TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of November 11, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members, Douglas Hill, Peter Hogan, and alternate, Mark Suennen. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Brandy Mitroff, Cyndie Wilson, Dean Glow, Dana Lorden, Brian Roy, PE,, PE, Willard Dodge, Ray Shea, Ellen Kambol, Diane Drake, George St. John, Christine Quirk, Wayne and Barry Charrest, Patricia Monbouquette, Mike Katsoupis, James and Claire Dodge, and Paul and Donna Sheatler.
Discussion, re: Proposed Zoning Amendments for March 2009
The Coordinator stated that the first item regarded changes to the Small Scale Commercial District draft document with updated definitions and explanations per discussions had with the Planning Board at a previous meeting. She noted that these definition changes would comprise a significant piece of the ballot vote next March. The Coordinator explained that the first available meeting date to hold a public hearing for these proposed amendments would be December 30, 2008, in order to leave enough time on the calendar to hold a second hearing, if needed, which would then be January 13, 2009.
The Coordinator stated that the next proposed amendment regarded accessory dwelling units and noted that she had put together a very rough draft compiling language used by the towns of Hollis and Lyme, NH and Huntersville, NC. She asked that in regard to the Town’s “R-A” and “R-1” Districts, which already allowed for single family/two-family homes if they needed to consider the subject of prohibiting the “gray area” of some type of mid-range living scenario that would be represented not by a detached accessory dwelling unit but an attached accessory dwelling unit or did this fall into the “two-family” dwelling range. The Coordinator noted that at the moment the language in her rough draft stated “…attached or
detached…” but should really be clarified. Peter Hogan wondered if just deleting the word “attached” would work. The Chairman clarified that the Coordinator wanted to know the difference between a two-family dwelling and an attached accessory dwelling unit. The Coordinator replied that was the case and she was not sure that there was a difference. She noted that the accessory dwelling unit language she had referenced from other towns spoke to minimum and maximum square footage size limits while two-family language did not. She asked that the Board consider the material she had put together for a subsequent meeting. The Chairman asked if this language would go directly into the Zoning Ordinance or if an applicant for an accessory dwelling unit would need to apply to the ZBA. The Coordinator replied that most towns had the procedure set up in such a way that an applicant approached the ZBA for a special exception and
that she was not sure if there was a way for the Planning Board to handle this by a CUP and had not seen other examples of it being done that way in her research. The Chairman clarified that given this information the Planning Board would not be involved in the process for the application for an accessory dwelling unit. The Coordinator replied that was correct.
The Coordinator stated that the next item involved whether or not the Planning Board wished to consider a “Small Wind Energy Systems” ordinance as State Statute currently had language that read such systems could not be hindered or unreasonably limited. She noted that the reference in Zoning noting structures in Town cannot exceed 35’ would be construed as limiting these systems. She explained that this rule would not be workable for wind systems as they were supposed to be 35’ above a tree line. The Coordinator noted that she had included a model ordinance for the Board’s review and that it was written in such a way that would make everything run through the Building Department such as notice to abutters and regional impact considerations. She further noted that at a recent workshop she attended many were concerned about how complaints by abutters would be handled as building departments did not hold hearings. The Coordinator stated that the Statute read that wind
systems were allowable in all Districts but wondered if the Planning Board would want to have some discretion over this. Peter Hogan noted that these systems were approximately $2M each. The Coordinator noted that systems for individual homes were more reasonably priced. The Chairman recalled that a resident of Amherst, NH, had applied for a residential system and asked if she knew if he had secured an approval. The Coordinator replied that she had no knowledge of it. The Chairman noted that at a class he had attended there were suggestions made that some type of ordinance with constraints be put in place. He clarified that a CUP through the Planning Board was a way to deal with more unique cases. The Coordinator replied this was correct and added that special exception through the ZBA was another option. The Chairman asked how the process would work, for example, would an applicant apply for a CUP through the Planning Board and would
the Building Inspector would administer it. The Coordinator replied that the applicant would likely apply to both departments but the Planning Board would hold a hearing in case abutters wished to voice their opinions. She noted that the Board was better equipped to look at plans as these would be similar to site plans but that there would be duplicate tasks between the Planning Board and Building Department because of the requirements that Building Inspectors do certain things. Peter Hogan felt that there should be some type of regulatory process for consideration of wind systems in the Town. Mark Suennen asked if New Boston was far enough away from regional airports so that there would be no concerns by the FAA given that wind systems were recommended 35’ above tree lines. The Chairman replied that this was a good question and noted that there was a flight path that went over New Boston. The Coordinator noted that if wind systems or cell
towers reached heights that triggered FAA guidelines then the applicant would need to follow them. Peter Hogan recalled a wind system farm in what he believed was Washington, NH, and in researching it found that the applicant had needed to apply to the FAA to propose that it not be illuminated at night per abutter concerns. Mark Suennen asked if minimum lot sizes would be considered for such systems. The Coordinator stated that as long as a site met 150% of the tower height for a fall zone then the lot size did not matter but since lots that were less than ¼ of an acre (like some in the Village) could not meet that requirement the stipulation was somewhat self-regulating. The Chairman thought that some type of hearing through the Planning Board for such systems would be a good idea. He asked if any wind systems were in place in the town as of yet. The Coordinator replied that there were none that she knew of. The Chairman asked if
there would be a limit to the number of systems allowed per lot. The Coordinator replied that language to the effect of being for household use versus commercial purposes could be put in place as only one system per household would be applicable energy-wise. Mark Suennen asked if a wind system was cable-stayed if that would make any difference. Peter Hogan thought that it would and referenced Section D in the model ordinance which mentioned this.
The Coordinator stated that the next item to review was Temporary Trailer permits. She explained that the Town had a very old Ordinance that had to do with junkyards, trailers and signs. She noted that signs were now covered in the Zoning Ordinance and junkyards were governed by State Statute, therefore, this old ordinance needed to go away, however, that the Selectmen did not want the Temporary Trailer permit portion to go away as it called for a public hearing and without that section they were concerned that trailers would be scattered about the Town. The Coordinator clarified the two main purposes for permitting such trailers in the Town which were on construction sites and on individual sites where a home was being built, therefore, the Selectmen were looking for a
permit from the Building Inspector that included specifications on sanitary facilities for the trailer and a timeline for its removal along with provisions if it were not. She noted that she had taken some old language from the Ordinance and had reworked it into the current building code. The Coordinator added that she had also put a question regarding language for the temporary trailer permit on PlanLink but had received no responses so thought that she could ask SNHPC. Mark Suennen asked if this amendment proposal was intended for the March, 2009, ballot. The Coordinator replied that it was. Stu Lewin asked if these items were intended to be voted on piece meal. The Coordinator replied that they were considered to be amended separately unless there were concerns to handle it differently. She added that she was not sure that there was much enforcement to the old ordinance as several parts of it had already been preempted by other things. She further noted that the Building
Inspector should review this language.
The Coordinator stated that the next item regarded impact fees language and because the Town’s fiscal impact study was not complete the Planning Board could likely not determine which Town departments would use them, therefore, it would not be sensible to go forward especially since there was no funding to even do the schedules which would equal an inaccurate ordinance. The Board agreed to postpone this discussion.
The Coordinator stated that the next item involved Temporary Certificates of Occupancy. She explained that the Planning Assistant, Building Department Assistant and herself had been talking about this issue and wondered if the Planning Board might consider the idea of requiring a bond for a Temporary CO. She noted that Temporary CO’s could be considered in the future for certain circumstances or, as was the case now, at the Building Inspector’s discretion but noted that requiring a bond with it would decrease the likelihood of having the situation that required it in the first place carry on unresolved. Peter Hogan felt that there was not good rationale for giving Temporary CO’s in the first place and felt that the Town should not be in the business of
dispatching them. He offered the example of the driveway issue for a home on Inkberry Road whose lot owners had received a Temporary CO while they had the grade adjusted to the Town’s specifications. Peter Hogan asked what the case would be for a situation such as this one if the driveway could not be fixed and that critical error in the building and design process, followed by the issuance of a Temporary CO was allowing people to move into an unsafe situation. He wondered why the Building Inspector was even compelled to consider Temporary CO’s. The Coordinator stated that in most cases where Temporary CO’s were considered the issues surrounding their issuance were minor ones. The Planning Assistant noted that in the case of the Inkberry driveway it had been the Planning Board that approved the Temporary CO. The Coordinator stated that she did not know of any stipulation that meant the Town was required to issue a Temporary CO. She offered that the current language could be
changed to read “…should not be any Temporary CO’s granted…” instead of how it was written now which read “…at the Building Inspector’s discretion…” Peter Hogan added that they were now also discussing the issuance of Temporary CO’s if a bond was put up and wondered what the case would be if it were found, for example, that a non-compliant driveway resulting in a Temporary CO fronted by a $3K bond was later found to require $70K to fix which would fall to the Town. The Coordinator replied that this bonding would not be a bond for the amount to fix, for example, the driveway or like an estimate for a wetland crossing but more like what was bonded for the paving of driveway aprons, i.e., just enough to ensure that the work was done. She added that she was not sure the Board could be put in a position where it was their responsibility to make a repair. Peter Hogan asked, in the case of the
Inkberry driveway issue, what that bond amount should be based on their Temporary CO. The Coordinator replied that this was the question she had for the Board and she was thinking that it might be an across-the-board number. Peter Hogan pointed out that a CO was what had the teeth for a final closing on a home so if a buyer could get into their home and get that closing done based on fronting a small bond amount that was a financial incentive because their bank could then accept and convert to a mortgage from a more expensive construction loan.
Peter Hogan stated that if erosion was washing across Inkberry Road this was a bad thing and the Board needed to look at the worst case scenarios which did not so much include the owners’ safety risk but the potential impact to the Town such as Inkberry Road washing out. He noted that the ditch next to the Inkberry Road driveway was almost 1’ deep and with the amount of stone that he had observed that washed across the road he felt in was from the Town’s road bed. Peter Hogan stated that he did not know who had made the repairs to the sides of the driveway. The Chairman stated that he had not noticed this when he had recently viewed the site. Mark Suennen stated that when he viewed the site he had observed where stone had washed diagonally across
Inkberry Road and thought that it was an area of runoff from the shoulder. Peter Hogan replied that he felt this was a result of the way that driveway was constructed and this was what concerned him the most. He added that he did not believe that the Town had the pump power to address a fire on that lot given the height of the house on the hill. Mark Suennen commented that this was likely why the home had a fire sprinkler system. Peter Hogan explained that based on power pressure formulas pump trucks could only pump to a certain “head” and offered the example of a resident’s (Melanson) property in Town whose house sat so high on its lot that the Fire Department calculated the necessity for three pumpers to fight a fire at that site should one occur. He noted that the Town only had two pumpers. In summary, Peter Hogan stated that he had an issue with Temporary CO’s in general and felt that by putting a process in place on
how to handle the scenario was just encouraging them. He likened this to the example of common driveways which were not desirable in his opinion but because there were stipulations in place for them they were often proposed. The Chairman clarified that the Board’s three considerations were to do away with or discourage Temporary CO’s, keep things the way they were or leave things as they were but add a bond stipulation. Peter Hogan replied that he felt the options should be to either prohibit Temporary CO’s or leave things the way they were but tack on the bond requirement. He also thought that it was likely that the Building Inspector said no to Temporary CO’s first and then waited to see if it was challenged. Mark Suennen did not want to venture an opinion on how to proceed as he had not been on the Board long enough to see different scenarios on this, therefore, he opted to leave things as they were in the language for
Temporary CO’s. The Chairman asked if the Building Inspector had offered his opinion on this subject. The Coordinator replied that he had not. Peter Hogan asked if the Building Inspector was looking for feedback from the Board on relief regarding Temporary CO’s. The Coordinator replied that he seemed to be OK with issuing them in certain situations but that she would run the Planning Board’s ideas by him. Peter Hogan stated that he would be interested in the Building Inspector’s opinion. The Chairman asked, historically, how many Temporary CO’s had been granted in the Town. The Coordinator replied that she did not think there had been that many.
The Chairman felt that this topic needed more discussion and asked that the Building Inspector and Selectmen be polled for their opinion. Mark Suennen asked if the language were changed if it would also need to be run by Town Counsel. The Coordinator replied that it would. Peter Hogan asked if there had been any problems with the Temporary CO’s that had been issued in the past. The Coordinator replied that some owners had never come back. Peter Hogan felt that the only option was to attack the issue with an aggressive financial nature so that an applicant would have to follow through. The Chairman stated that the discussion needed to be further pursued. He asked the Coordinator if she had looked at how other towns handled this. The
Coordinator replied that she had not looked into this thus far.
The Coordinator stated that the last item for discussion was the consideration of a proposed warrant article for money towards work with SNHPC regarding Mixed Use and Multi-Family Overlay Districts. She explained that these topics had been part of the State grant that the Town had not received and that the Finance Committee did not think it was a good idea to ask voters for the $10K cost but she felt that the Board may wish to consider one or the other with a $5K warrant article. The Chairman clarified that each would require an individual vote. The Coordinator replied that they would. Mark Suennen asked what the downfall would be if the Board did not recommend either of these for the next vote. The Coordinator replied that they would not get funding to work on
it and although they might be able to address a Multi-Family Overlay in-house she was certain that they would need help from SNHPC on the Mixed Use and was fairly certain that the cost to have their help would not be covered by the dues the Town paid to them. Mark Suennen asked if the Town did not work on these items if they would be in violation of the Work Force Housing statutes. The Coordinator replied that they would be but that every other town in New Hampshire was in the same situation with that. Mark Suennen noted that he knew some CIP funding for bridge repairs had been shifted forward and wondered if these warrant articles were delayed to next year if that would be a worse scenario. The Coordinator replied that it could be, however, with CIP, one never knew as the tables were always changing each year. The Chairman clarified that although the Board had nothing to lose if these warrant articles were proposed, from a political standpoint, it may
not be a good year to ask for such funding in tougher financial times. He asked when a decision needed to be made.
The Coordinator replied that it did not need to be made at this meeting but would need to be made soon so that the Finance Committee could know what would be forthcoming through the Selectmen and then make a decision. The Chairman preferred to wait until more Board members were present to make this decision. Peter Hogan stated that he did not see the harm in going for either or both given that some bigger ticket items were being bumped to the following year. Mark Suennen felt that since the Mixed Use (Village) District could not be handled in-house that the Board might consider recommending that for the warrant Article. Peter Hogan agreed.
In summary the Coordinator stated that for the next meeting the Board could further discuss accessory dwelling units, small wind energy systems and that she would provide more information on Temporary Trailer Permits and Temporary CO’s.
Peter Hogan wished to review where “Small Engine Repair” would fit in the 7th draft of the Commercial Committee’s proposed definitions and pointed out that he could envision those applying for this category (which referred to things like snow blower and lawnmower engines) being tempted to go under item #16-General Service or Repair Establishment by permitted use or Special Exception #15-vehicle repair. The Coordinator stated that if someone came in tomorrow to apply she would go with #16. Peter Hogan noted that all the uses listed in #16 could be done in a living room and not take up a lot of space and the same was not necessarily true for a small engine repair shop. He thought that a Special Exception may be warranted for Small Engine Repair. The
Coordinator stated that she would review these points with the Small Scale Commercial Committee when they met on Monday, November 17, 2008.
Stu Lewin appointed Mark Suennen a full voting member for the evening’s meeting.
McCURDY DEVELOPMENT, LLC Adjourned from 10/14/08
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/42 Lots
Location: McCurdy Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/19 & 96
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Brian Roy, PE, of Cuoco and Cormier, and the applicants Dean Glow and Dana Lorden. An abutter were present was Cyndie Wilson. An interested party was Christine Quirk and Brandy Mitroff was also present.
The Chairman stated that the application’s deadline for action was approaching and asked if in the interest of further discussion on the plan the applicants would be agreeable to an extension. Brian Roy, PE, replied that they would be agreeable to extending the deadline on a meeting-by meeting basis, i.e., date specific. He asked if the Board had received any comments back from either the Road Committee or the Road Agent regarding the road design. The Coordinator replied that they had not and recalled that the Board had planned to discuss any design revisions at tonight’s scheduled meeting before contacting those entities. Brian Roy, PE, explained that they had met with the Town Engineer regarding an alternate road design and had asked his opinion in
light of the intent of the Town regulations regarding the -3% requirement versus the applicants’ road realignment option, i.e., did the plan meet those goals. He then put the revised design on the easel for the Board to see. Brian Roy, PE, explained that in the alternate design they had reconfigured both ends of “Lorden Road” where it met both McCurdy and Susan Roads to -3% and made the required 75’ distance to the low point of the curve using its sweep to absorb some of that measure. He noted with specific reference to the McCurdy/”Lorden” Road intersection that given the design of the curve it was assumed that vehicle speeds would only be 20 m.p.h. since any more than that would feel uncomfortable and they would also be approaching a stop sign. Brian Roy, PE, further noted that the Town Engineer thought this was reasonable. Peter Hogan asked how a vehicle would know what speed to travel in this area of the road. Brian Roy, PE, replied that by the design a vehicle turning
onto “Lorden Road” from McCurdy would likely be traveling at 10-15 m.p.h. and by the time they would accelerate they would be turning into a curve so would not get to, for example, 40 m.p.h. He noted that from the opposite direction, traveling on “Lorden Road” towards its intersection with McCurdy Road at, for example, 30-35 m.p.h. a vehicle should be applying its brakes approximately 250’ from the intersection. Brian Roy, PE, noted that to ensure this they proposed a “Stop Ahead” sign at station #2+50 per MUTCD guidelines as this would give 100’ of warning. He noted that the alternate design lowered the low point in the road by 2’ and although it did not compromise the swale it would put it deeper into the wetlands. Brian Roy, PE, stated that the presumption in this design was that it would be in line with what the Town sought regarding wetlands, slopes, etc., while not getting below the stream.
Peter Hogan asked what the difference in elevation between the height of the wetland and the road would be once it was in place. Brian Roy, PE, replied that the wetland was at approximately 680’- 678’ and the road would be lowered to 675’ so 4’ to 5’ below the wetland. He added that they proposed underdrains here and would have positive drainage away, therefore, the ability to drain the road sub-base. Brian Roy, PE, noted that the same condition would exist on the Susan Road side with drainage structures and runoff to treatment structures, therefore, cross-drainage to maintain cover, followed by a broken back curve, grade change from 8% to 5%, and a small piece of tangent 50’ in length to another sharp curve. He explained that this would shift the low point back 25’which was not a significant change from the former design. Brian Roy, PE, stated that the Town Engineer had felt that holding the 75’
measure was more critical so thought given the two designs the revised would be the way to go. He noted that he himself preferred the original design as it did not differ so much and offered a smoother curve. Peter Hogan stated that he was still not sold and thought that going under the grade of the wetlands was a joke. Brian Roy, PE, replied that this was why they had originally proposed coming in at +1% versus the -3%. He added that most towns had a range of 2-3% positive or negative as you approached an intersection and was not sure why New Boston held to just the -3%. Peter Hogan noted that if the applicant could not meet the Town’s design requirements then the road should not be there at all. Brian Roy, PE, stated that he could say with reasonable certainty that he knew of no engineering requirement that would require the number factors the Town considered.
He noted that the Town’s regulations stated that the entrance to the site was not possible at its original proposed location because of the grade on the existing road at that point, or wetlands or existing slopes, therefore, the applicant had done everything possible to find a reasonable way into the site based on comments from the Board and in consideration of wetland impacts and the grade desired at the intersection. Brian Roy, PE, stated that the -3% requirement was not an AASHTO standard or engineering code so to hold to an arbitrary number like that and having to travel uphill is what caused this scenario. He added that given the multiple layers of regulations they were unable to get around this condition, as they could not go under the brook. Brian Roy, PE, noted that the site was what it was and he did not
believe that State law would side with the Town as this was a reasonable intersection with a degree of safety based on AASHTO standards and both design options were workable which was why they asked for a waiver. He noted that the Board had approved this condition in the past in the case of Indian Falls. The Chairman noted that this was not a good example to reference. Peter Hogan added that Indian Falls had recently required a major repair due to road shifting and that since that issue the Town had further clarified the meaning of the -3% grade at intersections. He added that he had no interest in waiving this requirement for the applicant but noted that the Board would also want to hear back from the Road Committee and the Road Agent. The Chairman clarified that in using the -3% grade the road was 4’ under the wetland level and at +1% it was still under the wetland level and that the gist of the correspondence from the Town Engineer was that
the design was as good as it could get. He added that they should still get the Road Committee’s opinion. The Coordinator clarified that the Board had waited to see what design revisions the applicant would submit and would choose one to forward. Peter Hogan stated that he hoped the Road Committee would understand the Board’s feeling on the matter in that they were looking for further justification from them based on the Town’s requirements, and not to suggest that they were considering a waiver. He noted that if the Road Committee turned out to be in favor of the design he wondered how they could justify the -3% requirement that they had fought for. Douglas Hill agreed and wondered why the requirement should be in the Subdivision Regulations if the Road Committee accepted an alternative design. Brian Roy, PE, wished to point out that in the revised alternate the grades at both entrances to the proposed road were -3%, it was the
tangent that had reduced along with the vertical curve and assuming 20 m.p.h. travel on the curve as a vehicle approached the stop sign. Peter Hogan stated that braking speed was being assumed in the revised alternate design. He added that he did not want the Road Committee to think that the Board liked this design. Douglas Hill asked who came up with the -3% grade for 75’ in the Subdivision Regulations. The Coordinator replied that this had been in the Regulations for a long time and noted that it was likely instated by the Planning Board, Road Agent and Road Committee at that time period. Peter Hogan noted that the Subdivision Regulations had since been revised by the removal of the word “minimum” regarding the -3% grade requirement, therefore, it was evident that the Road Committee definitely wanted the -3% grade and the Planning Board wanted roads built to these standards. He added that some applicants had proposed 20 m.p.h.
roads in the past and the Fire Department had responded that this could not be posted. Peter Hogan explained in order to post such a speed the State needed to become involved. Douglas Hill stated that he would like to know why the -3% was required, adding that he was not an engineer, but would be flexible if there was enough of an argument for it or against it. The Coordinator stated that a main reason for the Road Agent wanting the -3% grade was for drainage and a stopping platform. Douglas Hill asked if they had the Road Agent’s opinion on this issue as of yet. The Coordinator replied that they did not have it yet. The Chairman asked Peter Hogan how he would word the review question that would be forwarded to the Road Committee with the road design. Peter Hogan replied that he would ask that they review the design and leave it that simple. He added that it should also be noted to the Road Committee that neither of the two
designs met the Town’s requirements. Douglas Hill preferred that the speed limit be kept at the standard m.p.h. From the audience Christine Quirk stated that her understanding of that was that the Town could not change speed limits and that the State’s standard speed limits applied. Mark Suennen wished to clarify if the applicant wanted to post a speed limit or a warning sign. Brian Roy, PE, replied that they wished to deal with their design parameters by posting a “Stop Ahead” sign. Mark Suennen felt that it was not realistic to assume that speeds may not be over 20 m.p.h. on the proposed road. Brian Roy, PE, replied that this was understood but it was likely that increasing speeds on certain sections of the road such as the curve would cause a feeling of bottoming out since it was 170’ in length. Douglas Hill asked how the grade changed after the curve. Brian Roy, PE, replied that it went from 7% to 3%
then transitioned. He noted that it was a factor of comfort and sight distance. Douglas Hill asked if a car was coming downhill how far it was before it could see an oncoming car? Brian Roy, PE, replied that this would be at about station #3 too at the location of a culvert down the road. He noted that another reason for proposing a “Stop Ahead” sign was because night time headlights would shine away from the curve as they approached an oncoming car in the opposite direction. Douglas Hill asked the grade on McCurdy Road at the proposed intersection and the grade of the original design. Brian Roy, PE, replied that McCurdy Road had an 8% grade at the proposed intersection with “Lorden Road” and that the original road design had a +1% entrance grade off McCurdy Road. He added that with open drainage proposed all runoff would be picked up and the same was true for the intersection on the Susan Drive side of the road. Brian Roy, PE, further added that the only time there would
be puddling, no matter what type of drainage on a road, would be when there was an ice storm with a freeze followed by rain.
The Chairman clarified that both designs could be forwarded the Road Committee with the following questions: 1. Why is the -3% grade required by the Town and 2. Note that neither of the two designs meet the Town’s regulations as they exist. Peter Hogan requested that the Road Committee also be asked if they would be in favor of the Planning Board granting a waiver to the -3% grade requirement based on either design. The Coordinator asked which Regulations the Board was referring to when asking the Road Committee’s opinion on a waiver. Stu Lewin thought that it would likely be on the 75 foot measure as the designs did have the -3% grades at the intersections. Brian Roy, PE, noted that the applicants’ goal was to keep the low point at the 75’
measure. The Chairman wondered if a copy of the Town Engineer’s technical memo on the matter should also be forwarded. Peter Hogan did not think that this should be done (but later recanted). Brian Roy, PE, asked when the Road Committee held their meetings. The Coordinator replied that the Road Committee did not have specifically scheduled meetings and usually came together on special issues. Brian Roy, PE, wondered if it would be helpful if he and the applicants were at such a meeting to explain the design premise of the proposed road. Peter Hogan did not think that the Road Committee liked to meet publicly. The Coordinator clarified that the Road Committee’s meetings were considered public but she was not sure whether their rules allowed for anyone other than the Committee members to speak. Mark Suennen asked if the Town Engineer’s technical memo should be submitted with the designs to explain the support for the
applicants’ case. Brian Roy, PE, replied that he did have a copy of this memo. The Board agreed that it would be OK to send this memo along with Northpoint Engineering’s memo with the designs.
The Chairman asked if there were any other big issues regarding the plan that the Board should address this evening or if they should first forward the road designs to the Road Committee and get their input before moving on. The Coordinator replied that the only other issue regarded phasing of the lots but felt that this could wait until the Road Committee got back to the Board regarding the road designs.
Interested party Brandy Mitroff clarified that with either road design the wetlands were located above the grade and asked how the road would not be wet and how such a road could be considered for approval. Douglas Hill replied that the runoff issues were dependent on the distance of a road to wetlands. Brian Roy, PE, noted that at the main stream crossing on site the road was above the wetlands and water off McCurdy Road at the intersection would divert to a proposed culvert. He noted that the wetland in question was sloping in nature and that at its closest point to the road there would be a culvert that would carry runoff below the road’s elevation. Brian Roy, PE, added that the steepest cut at the road would be at the first 100’ and noted the location
of the wetland on the plan explaining that maintaining this area would depend on underdrains to keep it dry. Peter Hogan asked if the calculations of runoff that would occur in this area were factored into the drainage report. Brian Roy, PE, replied that such runoff usually added 0.1 or 0.15 CFS but that this was groundwater, therefore, it was not increasing runoff as it was part of the base flow. Peter Hogan felt that the base flow, by the design, was being removed from what would be its natural ground water cycle. Brian Roy, PE, noted that this flow did not occur all the time and that once it hit the natural grade it had the ability to soak back in. Douglas Hill clarified that the flows off the site per the plan equaled no runoff increases. Brian Roy, PE, replied that was correct. Peter Hogan believed that the new design showed that increased runoff was going off the site. Brian Roy, PE, replied that they did not factor base flow
into their calculations as it was part of the existing water budget.
Brandy Mitroff asked if a wooded area on the right side of the plan was to be part of a protective easement or if those trees would possibly be cut and make the runoff situation more detrimental. Brian Roy, PE, replied that this area would be part of the proposed permanent open space, therefore, the trees would remain. Abutter Cyndie Wilson asked if there would still be box culverts proposed on the alternate new design. Douglas Hill replied that there would be and thought this was likely the contributing factor to the whole road issue. Brian Roy, PE, clarified that whether there were culverts or not the road could not get up over the level of the stream and that they were 8’ below the stream if they followed the Town requirements.
Brian Roy, PE, stated that the applicant would agree to an extension of the deadline for the Board’s action on the application.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the application of McCurdy Development, LLC, Major Subdivision, 42 Lots, Location: McCurdy Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/19 & 96, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, and to extend the deadline for Board action on the application to December 9, 2008, at 7:30 p.m. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
SHAKY POND DEVELOPMENT, LLC Adjourned from 10/14/08
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/17 Lots
and one open space lot
Location: Susan Road
Tax Map/Lot #15/15
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Ray Shea of Sandford Survey and Engineering who represented the applicant.
Ray Shea stated that at the last meeting the Board had asked that the common driveway for the first two lots be moved to the lot line and that this had since been revised on the plan where the common drive now entered on the lot line and then split 50/50. In regard to the bus stop discussed at a previous meeting Ray Shea asked if the Road Agent and the Principal had offered their opinions. The Coordinator replied that they had and that they felt using the intersection itself was enough, i.e., no additional paved area was warranted. Ray Shea stated that he had received the Town Engineer’s review letter the previous Friday and that although there were 69 comments none of them were major technical issues. He added that they had begun to address these minor items. Ray Shea stated that there was one comment regarding the drainage analysis regarding a runoff increase noted of 2% increase (0.4 CFS), offsite in a two year storm (where he thought the number to be 0%), compared
to the 10 and 25 year storms which noted a decrease in runoff. He noted that the advantage to this plan was that in the construction of the proposed road they could incorporate drainage and detention ponds. Ray Shea further noted that the site sloped east to west and this would enable the runoff to be caught, detained and treated, eventually traveling to a brook. He stated that the applicant requested a waiver to the requirement of no increased runoff noting that the pre-development versus post-development runoff was 16 cfs versus 16.4 cfs and that they could address this but that it would involve the construction of another detention pond meaning more disturbance to the site. The Chairman clarified that Ray Shea had mentioned the outflow ran eventually to a stream/brook. Ray Shea replied that there were two streams and that they converged and headed toward Bedford Road in the area of Klondike Corner. Peter Hogan noted that this was the same area on
Bedford Road where a construction horse with a flashing light was located due to erosion issues on the roadside. Ray Shea stated that offsite drainage issues such as this were difficult to address in many applications. Douglas Hill asked how many detention ponds were proposed currently on the plan. Ray Shea replied that 1 large one was proposed along with some swales. Douglas Hill noted that there were several brooks on that site and asked how large the new detention pond would be if proposed. Ray Shea replied that it would likely be located in a plateau area noted on the plan and be approximately half the size of the one on the plan which was 80’ X 40’ in size. The Chairman asked why larger storms had less runoff than smaller ones. Ray Shea replied that he did not know all the logistics behind this but offered that it had to do with the length of the storm, its duration, the amount of water, etc. He added that smaller
storms had bigger impacts to impervious areas.
Peter Hogan MOVED to deny the applicants’ waiver request for an increase in flow offsite at any time for Shaky Pond Development, LLC. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Ray Shea stated that he would address the runoff issues.
Douglas Hill MOVED to release Town Counsel’s letter dated October 16, 2008 to the applicant. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Peter Hogan gave his copy of Town Counsel’s letter to Ray Shea. The Chairman referenced a letter submitted by the Fire Wards noting that the length of the cul-de-sac exceeded the Town’s maximum of 1,000’ which they considered unacceptable. The Chairman asked the length of the proposed cul-de-sac. Ray Shea replied that it was 2,000’ and that a proposed cistern was located almost at the halfway point (40%). He added that fire sprinkler systems for the homes were also proposed and recalled that this was the revised design the Board preferred over the original loop design with many more lots (26) and only 10 acres of open space. The Chairman asked if the cul-de-sac circle was revised to a circular shape as the original design was more of an
oval which would make snow plowing difficult. Ray Shea replied that this would be revised. The Chairman stated that offsite road improvements in the amount of $10K had been calculated and asked if Ray Shea had received a copy, which he had.
The Chairman stated that at the next meeting the Board would like to review revised plans for drainage. Ray Shea thought that he should be able to have this prepared in time.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the application of Shaky Pond Development, LLC, Major Subdivision, 17 Lots and one open space lot, Location: Susan Road, Tax Map/lot
#15/15, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to December 9, 2008, at 8:00 p.m.
Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
QUIRK, THOMAS P. AND CHRISTINE A. Adjourned from 10/14/08
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/8 Lots
Location: Clark Hill Road
Tax Map/lot #7/10
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Ray Shea of Sandford Survey and Engineering, the applicant Christine Quirk and her sons Wayne and Barry Charrest. Abutters and interested parties present were Diane Drake, Ellen Kambol, Patricia Monbouquette, Mike Katsoupis, George St. John, Willard Dodge and Brandy Mitroff.
Ray Shea stated that, in review, the driveways proposed for the plan were as follows: a common access driveway split at the lot line, individual driveway, individual driveway, common driveway and common driveway. He noted that for the common driveway on Lot # 3 they had trouble moving it to the lot line due to an existing utility pole’s angle on the lot corner, therefore, they swapped two 1,000 s.f. areas between the lots to accomplish this. The Chairman asked if the common driveway was now on the lot line. Ray Shea replied that it was. He noted that when Clark Hill Road was realigned several years ago the corner of the site was cut off and easements were not obtained, therefore, the property went over the road at that point. Ray Shea stated that
because of this the applicant proposed as a condition of approval to grant this land to the Town so that it would become part of the right-of-way.
Ray Shea stated that at the last meeting an abutter (Diane Drake) had questioned possible encroachment along an easterly boundary. He added that in reviewing this area there was a waist high stone wall in good condition to the corner of this area and any issues were likely being caused on land several hundred feet from that point. Ray Shea stated that a Traffic letter was submitted in lieu of a waiver for a Traffic Study not being granted at the last meeting and this offered information regarding trips per day per lot in comparison to traffic on a similar road in the Town. He added that Clark Hill Road did not appear to be a cut through, was a rural road and saw mostly local traffic unlike Old Coach Road. Peter Hogan had no issue with the information provided in the
Traffic letter. Mark Suennen agreed, adding that it said just what he thought it would.
Ray Shea stated that a Drainage Report was submitted which noted that the property, in general, sloped away from Clark Hill Road and that two significant wetlands on site drained to the south to the campground property and then through undeveloped Town property finally reaching a 60” X 50” culvert under Old Coach Road. He noted that the numbers calculated to a 10% increase in offsite runoff from pre to post-development but added that there were no infrastructures (roads) proposed for this subdivision and that once runoff hit the wetlands it was mitigated. Ray Shea clarified that they could not prevent this offsite runoff. Douglas Hill noted that the applicant was not building a road. Ray Shea replied that was the case.
The Chairman stated that a memo issued by the Fire Wards stated that they had no issue with the subdivision. He asked if the homes that would be built on the proposed lot would be installed with fire sprinkler systems. Ray Shea replied that this was proposed.
Peter Hogan MOVED to grant the waivers requested for the Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies, for Thomas and Christine Quirk, Tax Map/Lot #7/10, Clark Hill Road. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Peter Hogan MOVED to accept the application of Thomas and Christine Quirk, Major Subdivision, 8 Lots, Location: Clark Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/10, Residential-
Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the Board’s deadline for action was January 15, 2009.
Abutter Diane (Corricelli) Drake questioned whether the proposed driveways would compromise the integrity of Clark Hill Road at those steep locations given its recent realignment.
She also questioned phrasing she referenced from Title 20 Transportation Highway Protection and Control, Excavation and Driveways which stated that all season safe sight distance was required to be 400’ in both directions from a proposed driveway otherwise the commission would not permit it. Douglas Hill explained that this State requirement involved driveways being proposed on State Highways. Diane Drake then questioned the line of sight requirement from the base of the proposed driveways. Douglas Hill replied that it was 10’ back from the edge of pavement and 39” off the ground and required 200’ sight distance in each direction. He added that the Road Agent had viewed the applicants’ proposed driveway locations and had no issues. An audience member noted that there was a
utility pole sight obstruction at one proposed driveway entrance. Peter Hogan stated that a pole was not generally considered a sight obstruction. Douglas Hill added that the proposed driveways would have paved aprons and, if necessary, culverts installed. Christine Quirk noted as a point of information that she had walked the site earlier in the day with the Road Agent and he had determined that no culverts would be needed for the driveways. Diane Drake asked who ensured that the wetlands would be protected during construction if, for example, wetland areas were filled in. Peter Hogan replied that wetlands could not be filled in. Douglas Hill added that construction within 50’ of wetlands was not allowed in the Town and in the applicants’ case, each proposed lot had a buildable area noted on the plan which the Building Inspector would view. He further added that the State approved septic designs. Ray Shea noted that there
were also Stormwater Management Plans for each lot. Patricia Monbouquette asked where a beaver pond she believed to be located on site was noted on the plan. Ray Shea replied that he had no knowledge of a beaver pond on the property. Patricia Monbouquette stated that she believed it was located behind the proposed lots. Peter Hogan stated that if it was not on the plan then it was likely not on that site. Pat Monbouquette then asked if the traffic flow on Clark Hill Road had been reviewed. The Chairman replied that a Traffic letter had been submitted and the results were determined not to be significant enough to be an issue. Pat Monbouquette stated that she was concerned that there were so many twists and turns along Clark Hill Road that it would be dangerous for buses and children. Peter Hogan noted as an example for comparison that applications proposing another 100 homes off McCurdy Road had not affected the
outcome of a recent Bedford Road traffic study by SNHPC enough to say that capacity was impacted, therefore, this application proposing 8 lots would have no effects. Pat Monbouquette returned to the subject of the beaver pond stating that she would like to know where it was located in relation to the site. She added that her son had worked for Thomas Quirk in the past and knew of the pond. Pat Monbouquette further added that this pond was slowly being filled in with runoff from the road, therefore, she was concerned that the subdivision could create further impacts. Douglas Hill stated that if the pond was not on the plan it was not on the site and noted that a full Drainage Report had been done. He noted that water ran across the site now with now houses on it.
Interested party Mike Katsoupis stated that there was a lot of runoff westbound on the access road to the campground and asked where the water would go from that area with the subdivision. Ray Shea noted Mike Katsoupis’ lot and culvert and stated that the present flow would not be impeded by the subdivision and would continue to run along the contours as it did now. Mike Katsoupis asked what type of homes were being built on the site. Douglas Hill relied that, per Zoning, they could be single family or duplex. The Chairman clarified that as long the construction planned fit the Zoning Ordinance for its area then it was not an issue that affected an application’s approval. Mark Suennen noted that the applicant could also sell the lots without
anything constructed upon them and the subsequent buyer could build.
Interested party Ellen Kambol asked if there would be specific language considered in the plan approval that would state that the access road to the campground (the entrance portion which was being proposed as an access to one of the shared driveways) would not be used by campers as a cut through to Clark Hill Road, in effect becoming an intermediate road. Peter Hogan replied that this was not an application for the campground and added that the approval for the campground prohibited traffic on the access road for the purpose Ellen Kambol described and nothing the Board had considered with the application before them had changed that fact. Mike Katsoupis asked how far back the gate to the access road would extend in consideration of the shared driveway being proposed off it. Douglas Hill thought that it would likely be extended just beyond the lot line in that location. Ray Shea clarified that it would likely extend back 200’ to 250’ which would be just beyond the lot’s
driveway. Pat Monbouquette noted that the Board had stated that the type of house built on the lots had no bearing if it ran in accordance with Zoning, however, duplex houses could have twice as much traffic as single family homes. The Chairman explained that the Traffic letter used information based on average household members to cover that. Douglas Hill stated that the average home had 0.4 children. Mark Suennen added that the national standard for traffic trips was 10 trips per day per house which covered the range of a home with 8 children to an elderly couple with 1 car. Interested party Brandy Mitroff asked if there would be covenants that stated the access road would be kept open as the emergency access road it was intended to be. Ray Shea replied that the underlying easements would not be changing and there would be additional easements put in place for use of the proposed driveways by lot owners. Brandy Mitroff clarified that the
applicants could still maintain the access road entrance if the property owners of the lots did not. Peter Hogan asked if the emergency access entrance was intended for use during the winter. Christine Quirk replied that it was more intended during the summer months in the case of forest fires.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plan of Thomas P. and Christine A. Quirk, Tax Map/Lot #7/10, Clark Hill, for the subdivision of eight lots, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of five (5) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections, waivers and any corrections as noted at this hearing.
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F, 3.
4. Submission of executed legal documents: Declaration of Common Driveway Easement and Maintenance Agreement; Sprinkler System Declaration of Covenants; Right-of-Way Dedication Deed. The cost of review by Town Counsel and recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
5. Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set, and the appropriate fee for recording same with the HCRD. (If necessary.)
6. Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.
7. Approved Pre-Engineered Individual Stormwater Management Plans may be resubmitted as the final Individual Stormwater Management Plans at the time of application for a building permit provided the builder complies with those plans. If critical areas are to be disturbed beyond those shown on the Pre-Engineered Individual Stormwater Management Plans, revised Individual Stormwater Management Plans shall be prepared and submitted for approval. If the Pre Engineered Stormwater Management Plans are not to be used at the time of application for a building permit new Individual Stormwater Management Plans shall be submitted for approval. In any event, the bonds for the Individual Stormwater Management Plans must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit.
8. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
9. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be May 11, 2009, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. Sprinkler systems shall be installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee before the occupancy of any dwelling in the approved subdivision, in accordance with Chapter NB-5.0 of the Town of New Boston Building Code before the occupancy of any dwelling in the approved subdivision.
2. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until the sprinkler systems are installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee, in accordance with Chapter NB-5.0 of the Town of New Boston Building Code, and the driveways are installed and approved by the Road Agent.
There is no deadline for complying with the conditions subsequent since installation of the sprinkler systems and the driveways will be ongoing.
Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Applications #08-031, 32, 33, 34, and 35, for proposed driveways, 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.
Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 9:15 p.m. the Planning Board took a 5 minute break.
DODGE, JAMES W.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: Tucker Mill Road
Tax Map/Lot #2/123
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicant James Dodge and his spouse Claire Dodge. Claire Dodge stated that the site was 80 acres with a mobile home on a three acre section of the site that had been there for approximately 15 years. She noted that they wished to subdivide the three acre parcel from the 80 acres using natural existing boundaries (road and a stonewall) and noted that they had received State Subdivision Approval for the 3 acres subdivision. Claire Dodge added that the existing septic had been approved 15 years prior and they proposed an existing drive remain with the 77 acre parcel as well. She noted that they requested waivers to the requirement for Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Studies because
even though it was considered a major subdivision due to the acreage they had no intention at this time to subdivide further.
The Chairman asked if the applicant had spoken with the Coordinator regarding the plan checklist items. Claire Dodge replied that they had and had attempted to submit revisions the day prior but did not know that the Town offices were closed. She noted that the revised plan had changes listed on the checklist such as corrections to abutters’ names and the scale of the locus map. The Chairman asked if a copy of the final plat at the tax map scale was available. Claire Dodge replied that she thought what she had with her this evening would satisfy that. The Coordinator noted that she could make a copy and that would suffice. Claire Dodge added that Harry Murray had set bounds with drill holes in the stonewall on site. The Chairman asked if three
copies of the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan were submitted. The Coordinator explained that for the proposed three acre subdivided lot the site was stabilized and any disturbance to that parcel had taken place and corrected itself years prior, however, if the remaining 77 lot were subdivided further down the road there was bound to be disturbance to a degree, therefore, there should be a note on the plan that said if the site were subdivided further in the future then a Stormwater Management Plan would be required at that time. The Chairman inquired about three paper print copies of the soils map. The Coordinator replied that this could be added to the waiver requests for a site specific soils map as the property was already developed. Douglas Hill clarified that the existing stonewall ran across the top side of the property line. The Coordinator inquired about a wetland area on site. Claire Dodge replied that Harry Murray had mapped
this and noted that its contours ran downhill. Peter Hogan replied that he had no concerns with the plan. Mark Suennen stated that he had driven by the site to view it.
Peter Hogan MOVED to grant the waiver requested for the requirement of a Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Study and site specific soils map. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Peter Hogan MOVED to accept the application of James W. Dodge, Major Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Tucker Mill Road, Tax map/lot # 2/123, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the subdivision plan of James W. Dodge, Tax Map 2 Lot 123, Tucker Mill Road, for the subdivision of two lots, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections, waivers and any corrections as noted at this hearing.
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F, 3.
4. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
5. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be January 11, 2009, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
SHEATLER, PAUL J. & DONNA M. Adjourned from 10/28/08
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/4 Lots
Location: Bedford Road
Tax Map/lot #12/70
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicants Paul and Donna Sheatler. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Paul Sheatler stated that the drainage information regarding the 50 year storm which had been noted at the last meeting as inadvertently missing from the Drainage Report had since been added. The Board presented the applicants with a cost sheet for offsite road improvements for the subdivision in the amount of $2,500. Paul Sheatler questioned how the calculations were done given the fact that the Board required them to submit plans on how they would manage “on site” runoff and they were now being advised on what their fair share cost would now be to manage “off site” runoff. The Coordinator explained that the calculations had nothing to do with drainage but everything to do with traffic impact. She noted that the formula calculated the fair
share to all developers who may now, or in the future contribute to traffic on, in this case, Bedford Road. She then explained the calculation and noted that it was also described on the back of the cost sheet which took the total cost of the road improvement divided by the development which brought the applicants’ fair share to 1% of the total or $2,500.00. Douglas Hill noted that fair share costs replaced the Town’s call for impact fees. Paul Sheatler asked how future developers who may or may not proceed with their plans were figured into the fair share calculation. Peter Hogan replied that fair share costs were reported to developers before they could begin building. Douglas Hill added that most towns did this and it was a very standard practice. He further added that the culvert replacement described on the cost sheet was one aspect of the Bedford Road improvements.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plan of Paul J. and Donna M. Sheatler, Tax Map/Lot #12/70, Bedford Road, for the subdivision of three lots, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of five (5) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections, waivers and any corrections as noted at this hearing.
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F, 3.
4. Approval of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, and submission of the executed document. The cost of recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
5. Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set, and the appropriate fee for recording same with the HCRD. (If necessary.)
6. Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.
7. Approved Pre-Engineered Individual Stormwater Management Plans may be resubmitted as the final Individual Stormwater Management Plans at the time of application for a building permit provided the builder complies with those plans. If critical areas are to be disturbed beyond those shown on the Pre-Engineered Individual Stormwater Management Plans, revised Individual Stormwater Management Plans shall be prepared and submitted for approval. If the Pre-Engineered Stormwater Management Plans are not to be used at the time of application for a building permit new Individual Stormwater Management Plans shall be submitted for approval. In any event, the bonds for the Individual Stormwater Management Plans must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit.
8. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
9. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
10. Submission of off-site road improvements in the amount of $2,500.00.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be January 11, 2009, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. Sprinkler systems shall be installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee before the occupancy of any dwelling in the approved subdivision, in accordance with Chapter NB-5.0 of the Town of New Boston Building Code before the occupancy of any dwelling in the approved subdivision.
2. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until the sprinkler systems are installed,inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee, in accordance with Chapter NB-5.0 of the Town of New Boston Building Code, and the driveways are installed and approved by the Road Agent.
There is no deadline for complying with the conditions subsequent since installation of the sprinkler systems and the driveways will be ongoing.
Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMEBR 11, 2008
6a. A copy of a letter dated November 11, 2008, from Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, re: Indian Falls Road crack repair, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman clarified that $3K of the maintenance bond was used to cover this area of the road repairs. Douglas Hill noted that a paving machine had not been used. The Coordinator clarified that the original bond was for the whole road, therefore, $3K was for the portion they repaired (yards of crushed gravel used, etc.) She added that the question was how long to keep the maintenance bond for the repaired section running as the current maintenance bond would be expiring in Spring 2009. The Board determined that the reduced maintenance bond should be held for two years following expiration of the existing maintenance bond.
Peter Hogan MOVED to accept the reduced bond as listed in Kevin Leonard, PE’s letter for two years from the expiration of the existing bond. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
6. A copy of a letter received October 8, 2008, from Raymond P. Shea, Sandford Surveying and Engineering, Inc. to Town of New Boston Planning Board, re: request for extension on Conditions Subsequent to the subdivision approval of Tax Map/Lot #12/88, Jaqueline M. Bussiere, Et. Al., was distributed for the Board’s action.
Peter Hogan inquired about a piece of land alongside Bedford Road that the late Emile Bussiere had offered to the Town during previous discussions regarding connector roads for future developments. The Coordinator noted that this offering was not a condition of any approvals. Ray Shea added that with his father’s passing Emile Bussiere, Jr., was working on the development project more aggressively now and knew that he had been aware of the expression of the land offering. He further added that the land was in the name of the Bussiere children anyway and that he would make mention of this question to Emile Bussiere, Jr.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the extension request dated October 3, 2008, from Raymond P. Shea, Sandford Surveying and Engineering, Inc., of Tax Map/Lot #12/88, Jaqueline M. Bussiere, Et. Al., to 11/08/09 for Conditions Precedent and 11/08/10 for Conditions Subsequent. Douglas Hill seconded the motion. Peter Hogan: AYE, Douglas Hill: AYE, Mark Suennen, NAY. The motion CARRIED.
Mark Suennen explained that he would have approved for a July, 2009, date as the letter specified the applicant’s action by that time.
7. A copy of a letter received October 8, 2008, from Raymond P. Shea, Sandford Surveying and Engineering, Inc. to Town of New Boston Planning Board, re: request for extension on Conditions Subsequent to the subdivision approval of Tax Map/Lot #12/89, Mark E. LeBlanc 2004 Trust, was distributed for the Board’s action.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the extension request dated October 3, 2008, from Raymond P. Shea, Sandford Surveying and Engineering, Inc., of Tax Map/Lot #12/89, Mark E. LeBlanc 2004 Trust, Et. Al., to 11/08/09 for Conditions Precedent and 11/08/10 for Conditions Subsequent. Peter Hogan seconded the motion. Peter Hogan: AYE, Douglas Hill: AYE, Mark Suennen, NAY. The motion CARRIED.
Mark Suennen explained that, again, he would have approved for a July, 2009, date as the letter specified the applicants action by that time.
1. Approval of the minutes of September 23, 2008, with or without changes, distributed by email.
Douglas Hill stated that he had no issues with the above noted minutes. Peter Hogan stated that he continued to have specific issues that were too involved to go into at this meeting.
He stated that, in his opinion, the above noted minutes were not accurate and felt that some points were being deleted which was where he would leave his comment for now. Peter Hogan added that he was speaking with the Chairman about this. Douglas Hill asked how Peter Hogan’s issue could be rectified if there was no Board discussion on the matter. Peter Hogan replied that he needed to listen to more meeting tapes first but noted that he was finding discrepancies in who said what in the minutes. The Coordinator stated that she hoped Peter Hogan realized that the minutes were not meant to be a transcription. Peter Hogan replied that he understood this. He added that he found it strange that there were often references in the minutes to a previous point which was never actually mentioned in the text
and that he continued to listen to tapes and would like the tapes of each meeting since September 23, 2008. The Chairman asked that Peter Hogan have something in writing for the next meeting so that the issue could be addressed. Given that he added that the approval of the minutes of October 14, 2008, would be tabled also.
2. Approval of the minutes of October 14, 2008, with or without changes, distributed by email.
Addressed in item #1.
3. Driveway Permit for Ray Barss, 332 Joe English Road, Tax Map/Lot #14/73, for the Board’s action.
Douglas Hill asked if substantial change would be needed to the site if the Board considered that it should revert back to its original condition when the handicap access was no longer needed. The Coordinator did not know.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve Driveway Permit #08-035 for Ray Barss, 332 Joe English Road, Tax Map/Lot #14/73, for a secondary driveway access. Peter Hogan seconded the motion.
Peter Hogan stated that his issue with the secondary driveway access aiding limited access to installation of a handicap ramp was fine but when that condition ceased, unless it was required by someone with the same condition, it should revert back to its current state.
Douglas Hill AMENDED his original motion and MOVED that the Driveway Permit for Ray Barss, 332 Joe English Road, Tax Map/Lot #14/73, for a secondary driveway access would expire when access to the handicap ramp was no longer needed only one driveway would be permitted and the other secondary driveway shall be closed. Peter Hogan seconded the amended motion and it PASSED unanimously.
5a. A copy of an email received November 5, 2008, from Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Town of New Boston, Planning Coordinator, re: Hutchinson Lane, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Addressed with 5a.
5b. Schedule a compliance site walk for Vista Road, LLC, Wilson Hill Road (Hutchinson Lane), Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5.
The Coordinator noted that if the Board did not agree with the Town Engineer’s observation regarding erosion and grade then they could consider a site walk. Douglas Hill stated that if the Town Engineer commented that he did not feel erosion was taking place then he was confident that the site was as it should be. The Chairman noted that he had walked down the site the previous Sunday but thought that adding this to their already scheduled site walks for the upcoming Saturday might not be a bad idea given that there was still a foundation hole full of water behind one of the lots that wasn’t clearly visible if you just drove by. A site walk was scheduled for Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. +/-.
8. A copy of a memorandum received November 4, 2008, from Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Town of New Boston, Planning Coordinator, re: Hopkins and Salisbury Roads (Kettle Lane), was distributed for the Board’s information.
4. As Built Driveway Plan, 37 Inkberry Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5-1, was distributed for the Board’s approval.
The Chairman stated that he had viewed the site recently and was less than impressed. He noted that he had walked up the driveway almost to the point of the stonewall on site and added that his biggest concern was the bark mulch that had been used for stabilization of the banks on either side of the driveway and sand versus packed loam. The Chairman further noted that he then viewed some of the former lot driveways nearby constructed by the same builder (LaBranche) and saw that the same materials were used along those driveways and seemed to be experiencing erosion. In summary he felt that grass stabilization was a better method than the bark. Peter Hogan added that there was no swale so the runoff just ran down the sides of the driveway and he too did not think bark
mulch should be considered an answer to stabilization. He asked who fixed the eroded area at the bottom where the driveway met the road? The Coordinator replied that the Highway Department had made those repairs. The Chairman noted that at the top of the driveway there was a pit with drains that ran across the other side of the driveway and near to it a huge patch of dirt with no grass which he thought would result in runoff issues. Peter Hogan did not feel that the site was stabilized. Douglas Hill noted that at this point in the season stabilization would be difficult, therefore, the applicants only other route would be to put up a bond. Peter Hogan wondered if it was even allowable for water to run down the side of a driveway and enter a culvert without hitting rip rap until it was on Town property. The Chairman noted that the right side of the driveway had rip rap and recalled that Thibeault Corporation had stated that this was the case
because the driveway was pitched to one side. He added that because there was no grass along the side if the driveway were not paved to the level where the grass should be then runoff would likely occur. Peter Hogan thought that there was erosion evidence on site. Douglas Hill stated that he had no issue with water from the site entering the Town ditchline but there could not be dirt or fill erosion into the ditch.
The Chairman stated that he was concerned that once the driveway apron was paved it would not be at -3% based on what he had viewed. Peter Hogan thought that the Board should require a bond for the standard apron paving cost along with an estimate for slope stabilization. In addition he felt that there needed to be a solution to the issue of dirt washing down the driveway into the rip rap along side of the road. He believed that bank run gravel had been incorporated and this was part of the problem. The Chairman thought that sand may have been used. Peter Hogan believed that a bond was the lot owners’ only relief at this point and added that he felt their plan should be more specific in detail. He also thought that the engineer who stamped the plan
(True) had certified an average grade, not an exact grade. The Chairman noted that Thibeault had stated that the grade at the bottom portion of the driveway was 10% and he believed that the top portion was less than that. Douglas Hill stated that this was an engineer’s stamp but noted that if the Board questioned it then he supposed the Town Engineer could always review the As-Built plan. Peter Hogan stated that his concern was that the plan made no reference to stabilization or benchmark they were supposed to be reaching and as far as the grade at the driveway entrance he was also not sure if it would be -3% or less once the apron was paved.
The Chairman clarified that one issue was that a bond would be needed for the driveway apron paving (and that the Board had concern regarding whether there would then be a -3% grade at the driveway entrance) and a second issue was bonding the stabilization as the Board did not feel that based on the time of the year was feasible to grow grass and did not like the bark that had been used, therefore, an estimate for stabilization was necessary. Douglas Hill thought that the Board’s definition of stabilization should be clarified with the lot owners, i.e., no loose sediment or fill running into the Town’s road.
The Coordinator stated that all information for Zoning was now in Board member’s folders and she asked that they continue to bring this with them to each meeting.
The Board determined that they would table Miscellaneous Business item #’s 8-11 until the next meeting (listed below).
8. A copy of a memorandum received November 4, 2008, from Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Town of New Boston Planning Coordinator, re: Hopkins and Salisbury Roads (Kettle Lane), was distributed for the Board’s information.
9. Discussion and/or comments on draft of Planning Board Training for New Members distributed at October 14, 2008, meeting.
10. Slides and notes from APA class on “Creating Successful Meetings” hosted by SNHPC on November 5, 2008, attended by Stu Lewin, were distributed for the Board’s information.
11. Notes and summaries from the 2008 Municipal Law Lecture Series (#1 – Land Use Legislation 2008, #2 – Effective Use of Code Enforcement Tools, and #3 – The Revised Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act), attended by Stu Lewin, were distributed for the Board’s information.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn at 10:40 p.m. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted, Suzanne O’Brien, Recording Clerk Minutes Approved:
Amended at the meeting of December 9, 2008
| 
