormwater Management Plan is not to be used at the time of application for a building permit a new Individual Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted for approval. The bond for the Individual Stormwater Management Plan must be submitted
prior to issuance of a building permit.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be January 31, 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.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
4. Discussion re: Jay Marden’s driveway, Tax Map/Lot # 6/12-12, Beard Road.
Mike Dahlberg, LLS and pending lot owners, Jim and Karen Roach (Jay Marden’s daughter) were present for this discussion.
The Chairman stated that the above noted lot’s proposed driveway was formerly a logging road with a curb cut permit and that site owner Jay Marden had previously stated that the driveway would meet the maximum 10% grade requirement but was now saying that because of the curb cut permit issued in 1988 it was grandfathered and not held to the 10% rule, a sentiment that was not shared by the Board. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that the driveway in question was noted on the plan as the driveway from 1988 and that the applicant had proposed updates to it such as grading, however, none of the Coordinator’s comments at the time of the plan review had discussed any further review of that driveway. He noted that the site inspection notes of April 14, 2007, had the lot #’s
reversed with #6/12-12 actually being #6/12-11 and the same error had occurred in the third paragraph of those inspection notes. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, added that in the site walk notes this driveway was listed as “pre-existing” and not as a logging road. The Chairman asked Mike Dahlberg if he had seen a copy of the 1988 curb cut permit. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that he had and pointed out that the format of the permit at the time it was issued differed from the Town’s current driveway permits. Douglas Hill noted that there was a 12% grade in the driveway and asked in what section this was located. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that it was in the existing section and not the new portion that extended from it and led to the house on the lot. He explained that the grade went from 12% to 6% and 4%. The Coordinator noted that in the year 2000 a separate driveway permit was applied for for lot #6/11 (listed as lot #5 on the 1988
permit). The Chairman stated that the Board’s concerns regarding driveway grades included water and traffic going from a driveway onto the roadway it entered from. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted that he had reviewed the Driveway Regulations in consideration of tonight’s discussion. The Chairman clarified that because this driveway resulted from a subdivision the Subdivision Regulations were the governing factor. He noted that if the applicant had been building on an existing lot then the Driveway Regulations would have applied. The Chairman asked what was involved in remedying the 2% differential in grade. Karen Roach replied that blasting would need to be done to reduce the 12% grade to 10%. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted that the length of 12% grade was approximately 130’. Douglas Hill asked if 12% was an average figure. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that it was not and the grades of the driveway from the roadway to the
house ran as follows: 6%, 3-4%, 12% and 3-4%. He clarified that the driveway’s entry onto Beard Road was not a steep angle but the Road Agent wanted a culvert there due to the ditchlines. He stated that there was no mention in any of the meetings for the application which involved this driveway of it meeting grades no more than 10%. Douglas Hill asked how far a vehicle would be from Beard Road if it slipped at the 12% grade location. Mike Dahlberg replied that the 12% grade was preceded by 60’ of 4-6% slope. Dave Woodbury asked if Lot #5 (6/11) was created previously based on the 1988 curb cut permit. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that lot #’s 5 and 6 were originally applied for as duplex lots. Dave Woodbury asked how much of the driveway was constructed based on the permit received in 1988. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that all of it was constructed. Dave Woodbury clarified that this was the same driveway
proposed to what are now Lot #’s 6/12-11 & 12. Don Duhaime remarked that the driveway appeared to be roughed in and not formally constructed for the previous plans. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, explained that when the previous plans to construct duplexes were abandoned the driveway was blocked. Dave Woodbury noted that Don Duhaime thought the driveway was more likely an old woods road than a constructed driveway from 1988 and did not appear to be in the same position on the plan as the ‘88 curb cut permit showed, therefore, it was difficult to determine whether the 12% portion of this driveway was part of the old plan.
The Coordinator explained that the Driveway Regulations covered existing lots and curb cuts only while the Subdivision Regulations dealt with constructing a driveway to safety standards, etc. The Chairman read from meeting minutes of 2/13/07 which referenced the driveway: “The Chairman asked why the driveways had not yet been designed for the lots. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that he had not been hired to do the designs yet. The Chairman asked Mike Dahlberg, LLS, if he thought the driveways could be designed to enter at less than a 10% grade. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that there was an 8% slope that would traverse between the two 10’ contours along the proposed driveways followed by a 6% slope, therefore, there should not be any design conflicts”. He stated that based on a map provided and conversations with Jay Marden the Board was assured that the driveway would designed to Town specifications. The Coordinator noted that in 1988 the permit was for the curb cut only
with no mentions of grade requirements whereas this was a factor now when subdivisions occurred. Dave Woodbury read from the 1988 curb cut permit: “This certifies that Continuity Family Trust, OWNER, may construct driveway in accordance with permit application”. The Chairman went on to read from minutes of 6/12/07: “The Coordinator explained that the Building Inspector was concerned that the existing road off which the driveway was proposed did not meet the grade requirements needed for the driveway, however, this was an existing approved driveway permit. Douglas Hill suggested that an As-Built plan be required for the driveway. Jay Marden stated that when the driveway’s construction was completed it would conform with Town Specifications”. The Chairman added that prior to the site walk on this driveway he knew that Bud Scott had altered what had been done historically to the driveway. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted that the driveway had originally been cut in and rough graded but
not final graded. Dave Woodbury thought that field notes should allow the Board to reconstruct what was its original location. Douglas Hill stated that he was not as concerned over the grade as if it had entered directly off the road. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, did not think that the minutes accurately reflected the issue as he felt the main question regarding it had been if it could come in between the 10’ contour lines of the site. He added that no questions had been raised regarding amending the driveway permit in place and the applicant’s presumption had been that this was understood by the Board and the driveway would remain as it was otherwise the applicant would have requested a waiver for the 12% section. Don Duhaime stated that the June, 2007, minutes clearly stated that the driveway would meet Town specifications. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that his clients, Karen and Jim Roach had not been made aware of that meeting. The Chairman
noted that the applicant Jay Marden had agreed to the terms and the Board’s minutes were accurately monitored by the Coordinator, Planning Assistant and Recording Clerk. He added that the driveway was required to meet the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations and any Town agency polled for a second opinion would attest to the fact that the Subdivision Regulations were applicable. Douglas Hill noted that it seemed unlikely that the applicant would have purposely disregarded the driveway specifications and waited until the last minute to rectify an issue. Karen and Jim Roach stated that they would have addressed this issue earlier if they had known as they were hoping to move in the following week. They added that they had not been privy to the meetings which Jay Marden attended when the application for the subdivision was in process and any terminology they had reviewed reference an “existing driveway”. Don Duhaime stated that
the driveway needed to meet the current Subdivision Regulations. Dave Woodbury agreed and noted that Jay Marden had made an agreement to abide by them. Douglas Hill agreed. The Chairman noted that the Board had stated throughout the application process that this driveway was too steep and the minutes reflected these discussions including the requirement for As Built Plans for the driveway. He referenced a 6/21/07 follow up letter: “The Building Inspector brought to the Board’s attention about a possible grade issue with the previously approved driveway permit #88-19 (#6/12-12). At their meeting of June 12, 2007, the Planning Board discussed the lot. The Board decided that as-builts would be needed prior to the final driveway sign-off to prove that the driveway meets the 10% maximum grade requirement.” Douglas Hill stated that given the information presented he was changing his opinion as the argument could have been
made previously, however, Jay Marden had stated that he would have the driveway conform. The Chairman noted that the fact that the Roaches wanted to move in was not a compelling enough reason to consider a waiver to the driveway grade. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that his clients would like to have a waiver and that the Regulations stated that a driveway was the perpetual responsibility of its owners for safety and emergency vehicle accessibility. He added that the Driveway Regulations discussed disturbance of terrain and runoff had been contained on the driveway site with proper drainage. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, asked if there was any way the driveway could be approved with conditions so that his clients could move in. The Chairman replied that the Board would need an engineered driveway plan certified/stamped by a PE with an estimate of the cost to adjust it to Town specifications along with a bond to the Town from the buyers. He added that the
buyers would understand that until the driveway was properly revised they would be using it at their own risk, i.e., no liability would be encumbered by the Town and emergency vehicles would traverse the driveway at their discretion although he did not think they would notice the 2% excess grade. Jim and Karen Roach agreed to these terms.
Douglas Hill MOVED that the Board would accept an engineered driveway profile for Lot #6/12-12, that met current Driveway Regulations and upon receipt of a bond for the driveway to release the Certificate of Occupancy with the condition that the driveway be constructed by August 1, 2008 and that the occupants of the home serviced by the driveway were in agreement that until said construction was complete it was to be used at their own risk and at the discretion of any emergency crew. The required driveway plan will be designed by a certified PE and will require an As Built plan when completed.
Karen Roach asked the amount of the bond. Douglas Hill replied that the PE engineer should know an estimate. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, asked if State of New Hampshire unit process could be referenced. The Coordinator replied that the Town’s road bond estimate should be used. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, clarified that this could be scaled down for a driveway estimate. He asked if since he would be stamping the As Built Plan if the Board would consider a waiver to having a PE do the driveway design and allow him to take on this responsibility. The Chairman stated that he was comfortable in doing this as the Board had never had issue with his integrity/work. The Board agreed to waive the PE stamp requirement in lieu of Mike Dahlberg, LLS’s. Don
Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 9:55 p.m. Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk
| 
