TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of November 25, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members, Douglas Hill, Don Duhaime, Peter Hogan, alternate, Mark Suennen, 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 Kevin Leonard, PE, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Henry Kunhardt, PE, Rob Starace, John Wawrzyniak, David and Katherine Cass, James and Claire Dodge, Rodney Towne, Jed Callen, Esq., and Willard Dodge.
Discussion with Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, re: Stormwater Management, drainage and runoff.
Kevin Leonard, PE, asked if the Board had any specific questions before he began and the Board asked that he start off with his presentation. Kevin Leonard, PE, stated that as a result of development, subdivisions, etc., lands being converted from woodlands to roads, slopes and driveways meant that impervious surfaces increased, infiltration decreased and runoff increased along with the speed at which it traveled over the property. Douglas Hill asked Kevin Leonard, PE, if he could define erosion, if it was considered sediment in runoff and why it needed to be managed. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that erosion was the transport of sediment/debris and noted that there were other types of erosion besides that in water such as wind erosion. Douglas Hill stated that the
Board’s concern was man made erosion and yet noted that they had recently seen its effects deep in the woods on a site walk. Kevin Leonard, PE, stated that this point tied into the second component of his presentation which was stormwater management and by that they were trying to control the discharge of water off property so that it could be collected in ditchlines, culverts, be mitigated through detention basins, etc., and if not, there could be downstream effects to other properties. Douglas Hill stated that he mentioned this point because he had heard at a previous meeting that the Town did not even want water in their ditchlines, however, he thought this was their purpose but noted that the Town would not want sediment in the water that ran into the ditchlines. Kevin Leonard, PE, agreed and noted that a solution was to have the source of the water runoff stabilized. Douglas Hill clarified that in the example of a 10% graded driveway, water would
be expected to run downhill except it should be treated along the way to a ditchline. Kevin Leonard, PE, agreed and noted that, on a larger scale, if a proposed subdivision was constructed without a detention basin when it needed one this could affect downstream impacts to ditchlines and culverts on a scale that could not handle it. Dave Woodbury clarified that not only was dirty water not wanted as runoff but excessive amounts were also not wanted. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that peak runoff was typically one of the most common concerns in drainage and this was the measurement of flow (CFS or Cubic Feet per Second) which could be visualized as a 1’ X 1’ X 1’ cube or basketball sized amount of water coming through, for example, a culvert every second. Mark Suennen noted that the concentration of the source was also a factor along with, for example, the size of the culvert. Kevin Leonard, PE, agreed and noted that the idea of
concentrated flow versus sheet flow needed to be taken into account, i.e., down a slope versus over a meadow. He pointed out that a brook could flow at 100 cubic feet per second and higher. Kevin Leonard, PE, the rain fall for storm models of 2, 10 and 50 year storms at 2.9”, 4.25” and 5.65” per 24 hour period, respectively.
Peter Hogan noted that traveling home through Mont Vernon, NH, recently he was surprised to see water running over a road in that town after a day of rain and felt that all the minimal CFS numbers being taken into account by developers were the reason this type of scenario was occurring and water flows were being seen in places they never had run before. Kevin Leonard, PE, noted that there could be many reasons for that occurrence such as upstream activity, undersized culverts on a roadway, etc. Peter Hogan noted that frost could be another reason as it created an impervious surface with no absorption if rain followed. The Chairman asked how the storm years were factored into the drainage model. Kevin Leonard, PE, explained that when a site was modeled it was broken into watersheds and noted that a particular site
may have several discharge points on a property and the model was done with pre and post-development surface conditions. He noted that a heavily logged site would have a different runoff coefficient than, for example, a forest and then you would factor in proposals such as roads, infrastructures and driveways based on the watershed concentrations. The Chairman asked how the volumes were assumed. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that the rainfall was entered into the model and an output CFS was given for each location. The Chairman asked if the rainfall amounts were assumed to be an even output over the 24 hour time period. Kevin Leonard, PE. replied that the model depended on quantity not rate. Henry Kunhardt, PE, of Sanford Survey and Engineering, stated that how the rain fell and the ground conditions made a difference to the calculations. He noted, therefore, that the NRCS model used a worst case scenario for the design storms. He
further noted that the model applied 10% or 20% of the rainfall in the first 10 hours until the ground would have soaked it up, then applies 60% to 80% in a short period – 2 hours, for example, and then the remainder for the hours that were left to give a worst case scenario. Henry Kunhardt, PE, stated that the hydrograph produced would show a peak rate of runoff so the model for a small watershed would normally show a peak and then go to nothing again. Kevin Leonard, PE, stated that the same approach was taken for pre and post-development conditions where the top of the graph used was the peak flow in the existing condition and the same discharge location was modeled for post development conditions always trying to keep the peak flow less than the existing condition’s. He explained that when a CFS came in at 0.1 this meant that it had gone over the peak number on the hydrograph by that number. The Chairman noted that because there was no time
dimension involved in the calculation there could potentially be more volume than there appeared to be. Peter Hogan thought that Kevin Leonard’s explanation was in line with how the Board was viewing increased CFS. He asked if there was any formula to calculate runoff impact if the rainfall were to come in a short period of time within the 24 hour window as this could help to explain a lot. Don Duhaime thought that this was why detention ponds were proposed for some developments. Douglas Hill thought that detention ponds could have the opposite effect the Board sought if they discharged at maximum capacities. Kevin Leonard, PE, noted that the goal with detention ponds was to release at a lower rate than the existing condition possibly for a longer period of time. Peter Hogan commented that, hopefully, a detention pond would never discharge only when it reached maximum capacity. Douglas Hill commented that he too hoped that if a
detention pond hit its maximum it would still detain the water for a longer period of time rather than releasing it quickly. Kevin Leonard, PE, agreed this was a good point and recalled projects he had worked on with a watershed adjacent to a river that saw more harm than good as a result of nearby detention because they caused delays in the natural release of water causing increased runoff. In this way he explained that even with increases in runoff proposed you could sometimes avoid spikes from upstream by having that calculation stand, therefore, proposals should be looked at on a case by case basis for evaluation, i.e., how much water was feeding a watershed area. Douglas Hill asked if Kevin Leonard, PE, took this type of thing into account when reviewing projects. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that these things should always be taken into account and he had come across these scenarios in his own projects. Douglas Hill questioned whether the Board’s stance on not accepting
any increased runoff was acceptable for every situation given Kevin Leonard, PE’s, explanation. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that it depended on the site and noted that where downstream effects were likely and/or ditchlines and culverts may be compromised, increased runoff would not be seen as a good thing, however, if the land, for example, were to drain away from the road and head to a swamp there may be no harm in an increase in CFS. Mark Suennen noted that the assumption of no erosion would be a given in that case. Peter Hogan stated that he had seen cases in town where swamps overflowed roads so did not necessarily think that discharging to a swamp was always acceptable. He added that he did not think the Board had the capability to determine when increased CFS was acceptable which was why they called for no increased CFS. Peter Hogan further added that the swamp with the beaver pond that ran along Bedford Road was tied in with watersheds that
were affected by all the development that had gone on in the area and that road wash outs were now occurring as a result. Don Duhaime noted that there were three scenarios along Bedford Road that offered this example. Peter Hogan added that a swamp near Don Duhaime’s residence probably saw no runoff increases when its abutting subdivision was before the Board but likely could not take any increases anyway given its location close to the road. Mark Suennen asked if it could be accurately predicted if the capacity of a swamp could handle increased runoff. Peter Hogan thought that using the 24 hour calculation may not work in that case as if all the rainfall were to impact that type of swamp at once you would have it over the road very quickly. The Chairman thought that some of the issue related to the cumulative effects starting at the top of the watershed and working its way through and the challenge to accurately model that to determine where
things were up to the Town borders. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that it would depend on where you were in the global watershed and noted that it did get complicated on larger sites when there was a large watershed offsite that did not have a detailed survey. From the audience, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that surveyors often tried to interpret how high a swamp would be raised by runoff to offer quantitative information. Douglas Hill asked if the Board was doing a disservice to certain scenarios by calling for no increased runoff on a site, i.e., enough to think about changing the way they looked at applications. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that the Board was not hurting anything by doing so and in some cases was possibly requesting more infrastructure as a result. He added that things could get complicated in the case of front lot subdivisions where it would be difficult to route runoff even thought there were certain measures that could be considered
such as dry wells and roof runoff systems. Douglas Hill felt that these measures did not affect the modeling enough to make a difference. Henry Kunhardt, PE, stated that roof gutters made a small difference. Kevin Leonard, PE, pointed out that there could also be cases where a CFS increase would present in a 2 year storm model for a subdivision but not for a 5 or 10 year storm but the increase would call for a detention basin that may in actuality never be used, i.e., just a necessary component to make the model work. Peter Hogan asked if it would be reasonable to say that for a plan with a marginal CFS increase the Town Engineer could review it and determine whether a waiver was justified and/or to ascertain if a detention pond proposed, for example, was feasible and reasonable. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that this would be part of his typical review on a plan and also to see if the runoff would cause downstream effects. He added that the onus was on
the applicant to prove that the increase would not be detrimental to the Town. Peter Hogan added that this was important to assure and he did not want the Town Engineer approving of increased CFS runoff on a plan unless he believed that this was the case and that the answer he arrived at was based more on fact than opinion. Douglas Hill agreed. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, wished to note that care should be taken when analyzing the cause of water flow whether it be from a development or from nature. Douglas Hill asked Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, if he felt that the major rain events of the last several years were legitimate 100 year storms and if the effects the Town saw would have occurred regardless of the development that had been going on. Kevin Leonard, PE, and Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, both agreed that these were major events that would have caused the damage they caused in some cases regardless of development impacts. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted
that in reviewing the Subdivision Regulations he noticed specific wording for no increase runoff in peak flow for 2 and 10 year storms but evaluation for 50 year storms which he understood to mean that a slight CFS increase for a 50 year storm model could be taken under review. He wished to note as a final thought that the modeling for drainage was an imperfect science evident by what had been discussed this evening.
Public Hearing on the Capital Improvements Program, Plan of 2009, as proposed by the C.I.P. Committee. (SEE SEPERATE NOTICE)
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He opened the hearing for public discussion and there was none. Douglas Hill stated that he had been the chairman for the Capital Improvements Committee and wished to note that the Committee had been very careful this year in their planning given the state of the economy which was the reason for the dramatically decreased bottom line figure compared to the figure for the previous year. He also noted that there were some fairly large potential projects on the horizon for the Town such as the new Library, Community Center, Village Cistern, Fire Station and four bridge repairs. Douglas Hill added that the bridge repairs would be very costly because of the increase in material costs even though the State would pay for the
majority of the repairs. Peter Hogan stated that even if he had an issue with any of the CIP topics he had no doubt that the line items had been discussed in depth over several Committee meetings and he was not, therefore, tempted to challenge the decisions made. The Chairman closed the public portion of the hearing and opened the deliberative session for the Board. The Board had no issues with the proposals made by the CIP Committee.
Douglas Hill MOVED to submit the CIP Plan for 2009, as presented to the Selectmen and the Finance Committee as the CIP Committee’s recommendation for 2009. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMEBER 25, 2008
6. Discussion and/or comments on draft of Planning Board Training for New Members distributed at October 14 meeting.
The Chairman asked if there was any discussion or comments. Mark Suennen stated that he had attended the training session and felt that it was helpful.
7. Copies of 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.
8. 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.
The Coordinator noted that the main change the Town would see as a result of the revised Shoreland Protection Act was that all sections of the Piscataquog River in New Boston including every branch and Bog Brook would be covered versus the currently protected sections which only stretched from the Gregg Mill Road bridge to Goffstown, NH. The Chairman clarified that the Town had enforcement regarding the revised version even though it was written at the State level. He noted that a piece on code enforcement tools had been interesting with a lawyer discussing the means to go about it and another lawyer who had court experience with it and went over different aspects such as not doing inspections on properties without going through the proper channels in the event of a court case,
etc. Regarding Land Use Legislation the Chairman noted that changes in the Right to Know law were covered along with information on Work Force Housing, Growth Management and Small Wind Energy Systems (these systems cannot merely be denied to a resident per information from the Series). Lastly he asked if the Town had a Municipal Records Committee as this was apparently something required by the statutes. The Coordinator replied that the Town did not have such a committee.
9. Information re: General John Stark Scenic Byway was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that he went to the pre-planning kick-off meeting. The Coordinator stated that the process to begin funding was going to be getting underway. The Chairman asked if there were interested participants from the Town. The Coordinator replied that Lyn Lombard and Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, Bob Todd, LLS, and Bill Morrissey were to be involved.
10. Distribution of Fiscal Impact Analysis & Impact Fee Feasibility Study for the Board’s review and discussion at a later meeting to be determined. (Previously distributed)
The Coordinator stated that Jack Munn, SNHPC, would be at the next Planning Board meeting (December 9, 2008) at 7:00 p.m. and asked that the Board read through the materials in preparation. She noted that because none of the facilities that these impact fees would support have had a vote in support of a bond by the Town, the only impact fee Mr. Munn was suggesting at the moment may be some type of highway corridor fee.
CLARK HILL TRUST By RR Adjourned from 10/28/08
& JH TRUSSELL, TRUSTEES
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/12 Lots
Location: Clark Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #8/1 & 4/62
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He stated that the applicants had requested an adjournment by letter to the next available meeting date and time.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the application of Clark Hill Trust by RR & JH Trussell, Trustees, Major Subdivision, 12 Lots, Location: Clark Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/1 & 4/62, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to December 9, 2008, at 9:00 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
LOCUS FIELD, LLC
Compliance Hearing/Major Subdivision/9 Lots
Location: Salisbury & Hopkins Roads (Kettle Lane)
Tax Map/Lot #13/15
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant Rob Starace and an abutter John Wawrzyniak. He stated that a letter from the Town Engineer had raised some minor issues and asked if they had been resolved. The Coordinator replied that the As-Built plans had been submitted the day prior and she had not heard back from the Town Engineer but noted that approval of these plans could be considered a condition if the Board considered approval of the subdivision. The Chairman added that there had been some minor issues viewed on the compliance site walk and asked if they had been resolved. Rob Starace replied that water had been coming down the road and going into the ditchline (he submitted a picture to the Board to clarify)
but noted that his contractor, D&S Excavating, had been able to open the area with a simple shovel and clean out the dirt as well. The Chairman asked if the outstanding fees for certified letters had been paid. Rob Starace replied that he had a check to submit this evening and asked the amount. The Coordinator replied that it was $154.00. Douglas Hill thought that the applicant had done a nice job with the site and added that he had no issues.
Dave Woodbury noted that the abutter present, John Wawrzyniak had come to the Selectmen regarding concern over the need for a stop sign at the intersection of Salisbury and Hopkins Road (offsite) and asked if he would like to speak to that. John Wawrzyniak stated that he lived across from the intersection to the subdivision and had questioned whether there should be a stop sign off site where Hopkins Road met Salisbury Road since there was a lot of traffic and there was likely to be more children moving into the area with the new subdivision. Rob Starace mentioned that this had not been part of his offsite improvements requirements. Dave Woodbury stated that this was an old intersection but noted that with input from the Police Department the Selectmen had the authority to
call for such a stop sign if they felt it necessary. He added that he had wanted John Wawrzyniak to go on record tonight with his concern since he had been to the Selectmen with it.
Douglas Hill MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the Major Subdivision/9 Lots of Tax Map/Lot #13/15, Salisbury and Hopkins Roads (Kettle Lane) and to release the financial security being held for road construction, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Receipt of approval of the as-built plans from Northpoint Engineering (if
necessary).
2. Receipt of a certificate of bounds set for the subdivision (if necessary).
3. Submission of fees to record documents at the Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be December 25, 2008, confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Rob Starace asked if his bond could now be released. The Planning Assistant replied that this could be done as soon as the Selectmen approved Kettle Lane. Rob Starace asked if he was on the Selectmen’s agenda. The Planning Assistant replied that she was not sure but would look into it.
At 7:40 p.m. the Planning Board took a 5 minute break.
This will be an informational session for David Cass to discuss a sporting goods store on property owned by Douglas Cook, 636 North Mast Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/150.
David Cass and his wife Katherine were present for this discussion. The Chairman explained the process of an informational session and noted that if the applicants wished to go forward from it they would submit a formal Site Plan to the Board which would take place at a scheduled hearing. He noted that this evening’s session was considered informal with no one held to anything.
David Cass stated that he had recently left a 17 year position with a company by the name of AirGas and wanted to open a sporting goods store on a site and in a building located on NH Route 114 heading towards Weare, NH, owned by Douglas Cook. He noted that he intended to market camping, fishing and hunting supplies, preferred not to deal in firearms but would consider ammunition. David Cass added that he felt the location was a good one and would draw business as it would alleviate customers having to travel to the nearest known sporting goods stores in Manchester, NH. He added that he had heard of others located in Weare, NH., but felt that because he had never been able to locate them their location was likely not a draw. The Chairman asked David Cass if he had
reviewed the existing Site Plan on file for the site. David Cass replied that he had and noted that he might adjust the hours of operations since he planned to be closed on Wednesdays and Sundays but wanted to be open other times around turkey hunting season. Peter Hogan thought it important to clarify to David Cass that his hours of operation would be when he could be open not when he must be closed, therefore, he should leave himself an acceptable range of hours and then if he chose to close certain days that would be at his own discretion. David Cass added that he was also hoping that Douglas Cook’s ATV business which was located next door would see more business as a result of his own. He noted that he had already painted the shop and done some repairs as the previous tenants had not taken care of the location. Peter Hogan asked Mr. Cass why he did not want to sell firearms at the proposed sporting goods store. David Cass replied that
he had no expertise in this area and felt that he could only do so if he got to the point in his business where he could afford to hire someone who had that knowledge. Peter Hogan noted that David Cass may not want to exclude selling firearms from his plan in the event that he chose to do so in the future. David Cass agreed and stated that when he wrote the plan he would leave his options open.
Dave Woodbury stated that he did not see an issue with the Zoning Ordinance regarding this site as it had already operated in the retail capacity with an established Site Plan and building. The Chairman agreed that the existing plan was probably OK but noted that David Cass should still review it for compliance items such as exterior lighting fixtures, etc., and if there were any conflicts to note the adjustments on the plan. He added that the Planning Department could help him in this area if needed. He reiterated Peter Hogan’s statement which was to make sure of the operating hours he chose since he could not operate outside of what became approved on his plan without coming back to the Board for an amendment. Douglas Hill clarified that although the Town
dealt with the permit for a business sign the State had jurisdiction over its location in the right-of-way since the business would be located on a State highway. The Coordinator wished to note that since the original plan was drawn by a licensed surveyor it could not be changed without his permission and a site review agreement signed by him adding the retail sales proposed and hours of operation would be a sufficient way around this. She added that the subsequent Site Plan could be approved through Miscellaneous Business at a Planning Board meeting. Peter Hogan asked if the proposed sporting goods store hours would potentially be the same as the previous tenant, Milwaukee Iron Works. David Cass thought this might be the case.
The Coordinator clarified that a letter of intent from David Cass listing proposed hours of operation could be included with a formal Site Agreement, signed by the applicant and attached to the existing approved site plan and handled through Miscellaneous Business. The Chairman asked the Board if they had any additional thoughts on the matter and there were none. David Cass thanked the Board and wished to note that he had received wonderful guidance thus far with phone calls to the Planning Department. Douglas Hill suggested that David Cass might want to contact Town resident, Roger Gagnon for information as he had owned and operated a sporting goods store in the Town for many years. David Cass thanked the Board for their help.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
11. The minutes of November 11, 2008, were noted as having been distributed by email for approval at the meeting of December 9, 2008, with or without changes.
12. Driveway Permit Application from Joan Albertini, 117 Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-34, for the Board’s action.
The Chairman stated that he had viewed this driveway and had seen many issues some of which were lack of 200’ of sight line, no paved apron, road pavement cracking at the driveway entrance which was causing erosion problems, a 12” culvert pipe that did not seem large enough, no negative grade at the entrance and a driveway width greater than 30’. The Planning Assistant noted that the Road Agent had instructed the driveway owners to install a 12” culvert. Douglas Hill asked if this driveway was at least 200’ from the lot’s existing driveway. The Planning Assistant replied that the Road Agent had stated that it was. The Chairman noted that the intent of this secondary driveway was for use for parking of a truck/horse trailer and
noted that the entrance came off a bad curve on Byam Road which he thought was another issue. He added that because this driveway sloped into the road it would likely have runoff issues. The Chairman thought that the driveway owners should be forwarded a letter that listed the issues the Board had and be invited to reply or appear before the Board. Peter Hogan suggested that the letter also mention that the driveway owners should review the Town’s Driveway Regulations which mentioned requirements such as the 200’ of sight distance in either direction.
14. A copy of a memo dated November 24, 2008, from John Riendeau, Road Agent, to the Board re: erosion control, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman and Peter Hogan stated that they did not agree with the Road Agent’s opinion noted in his letter which addressed the use of bark mulch as a stabilization material for erosion control. The Chairman stated that he would be willing to meet with the Road Agent to discuss the matter. Douglas Hill wished to note that he meant no disrespect to Board members’ opinions but that he would take the Road Agent’s opinion over theirs. The Chairman noted that there was a section along some driveway slopes on Byam Road where this mulch had been used where a gap had formed between the edge of the driveway and a section where wood chips had been spread to stabilize the slope. Douglas Hill stated that he would support the Road Agent’s opinion that
wood chips were a satisfactory material to use for a stabilization measure if done properly. The Chairman stated that in regard to the Inkberry Road driveway the wood chips were not used properly. Peter Hogan disagreed and noted that if wood chips were placed on a slope as stabilization they would float away after a frost/rain event and until there was something to bind them to the hill there would be no stabilization. Don Duhaime agreed with Peter Hogan’s comments and felt that a significant amount of rain could wash the wood chips away. Douglas Hill felt that specifics should be detailed when calling for stabilization methods and because he thought many engineers would disagree with this the Board should have specifications in the Driveway Regulations that wood chips were not an acceptable means for stabilization if that was a strong feeling. He added that since the Road Agent seemed to think wood chips were OK to use they had a problem and
should have him come in to speak before the Board. Don Duhaime felt that the main issue rested with the specific builder who was using the wood chips. Peter Hogan still thought the Road Agent should be informed that the Planning Board did not think wood chips were acceptable as stabilization. Douglas Hill noted that the Road Agent was involved in the sign off of many driveways that the Planning Board was not involved with, therefore, the Board should be careful in how they approached the matter. Peter Hogan suggested that the Road Agent be advised that the Planning Board’s opinion was that wood chips were not suitable stabilization for driveway with steep slopes along the sides.
15. A copy of an article entitled New Laws Require Update to Zoning Ordinances, from the NH Town and City magazine, was distributed for the Board’s information.
This will be an informational session with Willard Dodge to discuss section 204.6, C,4,B of the Zoning Ordinance.
Willard Dodge was present for this discussion along with his brother and sister-in-law James and Claire Dodge.
Willard Dodge noted that he had submitted a surveyor’s drawing for a septic design on Dodge Farm property for their sister for whom they planned to construct a small trailer type home. He explained that when the septic designer did the plan he had placed the home in the reverse location of where it was intended and noted that under Zoning Ordinance 204.6, C,4,B, the Planning Board had the authority to allow a home on a cement pad to come within the parameters of the 50’ Wetland Setback (noted by a dark line on the plan drawing). Willard Dodge explained that they would like to move the house location to where it was intended on the other side of the proposed septic system, however, this was the scenario that placed them within 25’ of existing wetlands. The
Chairman clarified that if the home was to be left where it was noted on the plan then Willard Dodge would not be before the Board as it would be outside the 50’ Wetland Setback. Willard Dodge replied that was correct and the issue was that to leave the house where shown on the plan was not the best choice aesthetically and the house would better fit the lot if moved to the other side of the septic system. He added that if the Board chose not to grant this relief then he would need to re-approach the State to have the location of the proposed septic system moved and put the house where the septic system was currently noted which still would not look good from an aesthetic standpoint. Peter Hogan asked what the depth of undisturbed land would be. Willard Dodge noted that the plan showed the setback at 25’ into undisturbed ground and pointed out that this area was hayed every year and was not woodlands. He submitted a picture of the area to
the Board for their reference. Peter Hogan asked on what type of footing the home would rest. Willard Dodge replied that it would be a concrete 6” pad with rebar within 4” of the sides. Peter Hogan clarified that this would not involve major ground disturbance. Willard Dodge replied that it would not and would involve clearing loam for the gravel layer that would be spread in anticipation of the concrete pad. He added that the septic system would be considered above ground and that only loam would be stripped.
Dave Woodbury felt that somewhere in the Zoning Ordinance there should be a definition for what was considered “not a foundation” and although he could identify the piece in section 204.6, C,4,B, that Willard Dodge was relying on to argue his case he still thought that the Zoning Ordinance should be more clear on the matter. Peter Hogan thought that this situation was similar to another applicant that had come before the Board previously (Barss) who had proposed a floating slab for his structure. He noted that without excavating a 4’ frost wall into the ground he did not feel that a foundation was defined and that a foundation involved ground disturbance. The Chairman agreed although he thought that it would be helpful to have a more specific definition
in Zoning in this case. Peter Hogan thought that boring holes with an auger to set posts would not constitute digging a foundation while digging with a backhoe would. Douglas Hill clarified that a barn proposed within the Wetlands Setback would not, for example, be an issue. Peter Hogan replied that was correct because it would likely be set on posts, therefore, have no foundation and the issue here was the level of ground disturbance. He asked the size of the lot. Willard Dodge replied that it was 80 acres. Douglas Hill asked if a CUP was needed. The Chairman did not think that the proposal fit that scenario especially given the lot size. James Dodge noted that test pits were dry 6’ to 8’ when dug on site. Douglas Hill stated that he had no issue with the proposal but wanted to set a clear precedent given the questions raised regarding the definition of a foundation versus a concrete slab. He thought that the
Board did have some leeway with wetland setback issues if they believed the proposal fit the site. Peter Hogan noted that there had been much discussion regarding the Wetlands Ordinance when the setback measure was being determined and thought that the 50’ measure was what had been decided upon given the discussion on the matter, not a pre-existing measure they were abiding by. Dave Woodbury wished to state for the record that he did not think the Planning Board had the discretion to which Douglas Hill alluded. He added that he had no opinion on whether this proposal was a good or bad idea for the location but did feel the Board could run into problems when they decided upon a non-foundation term when it was not properly defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Douglas Hill stated that as a builder he understood a foundation to be 4’ under the frost line protection of the ground. Mark Suennen agreed and added that a foundation was dug below frost
depth to maintain structural integrity of what it supported, not to say that something that did not suit this purpose was not a foundation either, just not an adequate one. Peter Hogan read from the Zoning Ordinance, page 17, E: “e. The purposes of these setbacks shall be to preserve the functions and values of our wetlands, surface, and ground waters, by minimizing alteration or destruction thereof by filling or dredging, erosion, preventing siltation and turbidity, stabilizing soils, preventing excess nutrient and chemical pollution, maintaining natural water temperatures, maintaining a healthy tree canopy and understory, preserving fish, amphibian, and wildlife habitat, and respecting and preserving the natural ecosystems and resources we wish the next generations to enjoy as much as we do.” He recalled ample discussion regarding a previous applicant (Barss) and felt that the minutes of that hearing accurately reflected the points in favor of Willard Dodge’s argument also.
The Coordinator clarified that Mr. Barss had done a CUP for his application which was a different process than what was proposed by Willard Dodge and that the subject of a non-foundation had not been the issue in that case. Peter Hogan noted that the criteria for Mr. Barss had been waived because impacts to the wetlands setback were determined to be minimal. Douglas Hill did not disagree but felt that a better definition in Zoning was warranted. The Chairman agreed that this was the crux of the matter. He asked the Coordinator if any other “non-foundation” structures had ever been approved other that the Barss’ and when that was approved. The Coordinator replied that there were no others that she was aware of and that the Barss’ application was approved in 2007. Peter Hogan noted that when the Board had discussed wetlands setbacks in preparation of a Wetlands Ordinance they were approaching it from a perspective of
protecting wetlands. He recalled that Bob Todd, LLS, had been present in the audience during some of these discussions and had said that no one number worked for all wetlands and the setback needed to be variable so 50’ was pulled out of the air. Peter Hogan added that the board had discussed the inevitability of impacting wetlands when working on a foundation set within a certain measure because the heavy equipment that would be working around it, backfilling, etc., was obvious in certain scenarios and that in contrast boring holes and setting posts in the ground for a barn, for example, would not cause the same level of impact because it would remove the instance of bulldozers and other heavy equipment on the site. He noted that installation of a concrete slab did not involve digging down into the ground and these were the two scenarios that the Board felt comfortable with in regard to the specification of a 50’ setback going on a case by case basis. Dave Woodbury thought
that the minutes on this subject would be very helpful if they could be retrieved since they would be a good authority to the discussion. The Chairman asked Willard Dodge if he could wait two weeks until the next Planning Board meeting so that these minutes could be retrieved and available for the Board to discuss in conjunction with his proposal. Willard Dodge wished to note that in terms of affecting the wetlands on site they were not even visible as such and added that the hay baler traveled over them each season. He added that there were also piles of stone, large rocks 1.5’ to 2’ in diameter and an existing stonewall on site and that moving dirt for the proposed slab would not affect them either. The Coordinator clarified that there was no procedure in place for the Board to determine if the proposed slab was a non-foundation structure as this was an informational hearing. The Chairman agreed that, given the issue presented, some type
of formal hearing was warranted. Dave Woodbury agreed also and noted that the issue was the Board considering some type of permanent action at an informational session. Willard Dodge noted that two weeks prior the same site was noticed as a public hearing to have a section subdivided and no one from the public attended. The Chairman stated that, procedurally, the Board still needed to take the appropriate steps and notice a public hearing. Peter Hogan agreed that this was required legally so that any decisions could not later be challenged based on the way the agenda had been worded. He noted that because only the Zoning Ordinance number was quoted it did not provide enough information on the issue for members of the public who might have an interest to attend and added that abutters could agree or disagree with the proposals. Peter Hogan stated that although he had no issue with the scope of the requirement discussed as it pertained to the
proposal it should still be properly noticed. The Chairman asked Board members their current thoughts on the issue to give Willard Dodge a better sense of where they were at. Dave Woodbury replied that at this stage he would be inclined to vote “no” on the proposal because of the lack of a proper definition in Zoning regarding non-foundation structures. He added that previous minutes regarding wetland setback discussion would be helpful. Don Duhaime agreed that a public hearing was warranted and was not sure on how he would vote. Douglas Hill stated that he was inclined to think that a slab was not a foundation but thought that a hearing should be scheduled and previous minutes on the subject reviewed. James Dodge stated that they should not be made to wait because the agenda was improperly worded. The Chairman agreed that a minutes review would be helpful and felt that it was fairly unanimous that the proposal should wait one
more cycle and have a public hearing. Willard Dodge wondered if he was taking a risk by waiting two weeks until he could be scheduled on the agenda and possibly having his proposal voted down by the Board anyway versus re-approaching the State to move the septic system. The Board noted that this was his decision.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
16. Discussion, re: meeting minutes.
The Chairman referred to a recent memo he had written to the Board regarding how minutes were currently done with options for additional methods detailed:
Meeting Minutes Discussion
*How we can do the meeting minutes
-Highlights Form
* Bare minimum of required information (e.g. attendees, motions and results, actions, etc.)
-Summary Form
* Strikes a balance between the two extremes
* Includes editing to improve readability without sacrificing correctness of essence
-Transcript Form
* Word-for-word capturing of the discussion and contents of the meeting
*Probably unworkable from both a financial point of view, as well as a practical matter
*How we have been doing the minutes
-During meeting (#1)
*Tape recorder creates audio record
*Sue takes notes to augment the audio record and help to deal with questions that arise in trying to transcribe the audio (e.g. soft or inaudible voices, unidentified speakers, multiple simultaneous conversations, etc.)
*Nic also takes notes on points she feels are important to be captured for use in review
-After meeting – first and final drafts
*Sue creates a first draft based on her notes and the audio
*Nic reviews based on her notes and understanding of the discussion
*Sue creates a final draft based on updates and corrections from Nic
*During drafts, the contents may be modified from literal transcription
-Repetitive discussions may be condensed/synopsized to single reference
-Irrelevant contents may be discarded (e.g. remarks, jokes, stories, etc.)
-Minor points or digressions may be dropped
-Prior to next meeting (#2) – final draft distribution
*Nic adjusts formatting, page breaks, etc.
*Nic distributes the final draft via email to the Board for approval at subsequent meeting (#3)
-Prior to subsequent meeting
*Board reviews the minutes for correctness, etc.
-Subsequent meeting (#3)
*Board votes to approve minutes in miscellaneous business section of agenda
*If changes are requested or needed, the draft gets updated for final publication
*What has changed on how we are doing the minutes?
-Based on some recent training that the Office attended, we aren’t in compliance with the RSA requirements (and it appears no one else was either)
-Basically there are no ‘draft minutes’
*What gets distributed prior to meeting #2 is final
*If Board votes to change or amend minutes, it gets reflected in minutes from meeting #3
*So…
1. What format are our minutes going to take?
Highlights? Summary? Transcript?
2. What is the process we are going to follow given format choice in #1?
One thing the Chairman reiterated from a recently attended training meeting was that changes were not made to the draft version because there were no “drafts” but instead the minutes were amended with changes at subsequent meetings. Dave Woodbury stated that while a tape or transcription would be considered the best record of minutes they were too expensive. He cautioned that the Board should not get lulled into a sense that the minutes taken, while very good, were perfect, the reason being that they were the interpretation of individuals taking the minutes, therefore, they should never be considered the equivalent of a verbatim transcript and the Board should, from time to time, expect that there may be a difference in interpretation which could then be resolved by
referencing the tapes in a timely manner. The Chairman stated that it was important for the Board to always review minutes that had been distributed within the two week period between meetings and prior to their approval when the discussion was still fresh in their minds. Peter Hogan felt that the Board needed to review the minutes more for content than grammar and to assure that the general gist of what was said was recorded. He noted that when he listened to the tapes it was often hard to understand who said what. He asked the Recording Clerk if she had the same difficulty with the tapes. The Recording Clerk replied that when she needed to reference the tapes she could usually understand who was speaking and what was said 80% of the time. The Chairman stated that this was another reason that the Board needed to be involved in the review of the minutes. He added that the version of minutes were between bare minimum and literal transcript,
akin to paraphrasing. Peter Hogan also wished to note that care should be taken in the elimination of irrelevant content from the minutes and clarified that while not including jokes was understood there were many times that what seemed irrelevant had important points. The Chairman stressed again that this was a reason for the Board to review the minutes and point out things they would like included. He asked Peter Hogan if he felt too much content was being left out of the minutes. Peter Hogan replied that sometimes this was the case but usually it was not. He added that he did not have the time or the desire to go through all the tapes and that in reading the minutes the Board would need to rely on what they remembered. The Chairman felt that content that was missed and considered of importance would likely float to the surface given the fact that six Board members were reviewing minutes.
Douglas Hill asked Peter Hogan what event created his main issue with the minutes. Peter Hogan replied that he was handed a set of minutes by someone and noticed that some content had been deleted that he thought was important, namely, a comment he had made regarding the connector road proposals often brought up during different hearing discussions. He explained that his comment had been, in the draft minutes, deemed irrelevant for the context in which it was used. The Coordinator clarified that the first instance of Peter Hogan questioning the minutes was at the time of the approval for the minutes of September 23, 2008, when he raised three issues, the first having to do with a discussion had on Work Force Housing-Accessory Dwelling Units. She explained that
although he had stated several times throughout the discussion that the property owner should live on site he changed his mind at the close of discussion and this had not been reflected in the minutes but was noted and adjusted. The Coordinator went on to state that a second issue was Peter Hogan’s motion to grant an environmental study for the applicant of Clark Hill Trust which he felt he had not been in favor of. She explained that in researching her own notes it was the remainder of the Board that voted “no”. A third issue regarded Peter Hogan’s belief that the discussion on the Perreault’s informational session was “lacking” but noted that she had not been provided any specifics on what he thought was missing from the content. The Coordinator stated that it was these three items that initially sparked the issue regarding the minutes. Douglas Hill asked Peter Hogan if something was nagging him as he read
through the minutes. Peter Hogan stated that he felt the minutes should be written as minutes and not re-edited for content as he believed that could be construed as steering the minutes and whether very specific or in general form they should accurately reflect what was being said. Douglas Hill asked Peter Hogan how he proposed this should be done. Peter Hogan replied that he felt this was done and that the minutes should be written very well the first time around. He added that it appeared the RSA requirement would spell out the specifics regarding that the minutes not be edited. The Chairman clarified that the RSA stated that changed minutes would not change the original set like what was done in Congress. Peter Hogan stated that the Board was reliant on their minutes should something be challenged in Court and that while discussion sometimes took off on a weird tangent there were often important points made within those discussions. Don
Duhaime noted that Peter Hogan had raised an important point in that often the Board went off on tangents and maybe this was something they should try to avoid if possible as it would help those who did the minutes. Peter Hogan felt that this was some of what the Coordinator reviewed and opted to eliminate from the minutes which was often the correct thing to do, however, it was also a reason for the Board to review the revised draft in case they wanted some of that content included. The Chairman clarified that it appeared the Board was in agreement on how the process worked and asked that with the next few sets of minutes they performed their due diligence and make sure there were no systemic issues that needed attention. Peter Hogan stated that as minutes were approved they were sometimes amended anyway and in his research he would bring up amendments later on after minutes were approved if necessary. Mark Suennen stated that this was no different than
someone who had not been present at the time minutes were approved having a change later on and proposing an amendment.
1. Approval of minutes of September 23, 2008, with or without changes, distributed by email.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of September 23, 2008, as distributed by email. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Approval of minutes of October 14, 2008, with or without changes, distributed by email.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of October 14, 2008, as distributed by email. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. Approval of minutes of October 28, 2008, with or without changes, distributed by email.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of October 28, 2008, as distributed by email. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
4. Endorsement of a Subdivision Agreement for Paul J. and Donna M. Sheatler, Tax
Map/Lot #12/70, Bedford Road, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman endorsed the above noted Subdivision Agreement.
The Coordinator stated that a letter had been sent out to the owners of the driveway of Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5-1, Inkberry Road, regarding evidence of temporary erosion, bonding and the deadline for their Temporary CO which expired December 8, 2008. She added that she had expected a response back from the owners in time for this meeting but had heard nothing from them. Peter Hogan asked the daily fine after the expired deadline. The Planning Assistant replied that she believed it was $275.00 per day. The Coordinator noted that the fine would not clarify the issue of stability for the driveway. Peter Hogan felt there was nothing more the Board could do in this case as the owners had been educated on the issue. The Chairman noted that this case was a
good example of why the Board should steer away from granting Temporary CO’s. Peter Hogan stated that the Board had tried to be helpful in granting a Temporary CO for 90 days and after the fact the owners chose not to comply with stabilizing their driveway. The Chairman stated that he had driven by the site and believed that it was clearly evident that erosion was occurring on the left hand side of the driveway along with an indentation over the culvert that was filling with sand, therefore, the issue was not fixed. Douglas Hill noted that the driveway was fixed but the erosion control was not properly addressed. Peter Hogan stated that erosion control was part of fixing the driveway and the owners had not addressed this. The Coordinator stated that she would send a letter to the owners and to the Building Inspector stating that the
Temporary CO had expired. Peter Hogan clarified that the Building Inspector would inform the owners of their fine and the only relief he saw going forward was for them to post a bond. The Coordinator agreed and added that they would also need to do some type of temporary erosion control.
The Coordinator stated that the Building Inspector was looking into language for Temporary Trailers given the impending Zoning Ordinance update since State codes may be a factor. She added that the Board was also considering a $5K request for a Warrant Article regarding help from SNHPC with Mixed Use/Village or Multi-Family Overlay Districts and had wanted to address this when more Board members were present. The Chairman questioned whether the state of the economy was a factor in making this decision. Douglas Hill, who had chaired the CIP Committee this year, felt that the Board should not pursue this Warrant Article for that reason although they were worthy causes they could be sought another year. Peter Hogan agreed. Don Duhaime thought that the Mixed Use
topic was to be handled like the Small Scale Commercial District with a committee formed. Mark Suennen recalled that at a previous meeting it had been noted that the Town would be in violation of the Work Force Housing statutes. The Coordinator stated that was correct although even if they worked on this item after a supporting vote they would not make the July, 2009, deadline for completion. Mark Suennen thought that the Board could make the recommendation to the Selectmen anyway in good faith and if the Town voted “no” at least they tried. The Board was polled. Mark Suennen voted “yes”, Don Duhaime voted “yes”. Dave Woodbury stated that he thought it better to forge ahead at least by recommending the Warrant to the Selectmen and Finance Committee and voted “yes” rather than have the process end with the Planning Board. Mark Suennen asked if this was the type of item that could be voted off
the ballot in the Town’s deliberative session or if it was considered to be in a “safe zone”. The Coordinator replied that this could be voted to zero in the deliberative session. The Board decided, based on the above discussion, three (Dave Woodbury, Mark Suennen and Don Duhaime) to two (Peter Hogan, Douglas Hill) to send a request to the Selectmen and Finance Committee for a $5K Warrant Article to fund work with SNHPC on Mixed Use/Village District Zoning changes.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn at 9:40 p.m. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk Minutes Approved: 12/9/08
| 
