TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of January 8, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, Douglas Hill, Don Duhaime, Stu Lewin, 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 Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Roger Gagnon, Kimberly Messa, Anthony Eberhardt, Greg Michael, Esq., Kevin Diaz, Ken Diaz and Clay Drew.
Discussion on goals of 2008 and Planning Board policies and procedures.
The Coordinator referenced her January 4, 2008, memo to the Board where she had put together a list of ideas on how they could address the goals they had noted for 2008. She asked how much they wanted to discuss at the start of meetings and if they had any additional ideas for the categories listed, etc. Don Duhaime thought that the first two items, road standards and stormwater management should be addressed/resolved first as they had the most issues. Douglas Hill added that the Small Scale Commercial committee was underway and ongoing Subdivision Regulations had been cleaned up for this year.
The Chairman asked the Board if they had any thoughts on affordable and multi-family housing. Douglas Hill thought that in reading the materials provided some good options were listed for affordable/multi-family housing, for instance allowing accessory units in detached buildings. The Chairman thought that some parameters would still be necessary. Douglas Hill agreed. The Chairman did not think that an attached unit was always needed but that it would inadvertently create affordable housing given that the more people you have rent together in one unit the less rent charged because of the toleration factor. Douglas Hill noted that there were also tax, power and heat benefits. The Chairman noted that the property owner would not necessarily live in the same
structure and offered the example of a renovated farmhouse with apartments. Douglas Hill added that another option would be an attached/detached garage to an owner’s residence with apartments over it. Don Duhaime wondered if some of the old barns in Town were cost effectively salvageable for such options. The Chairman replied that it would depend if the property owner functioned as a steward of their land or a “spread sheet analyst” who would likely condex and sell. Don Duhaime stated that he still did not see New Boston as a town where someone would want to rent an apartment. The Chairman noted that there were many people who were more transient than others in their careers and given housing costs they might prefer to rent than own. Douglas Hill added than even a condex, such as the units on Salisbury Road, was more affordable than a single family house on 1 acre. Don Duhaime agreed that the developer for Salisbury Road,
had done a great job with neater layouts and separate amenities.
Douglas Hill stated that he had not been impressed with the information supplied regarding energy efficient development and did not know if the numbers and density of the Town made it a worthwhile venture, although there were ways to improve energy efficiency through building codes. He asked the Coordinator her thoughts. The Coordinator replied that she had not read the materials completely but noted that there were ways to incorporate the ideas they presented as guidelines and not necessarily regulations. Dave Woodbury noted that 2 out of 4 petitions for Warrant Articles by the Energy Committee had recently been submitted by Susan Carr to Linda Sizemore in the Selectmen’s office. Douglas Hill added that the State required that new construction be energy code
compliant by an acceptable compilation of insulation, doors, windows, and fireplace type (gas or wood). The Chairman stated that the State never re-checked these items once construction was completed. The Coordinator clarified that the Building Inspector returned to the site during construction for various inspections. The Chairman was not convinced that this check was against what was supplied to the State at the onset. Douglas Hill noted that E-values were not so stringent that they were difficult to attain and many builders incorporated them out of preference and/or marketability. Don Duhaime noted that today’s windows were much more energy efficient than in the past and maybe this was why the State was not so stringent in verifying post construction. Douglas Hill added that the State did not impose a fee either and that energy efficiency was more of a “feel good” thing.
The Coordinator stated that a Source Water Protection committee was planned to start up this month and would run concurrently with Planning Board scheduling. As far as stormwater management and road standards the Coordinator stated that this could continue to be discussed at the beginning of Planning Board meetings. The Chairman noted that Keach-Nordstrom had recently done some road standards for lower traffic flows for the SNHPC and asked if these had been forwarded to the Fire Department. Stu Lewin replied that they had. Douglas Hill thought that from a Town and maintenance aspect having wider roads with minimal traffic was not necessary. Don Duhaime agreed that tertiary roads with minimal traffic impact did not need to be 24’ wide. The Chairman
agreed that in regard to preserving the character for some roads in Town design compromises should be made. He added that he did not think the Town should be designed around an “emergency structure”.
Don Duhaime stated that he had recently spoken with Jeff Lewis regarding detention ponds versus closed systems. He added that cul-de-sac designs could have closed systems below their turn-around areas. The Chairman asked about maintenance of closed systems. Don Duhaime replied that he was unsure of what was involved but knew that there were cleanout locations similar to manholes. He explained that during the drainage process clean water flowed over a structure that trapped sediment in an initial chamber then the water flowed through several more chambers before percolating into the ground. Douglas Hill thought that such systems would be beneficial to commercial parking lots.
The Chairman thought that stormwater management was the first topic on the list the Board should complete discussions on. In regard to road standards the Chairman thought it would be interesting to see what the Board could come up with for what they pictured to be the design for the next new subdivision for the Town given the impending road standard ideas and it would be beneficial to do this without an applicant being before them. He summarized that the Board agreed that energy efficient development would be bumped down the list and that the Small Scale Commercial Development Committee would be coming before the Board soon with more information. The Coordinator would distribute packets to the Board on stormwater management. Don Duhaime noted that Kevin Leonard,
Northpoint Engineering, had already submitted information on this topic. Stu Lewin asked if it would be possible for Kevin Leonard to come to a Planning Board meeting to discuss this topic. The Coordinator replied that this could be arranged. Douglas Hill thought that the Board should come up with 5 or 6 things they saw as problematic with stormwater management, such as CFS numbers, and ways to fix them. He added that another idea would be to note to applicants for subdivisions that tree cutting could affect their stormwater management. Don Duhaime agreed and added that information on the square footage of roof areas and pavement were needed. The Coordinator noted that this was covered to a certain degree in the drainage calculations. Stu Lewin asked if tree cutting specifications could become part of what got approved on subdivision plans. The Coordinator noted that tree cutting ran into timber rights. Stu Lewin clarified that
he meant tree cutting as it related to drainage calculations should be part of approvals. Douglas Hill asked Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, who was in the audience for an upcoming hearing if engineers based their drainage calculations on existing trees on site or post clearing. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that they based it on the trees being there with the assumption that if they were cleared during the construction process they would grow back. He added that based on no trees present a higher CFS would result and based on area “wood’s good” was the most typically used model. Don Duhaime asked if straight hydraulic methods were used in calculations or the rational method. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that TR25 and TR20 were used with the rational method considered to be archaic because it was based on too many assumptions. He added that hydrocad was a popular method used today and a generally acceptable standard developed by a
Peter Smart in N.H. Don Duhaime asked if most engineering companies used the same methods. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that they did.
Douglas Hill recused himself from the Board and took a seat in the audience as his hearing was up next.
DOUGLAS HILL CONSTRUCTION
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: Christian Farm Drive
Tax Map/Lot #5/16-21 & 5/16-22
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Douglas Hill of Douglas Hill Construction and Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, of Sandford Surveying and Engineering. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted the original driveway designs for lot #’s 5/16-21 & 22 on the plan noted that a sizeable ledge outcropping had inadvertently required one of these driveways to cross its property line in order to avoid blasting. He offered that a solution to this issue would be to adjust the property line and create a shared driveway for the two lots, however, while the Subdivision Regulations stated that no more than the first 100’ could be shared the applicant proposed 150’ in order to prevent greater impacts to a sloped area on site. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that an existing stonewall served as the rear lot line boundary even though on paper it appeared to be an oddly shaped lot. He noted that in the field it made sense because of
a plateau of land that rose up to the house site on lot #5/16-21. Douglas Hill noted that having one of the lots shaped this way eliminated the need for doing two easements across the lots versus having just one easement across the lot with the existing barn. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, added that the applicant also requested a waiver to the requirement of a Stormwater Management Plan as the proposal for the shared driveway would bring the driveway within 20’ of the property line even though this was not the original intent.
The Chairman asked where the two driveways would go on the revised plan if they were not common. This was noted on the plan and Douglas Hill mentioned that the driveway to lot #5/16-22 was never permitted as he knew this issue was coming. He added that in the case of lot #5/16-21’s driveway the original lot line ended up not being on the property due to the large outcropping Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, had described which was not something he could have foreseen at the initial design stage of the plan. Douglas Hill noted that even without a shared driveway as proposed a lot line adjustment would be needed. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that if the ledge were blasted they would end up with side slopes going significant distances in either direction and the other
driveway would need to go into an embankment with 10’ side slopes. Stu Lewin asked if another option would be to construct two single and parallel driveways that could follow the same contours. Douglas Hill replied that a drop off point would occur with one of the driveways if this was done. The Chairman stated that he had an issue with having the common portion of the driveway as proposed exceed 100’. Stu Lewin agreed. The Chairman asked if the lot line could be manipulated to accommodate a 100’ measure of common driveway instead of 150’. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that there would be additional construction issues but it would not be impossible to do. Douglas Hill agreed that the shared portion could be constructed to 100’ but noted that the more feet it went beyond that the more the land flattened out. The Chairman suggested that the lot line be a function of solving this problem. Douglas
Hill replied that going with a 100’ split would mean that more fill would be necessary along with more disturbance of land to get it to flatten out. The Chairman again suggested that the lot line be moved so that the common portion of the driveway drifted off more quickly. Don Duhaime and Stu Lewin stated that they would like to view the driveways to get a better idea of the issue. Don Duhaime favored the stonewall being the rear property line. He asked if the original property line were used for one of the driveways if that would become a fill area. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that it was likely to be a cut area. He added that the trade off to having the 100’ split point would be having a fill slope matched to the road’s slope.
Dave Woodbury asked for clarification regarding the applicant’s waiver request to the requirement of the Stormwater Management Plan. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that Steep Slopes were not involved and that the only trigger to a requirement for a Stormwater Management Plan came into play when the lot line adjustment was made to create the shared driveway. Dave Woodbury did not think this explained why the applicant was entitled to a waiver. The Chairman stated that the driveways needed to be site walked. He noted that if this had been on the original design the oddly shaped lot would likely not have been approved. Douglas Hill stated that when designing lots he always considered house placements firstly when designing a subdivision layout and in this
case a property line should be changed because it took away from the design of the lot. Dave Woodbury asked to what extent the Board was entitled to judge a lot as “irregularly shaped” when the 200’ square was not compromised. It was first noted that this was a cluster subdivision with reduced frontages and, therefore, no squares. The Chairman then replied that he felt a lot could be justified as irregularly shaped by the Board when oddly shaped extensions to the lot were necessary to make it legal, however, if the lot in question was still viable without its irregular extensions then that was not an issue. He added that the applicant has also proven that each lot could support its own driveway, therefore, the Board could move forward with a site walk. He suggested a non-binding site walk given the present snowy conditions and if nothing could be determined then they would wait until this spring. Douglas Hill agreed. The
Chairman asked Douglas Hill if he could measure the distance from 100’ to 150’ for the common driveway so that it could be viewed at the site walk. Douglas Hill replied that he would. A site walk was scheduled for Saturday, January 12, 2008, at 8:30 a.m.
Stu Lewin MOVED to adjourn the application of Douglas Hill Construction, Public Hearing, Minor Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, Location: Christian Farm Drive, Tax Map/Lot #5/16-21 & 5/16-22, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to January 22, 2008, at 7:30 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill returned to his seat on the Board.
GAGNON, ROGER N.
MESSA, KIMBERLY & EBERHARDT, ANTHONY (applicants)
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Hospital (physical therapy center)
Location: 16 Meetinghouse Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #19/44
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Roger Gagnon, Greg Michael, Esq., and the applicants Kimberly Messa and Anthony Eberhardt. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Greg Michael, Esq., stated that the existing property was a one acre site on Meetinghouse Hill Road with a multiple usage structure with apartments and a gun/sports shop. He added that the only exterior change proposed to accommodate having a physical therapy center on site would be to have a handicapped ramp constructed on the front of the existing building. Greg Michael, Esq., stated that the proposal was a less intense use that would have one or two employees depending on scheduled appointments. He added that the hours proposed were Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and that there would be very minimal traffic impact from 8-12 patients a day. Greg Michael, Esq., stated that there were 4 parking spaces for two existing tenants of the building which
left 6 spaces available (two of which were against the building) and this would allow for 1 handicapped space, 2 employees and 1 or 2 clients at a time. He noted that the existing parking was, therefore, adequate for the usage proposed along with existing snow storage area. The Chairman asked the total number of parking spaces and how many would be allocated for the physical therapy business. Property owner Roger Gagnon replied that there were 10 total spaces and Greg Michael, Esq., added that there would be 6 allocated for the physical therapy business. He added that the existing septic system and well were in good condition and that the applicants proposed re-plaquing the existing sign post with their business name. Greg Michael, Esq., stated that on November 20, 2007, the ZBA had approved the proposed use by special exception. Stu Lewin asked what the proposed gun/sport shop hours were currently. Roger Gagnon replied that they were 10:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. six days a week and half a day on Sunday. The Chairman asked if the ZBA had placed any hourly restrictions for the proposed business. Greg Michael, Esq., replied they had not. The Chairman asked to see copies of the floor plan which the Coordinator provided.
Douglas Hill MOVED to accept the application of Roger N. Gagnon (owner) and Kimberly Messa/Anthony Eberhardt (applicants), NRSPR/Hospital (physical therapy center), Location: 16 Meetinghouse Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #19/44, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the Board’s deadline for action on the application was now March 13, 2008. He noted that the nature of the proposed business had been thoroughly explained in a previous application and asked if just physical therapy services were proposed. Anthony Eberhardt replied that was correct. Dave Woodbury stated that his only concern would be the parking lot’s exit onto a sloped portion of Meetinghouse Hill Road, however, the applicant had assured the Board that the traffic count would be minimal and even less than what the current business on site had generated. Greg Michael, Esq., added that the traffic would be spread out also as appointments would be scheduled. The Chairman stated that a letter from the Fire Department had raised
no issues. The Coordinator noted that there may be a question. The Chairman asked what the applicants intended to use the second floor space for. Anthony Eberhardt replied that they intended to use this space for storage and private office space. The Chairman stated that he asked the question because if it was intended for office space the Fire Department would require a secondary exit out of the building. Anthony Eberhardt stated that the space could be for storage only. The Chairman added that he had no issue with the business hours proposed and asked if the State had any requirements for the existing septic system. Greg Michael, Esq., replied that there should not be any issues. Douglas Hill noted that this was an existing commercial site. Dave Woodbury asked if the apartments would stay on site. Greg Michael, Esq., replied that they would. Stu Lewin asked if the parking spaces would be marked. Anthony
Eberhardt replied that he would have the spaces re-lined. The Chairman noted that signage would be adequate and that re-lining the spaces was not necessary or aesthetically pleasing. Don Duhaime asked about existing exterior lighting. Roger Gagnon replied that existing exterior lighting turned on/off automatically at dusk and dawn at the back and front of the building.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the site plan for Roger Gagnon, Owner, and Kimberly Messa and Anthony Eberhardt, Applicants, to operate a physical therapy office from the previous sports shop area of the building at 16 Meetinghouse Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #19/44, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Execution of a Site Review Agreement regarding the condition(s) subsequent;
The deadline for complying with the condition(s) precedent shall be February 8, 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 prior to that date, an administrative NOTICE OF DENIAL shall be issued without further action of the Board being required.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. All of the site improvements are to be completed per the approved site plan; installation of handicap ramp, sign and parking signs.
2. The Town of New Boston Planning Department shall be notified by the applicant that all improvements have been completed, and are ready for final inspection, prior to scheduling a compliance hearing on those improvements, a minimum of three (3) weeks prior to the anticipated date of compliance hearing and the opening of the business on the site;
3. Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be submitted prior to the compliance hearing;
4. A compliance hearing shall be held to determine that the site improvements have been satisfactorily completed, prior to releasing the hold on the issuance of Permit to Operate or Certificate of Occupancy, or both.
The deadline for complying with the Conditions Subsequent shall be June 30, 2008, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing on same as described in item 4 above. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 2008
22. Discussion, re: Keith Diaz, 23 Arrowwood Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/35-10-1. (Keith Diaz to be present)
Keith Diaz and his father Ken were present for this discussion. Keith Diaz stated that he sought an extension to the conditions subsequent for his plan approved June 27, 2007, and while the Board had previously granted him a one year extension at their meeting of November 27, 2007, this would require him to initiate construction on his site sooner than he wished. He first wished to clarify that a lengthier extension as allowed by statute would preserve his right to build and, if so, wanted to rework the conditions precedent and subsequent of the plan so that they dovetailed with such an extension request. Keith Diaz then asked for an extension to June 27, 2009, where he could then still abide by the plan’s conditions precedent deadline of January 30, 2009, but
would need to have the current conditions subsequent deadline of November, 2008, revised to a date in November, 2009.
Douglas Hill asked if the plan approved involved one lot. Keith Diaz replied that it did and was a minor subdivision. Keith Diaz noted that when the Board had amended the Subdivision Regulations to not require the submission of a Stormwater Management bond as a condition precedent to approval he had not received notice of his plan’s filing until September of 2007. In addition he asked for clarification on the Conservation Commission’s 50’ wetland setbacks required as part of the Wetland Ordinance whereas if he waited to begin construction on his site this revision would not affect his right to build. The Coordinator stated that an applicant had 4 years from the time of a plan’s approval to begin active and substantial work on their site.
She noted that the applicant was grandfathered to any changes in Town regulations after his plan approval but the issue here had to do with the fact that with an extension the deadline for the conditions subsequent was now behind the deadline for the conditions precedent.
Douglas Hill MOVED to extend the conditions subsequent deadline for Keith Diaz, Arrowwood Road, to June 27, 2011. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
23. A copy of a letter dated January 7, 2008, from Anthony Eberhardt and Kimberly Messa, to the Board, re: withdrawal of application for 18 High Street, was distributed for the Board’s action.
Douglas Hill MOVED to accept the withdrawal of the application for 18 High Street from Anthony Eberhardt and Kimberly Messa without prejudice. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
10. A copy of a letter from Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant, to Elaine and Clay Drew, re: 181 Riverdale Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/30, truck activity, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion. (Clay Drew will be present)
Clay Drew was present and stated that he had spoken with all of his neighbors regarding the issue noted in the above referenced letter. He added that none of his neighbors had any problems with his truck activity/parking and that he never let his truck idle other than when he started it up. Clay Drew further added that the refrigeration unit on the truck(s) ran approximately 3 times a year. He noted that he had been running his trucks for 21 years. The Chairman clarified that the two issues noted by an anonymous plaintiff who claimed to be a neighbor were that Mr. Drew’s trailers were often parked in the road and secondly that the refrigeration units were left running for long periods. Clay Drew stated that Neville and Thibeault were allowed to run their
gravel trucks down Riverdale Road and he was merely parking in front of his house along the road. The Chairman asked what the legality was regarding roadside parking. Clay Drew replied that as long as such parking was not obstructing traffic it was legal to do so. The Planning Assistant added that Town maintenance and plowing could be hindered by such parking. Clay Drew stated that he did not park along the road in the winter months. Dave Woodbury stated that because the complainant was not present the Board could not go any further except to refer the matter to the Police Department. The Chairman explained that the Board’s role in this case was to inform Mr. Drew that someone had an issue with his parking, however, that person did not wish to come forward. He noted that the Planning Board was not in an enforcement position and because there was nothing to refer to the Building Inspector this was a police matter. Clay
Drew noted that the complainant could be anyone and may not even be a neighbor. He added that he had already discussed this issue with the Police Chief and explained to him that he parked his truck far enough off the road. Clay Drew further added that the Police Chief had informed him that he had experienced difficulty negotiating around his parked truck. He stated that there was one instance where he felt he was in the wrong when he parked the trailer in the road and pulled the tractor up without putting cones up. Clay Drew added that he very seldom parked in the road. He further noted that he would be happy to discuss this matter with anyone who identified themselves to him as having these problems.
24. Discussion, re: Damian’s Restaurant signage.
The Coordinator stated that there was now an illuminated sign on a pole in front of the restaurant and at the time of the site plan process all discussion had focused on a small sign located in the stone area out front. She explained that previous businesses had used the pole for their signage over the years and Damian’s had not needed a permit to put up their illuminated sign (a commercial restaurant in an R-A District) because it was grandfathered. Stu Lewin thought the illuminated sign was very offensive and added that he had spoken with others who shared the same sentiment. The Chairman thought that a letter could be forwarded to Damian’s Restaurant to let them know about complaints on the illuminated sign which was not permitted under current Regulations. The Board agreed.
25. A copy of a letter dated January 7, 2008, from Jeffrey St. John to the Board, re: resignation, was distributed for the Board’s information, with the Board noting their thanks for Jeff’s contributions to the Board.
26. Read File: 2007 Traffic Counting Program from Tim White at SNHPC.
Don Duhaime asked about the Bedford Road Traffic Study.
The Coordinator stated that the initial work on this had been completed and that SNHPC wished to meet with the Road Agent to go over concerns they had at various areas, therefore, they should have their study completed in February or March of 2008.
1. Approval of minutes of November 27, 2007, with or without changes, distributed by
email.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of November 27, 2007, as written. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Approval of minutes of December 11, 2007, with or without changes, distributed by
email.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of December 11, 2007, as written. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. 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 had viewed the sight and his only remaining concern was the backlot’s driveway which would need to have its grade cut by approximately 3 feet to be constructed and as a result could have sight distance issues. Dave Woodbury stated that he had driven by the site today and felt that there was too much snow and too little signage for him to confirm anything. Stu Lewin stated that he also questioned the viability of the backlot’s driveway but added that the applicant had plans to support its feasibility. The Board decided to site walk this driveway on Saturday, January 12, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. +/-.
4. Driveway Permit Application for Steve LaBranche, Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-2, for the Board’s approval. (Drive by prior to meeting – plan in read file)
Stu Lewin stated that he had viewed what he thought to be the driveway (not staked) while seated in his truck around 4:50 p.m. on a prior evening. He added that from what he could see with traffic ascending Byam Road he did not think the driveway had enough sight distance. The Chairman asked the Coordinator to confirm for the Board if the driveway was properly marked so that it could be viewed again. He commented that the plans stated sight distance of 200’ in each direction.
5. Driveway Permit Application for Denis R. Pinard Jr., Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/38-2, for the Board’s approval. (Drive by prior to meeting)
Stu Lewin stated that he had viewed this driveway which was properly marked and determined that there was ample sight distance in either direction.
Stu Lewin MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #07-060 for a proposed
driveway, to lot #5/38-2, Beard Road, for Denis R. Pinard Jr., with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: 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. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
6. Endorsement of Subdivision Plan for Eric H. & Gabriele E. Van Tassell, Tax Map/Lot
#10/19, Cochran Hill Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
Because of multiple signature sheets the Board determined that this endorsement could be done at the end of the meeting.
The Coordinator added that during the plan’s approval process the Board had stated that they would like a note on the plan that when the time arose to improve Cochran Hill Road to expand into a dedicated area proposed for road widening the driveway serving the barn should be discontinued since a piece of it would be impacted by the widening and render the driveway useless. She noted that Bob Todd, LLS, suggested a more sensible iteration of this thought which was what was now noted on the plan which read: “As a condition of approval of this plan, it is agreed that if and when the Cochran Hill Road traveled way is improved and widened westerly of its current location (See Note 6), that no vehicles or machinery shall be parked in the driveway serving the smaller of the
two barns/garages on proposed lot #10/19-2.”
The Coordinator noted that there were no other usable entrances to the barn. The Board agreed that this made more sense, allowing continued use of the building while prohibiting parking in the driveway and, therefore, the Town’s right-of-way.
7. Endorsement of a Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Nicholas and Lara Louis and Patricia Jennings, Tax Map/Lot #11/54-25 & 11/54-26, Kennedy lane, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
Because of multiple signature sheets the Board determined that this endorsement could be done at the end of the meeting.
8. A copy of a letter received January 2, 2008, from Albert O. Bell, Manager, One Chestnut Hill, to Planning Board, Town of New Boston, re: request for extension on conditions, was distributed for the Board’s action.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to extend the conditions subsequent for Albert O. Bell, Manager, One Chestnut Hill, to July 10, 2009. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
9. A copy of a letter received December 27, 2007, from Debra Downing, re: request to attend January 8, 2008, meeting to discuss 18 High Street for daycare occupancy. (Debra Downing to be present)
The Coordinator stated that Debra Downing had cancelled her request.
11. A copy of a letter received December 23, 2007, from Kevin M. Leonard, P.E. Principal Engineer, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Town of New Boston Planning Coordinator, re: Indian Falls, LLC-Field Observations, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that according to inspections done on site at the time, there was nothing in the logs to indicate that there were problems that would have affected what the current state of the road was now. The Chairman felt that the issue related to grout deficiencies when underdrains were constructed for the road. Don Duhaime thought that the applicants of Indian Falls should be put on notice to make the necessary repairs in the coming spring before the issues with the road became worse. The Coordinator stated that Indian Falls may wish to make these repairs instead of forfeiting their bond in which case the Town would make the repairs. The Chairman thought that the argument Indian Falls would make would be that the Town Engineer at the time of the
road’s construction (Dufresne-Henry, Inc.) had them realign piping and put in a level spreader which resulted in water in the road. The Coordinator noted that the issue would actually fall back to the original design engineer who would have had to sign off on the plans once the work was done. Douglas Hill offered that the Board could inform Indian Falls that the Town could do core drillings at their expense to determine the extent of the problems with the road unless they wanted to take responsibility for fixing it.
At this point in the meeting Douglas Hill excused himself as he needed to leave for a personal matter.
12. A copy of a letter received December 23, 2007, from Kevin M. Leonard, P.E. Principal Engineer, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Town of New Boston Planning Coordinator, re: Nissitissit Development, LLC (Warren Drive) -Field Observations, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that letters could be sent to property owners reminding them that the maintenance of driveway culverts was their responsibility. In regard to the mentioning of stop bars she stated that these should have been addressed previously and the Road Agent could address this the next time his crew was out doing road striping.
13. A copy of a letter received December 23, 2007, from Kevin M. Leonard, P.E. Principal Engineer, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Town of New Boston
Planning Coordinator, re: Twin Bridge Estates – Final Review, was distributed for the Board’s information.
14. A copy of a memorandum received December 12, 2007, from Jeff Madon, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Town of New Boston Planning Coordinator, re: SHB Properties (Pulpit Road) Outstanding Items Summary, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman asked if SHB Properties had received a copy of the above noted memorandum. The Coordinator replied that they had.
15. A copy of a memorandum received December 12, 2007, from Kevin Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Town of New Boston Planning
Coordinator, re: SHB Properties (Pulpit Road) As-Built Plan Review Comments, was
distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator noted that Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, had discovered that the detention pond constructed on the lots was smaller than originally designed and had asked the design engineer to comment on this. A larger issue was that some bond monies had been returned based on construction having been completed, which included money for the detention pond. Since the as-builts came in later Kevin Leonard, PE, did not know that there might be an issue with the detention pond. It was noted that until as-builts were submitted for review not all bond monies should necessarily be returned when requested.
16. Cistern Pre-Construction Meeting Minutes for Christian Farm Estates, received
December 12, 2007, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Town of New Boston Planning Coordinator, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Don Duhaime asked if the cistern had been installed. The Coordinator replied that it had been and she believed it was ready for flow tests.
17. A copy of a memorandum received December 12, 2007, from Jeff Madon, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Town of New Boston Planning Coordinator, re: Hutchinson Lane Subdivision – Outstanding Items Summary, was distributed for the Board’s information.
18. A copy of a letter received December 17, 2007, from Robert Corson, Project Manager, Thibeault Corporation, to Town of New Boston Planning Board, re: Hutchinson Lane, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion, to include discussion re: as-built plan submission and bond retention.
Don Duhaime thought that none of the bond money should be released until the as-builts were completed. The Coordinator replied that this was a good idea as there was a significant detention pond on this site with a gravel access needed. She referred back to the discussion re: SHB Properties in item #15 above.
19. A copy of a letter received December 14, 2007, from Charles F. Cleary, Wadleigh, Starr & Peters, P.L.L.C., Attorneys At Law, to Ms. Nicola Strong, re: Twin Bridge Subdivision, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Addressed with item #20.
20. A copy of a letter received December 20, 2007, from Charles F. Cleary, Wadleigh, Starr & Peters, P.L.L.C., Attorneys At Law, to Ms. Nicola Strong, re: Twin Bridge Land Management, LLC, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator stated that she had met with Bill Drescher, Town Counsel, today regarding the above noted letters and he had written a letter which the Board reviewed in silence. The Coordinator then continued that she had researched the Cliff Wilson file for the year 2000 which detailed that the Board at the time had laid the groundwork for planning to assess road improvement for Twin Bridge Road (gravel and paving). She added that while she was unsure of that timing it seemed to be as of the Wilson subdivision approval where an improvement form supplied to Cliff Wilson had detailed all other developable land along Twin Bridge Road. The Coordinator noted that due to all of the other developable land open at the time Mr. Wilson’s improvement cost came to $2,900.00
for his 7 lots. She added that when Tris Gordon secured an R-1 District for Twin Bridge Management, LLC, he retained the balance of the road improvement cost. The Coordinator further added that while Town Counsel had not seen any of this back up documentation yet it seemed that the Town was covered in defense of their calculation for the cost. Dave Woodbury thought that Town Counsel should draft a letter to Charles F. Cleary, esq., with this information. The Coordinator explained that the Master Plan was not in place at the time of the Cliff Wilson subdivision when the section of Twin Bridge Road in question was still referred to as part of Middle Branch Road and not on the list for road improvements. Don Duhaime added that due to ongoing construction that would be taking place off Twin Bridge Road for Twin Bridge Management, LLC’s subdivision he thought that the overlay should be delayed to 2010. The Coordinator replied that the Road Agent
had chosen to delay the overlay coat until 2009 thus far.
21. Read File: Copy of 2007 Traffic Counting Program, from Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission.
22. The Coordinator informed the Board that she had spoken with Town Counsel regarding a question they had posed regarding the recovery of attorney fees for court cases decided in their favor (Golding et al vs. New Boston). She stated that there were three exceptions where this would be possible: 1. if a Statute dictated that this was allowed, 2. if a contract with the opposing party stated that this was an option given the outcome of the case and 3. when a party sued to get something that they were entitled to and the opposing party was obstinate. She clarified that the Courts do not normally impose recovery of attorney fees as they assume that filings by the parties were done in good faith even if they were decided by the judge to be without merit.
At 9:30 p.m. Dave Woodbury MOVED to adjourn. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk
| 
