TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of February 24, 2009
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular member, 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 Jim Dodge, Bob Todd, LLS, Rick Kohler, Tom Clapp, Scott and Robyn Elliot, Shannon McManus, Katie Kachavos, Ruth Trussell, John Ashworth, Kim Burkhamer, Art Siciliano, LLS, Dean Glow and Dana Lorden.
Discussion, re: Driveway Regulations
The Chairman stated that he had put together a handout in the hopes of focusing the discussion tonight and also to clarify previous discussion on this topic. He added that the Coordinator also had a handout prepared based on hearing back from Town Counsel. The Coordinator stated that Town Counsel had also prepared a draft letter which was received by the Planning Department at 4:30 pm today, to possibly forward to Joseph Cabral, (owner of the Inkberry driveway) which would come from the Planning Board Chairman if the Board determined it acceptable. She noted that discussion with Town Counsel had become very confusing when trying to talk about the existing regulations and what to do to revise them. The Coordinator stated that she had finally asked Dwight
Sowerby, Esq., what he would tell a brand new municipality to do if they had no regulations at all for driveways. Based on this information the Coordinator noted that she had written up the “Driveway Regulations Road Map” and received Dwight Sowerby, Esq.’s, feedback and approval of it that day. Dave Woodbury asked if there were any new developments since Mr. Cabral appeared before the Planning Board last December. The Coordinator replied that there were not but she believed the Building Inspector had since issued Mr. Cabral a permanent CO. Dave Woodbury recalled that the last time they had discussed Mr. Cabral’s driveway/CO issue the Board determined that because of the general confusion on the issue they would have a meeting to discuss what steps needed to be taken and would send a letter to him listing what needed to be addressed on his driveway in order to get a permanent CO. The Coordinator clarified that this determination
had been made prior to the Board’s discussion with Town Counsel where it was then determined that they should consider the issue given the questions raised about the Board’s enforcement authority over certain design aspects of the driveway and that Town Counsel would work on a draft letter. Dave Woodbury clarified that the draft letter being presented would be the first official communication from the Board to Mr. Cabral since he was before them in December, 2008, and added that since he had achieved his permanent CO he may not care what the Board sent to him. The Coordinator replied that was correct.
The Board reviewed the letter and with only a minor grammatical change determined to send same to Mr. Cabral.
The Chairman stated that handout he prepared captured the explanations of the way the driveway permit process worked and included the four definitions of lots as discussed at the last meeting. He added that in reviewing the Driveway Regulations the definitions did not seem to jibe and at best appeared to be scattered throughout the language. Dave Woodbury thought that understanding the overall scheme of what the Board was trying to accomplish should be the main focus versus understanding the regulations, as if this were accomplished they could then tailor the regulations by those goals and understand, in gross, where they were at and what needed to be achieved. The Coordinator stated that her handout was based on a discussion she had with Town Counsel as if the Town
was starting from scratch with driveway regulations. Dave Woodbury clarified that it was likely the Town would need to have the existing regulations amended at the end of this process. The Chairman agreed and noted that items not specifically addressed currently would need to be added to the regulations. Dave Woodbury felt this was a good idea as long as the changes fit the mission of what they were trying to accomplish. He asked that the Chairman read through his handout followed by the Coordinator reading hers. The Chairman’s handout appears below:
Driveway Regulations
Notes & Topics
24 February 2009
Definitions:
(1) Lot of Record – An existing lot that will have a single house put on it (no subdivision). Driveways are regulated via the Driveway Regulations, but only to the edge of the Town ROW. Handled via Driveway Permit process.
*It was noted in Board discussion that the above definition related to lots created before 1977*
(2) Lot – An existing lot created as part of a subdivision post 1977 (when zoning ordinances went into effect) but prior to 2005 (when driveway regulations went into effect). Driveways are regulated via the Driveway Regulations, but only to the edge of the Town ROW. Handled via Driveway Permit process.
*The Coordinator noted here that the Selectmen had handled the driveway permitting process a long time ago and at some point this task had been handed over to the Planning Board.*
(3) Subdivision – A current subdivision of an existing lot into smaller lots for residential purposes. Driveways are regulated via a combination of the Driveway Regulations (to the edge of the Town ROW) and the Subdivision Regulations (from the edge of the Town ROW to the house). Handled via Driveway Permit process and possibility of pre-approved Engineered Plans and post-construction As-Built Drawings.
*The Coordinator noted that pre-approved engineered plans/As-Builts were required on a case by case basis.*
(4) Site Plan – Commercial or non-residential. Driveways are regulated via a combination of the Driveway Regulations (to the edge of the Town ROW) and the Non-Residential Site Plan Review Regulations (from the edge of the Town ROW to the structure). Handled via Driveway Permit process and possibility of pre-approved Engineered Plans and post-construction As-Built Drawings.
Driveway Permit Process:
Permission to create the curb cut of a new driveway as defined in the Driveway Regulations.
Two step process:
(1) Application – The permit itself must be approved prior to the actual construction of the driveway (within the Town ROW) as well as issuance of any Building Permits. The roles and responsibilities are:
Road Agent – Sight distance, drainage, and other town right-of-way issues. Acted on during normal working day.
Planning Board – Administrative items and land use issues. Acted on during public hearing meeting.
(2) Permit to Use – The construction of the driveway must be approved prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The roles and responsibilities are:
Road Agent – Built according to approved application. Acted on during normal working day.
*The Coordinator noted here that the above was true unless a request was made for pre-approved engineered plans/As-Builts in which case the Planning Board had also been inspecting installation, although that would now become the Building Inspector’s responsibility.*
Dave Woodbury asked if the Road Agent and the Planning Board shared responsibility of the Driveway permit process and, technically, the Board’s authority extended only as far as the public right-of-way while for the subdivision/site plan process it extended exclusively from the right-of-way to the building on the lot. The Coordinator replied that this was how the process worked currently. The Coordinator’s handout appears below:
Driveway Regulations Road Map
Existing Lots *noted in discussion as meaning lots created prior to today*
1. Driveway Permits to Road Agent (RA) for curb cuts.
2. Administrative check by Planning Department *noted as meaning prior approvals, past subdivisions, etc.*
3. Approved by RA for installation of curb cut. *noted as RA checks for sight distance, culverts, drainage, etc.*
4. Standards in place for interior per NFPA 1.
5. Requests for waivers to any of the standards to the Fire Chief (FC).
6. Approved by FC for installation of driveway.
7. Stabilization per BMPs from State Stormwater Management Manual can be guideline only for existing lots. RSA 236:13 offers some relief if the situation presents a threat to the integrity of the road or the traveling public. This does not mean routine stabilization. There has to be a real threat in real time. Stabilization and stormwater management could only be required for existing lots if the town had a townwide Stormwater Management Plan.
8. Driveway installed and inspected to standards by FC or designee prior to issuance of BP.
9. If a driveway doesn’t meet standards, go to FC for relief.
10. Final inspection of curb cut by RA.
11. Final inspection of interior by FC or designee.
12. CO issued.
# Appeals to whom? To PB for curb cut/row; to FC for NFPA standards
# FC will have to determine who will be the designee. Could be the Fire Inspector and possibly the BI/CEO.
Dave Woodbury noted that the Board’s involvement in the process detailed in the Coordinator’s handout seemed minimal versus how the process was handled currently and that the administrative check was a cooperative aspect with the Road Agent with the remainder left between the Road Agent and Fire Chief and an appeal as the last measure, if needed. He asked the role of the Board in this process if they were dissatisfied with the decision of the Road Agent/Fire Chief. The Coordinator replied that the Planning Board would retain jurisdiction over curb cuts but apart from that delegated the administrative items to the Road Agent. Dave Woodbury thought that it did not sound as if there was delegating to the Road Agent and seemed as though the Road Agent had a certain
responsibility anyway. The Coordinator clarified that the Road Agent was the Planning Board’s designee. She further noted that the Planning Board had no authority over NFPA, only the State Fire Marshall who has designated the Fire Chief as the AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction) on fire access roads.
The Chairman noted that #8 in the Coordinator’s handout (above) seemed to detail a change in process where the issues with a driveway would be addressed before a Building Permit was issued. Mark Suennen clarified that he hoped this did not mean someone could put in a driveway before its plan was approved. The Coordinator replied that it did not mean this but there had been issues in the past with roads and houses being put in prior to the final driveway requirements being established which then resulted in issues with grades, side slopes and so on. Mark Suennen asked if, in regard to the Coordinator’s handout item #4 (above) if the Fire Chief would need to come before the Board to modify the Driveway Regulations if he wanted a different requirement or if this
could be handled on a case by case basis. The Coordinator replied that she had put the same question to Town Counsel who had stated that the Fire Chief could only waive items on a case by case basis and could not re-write the NFPA requirements to include his own preferences. The Chairman clarified that such instances would apply to both lots and lots of record. The Coordinator replied that was correct.
Subdivision/Site Plans
1. Driveway Permits to RA for curb cuts.
2. Administrative check by Planning Department.
3. Approved by RA for installation of curb cut.
4. Site walk usually by Planning Board also as part of application process.
5. Standards in place for interior per NFPA 1 and for stabilization per BMPs from State Stormwater Management Manual. The PB can get into this if there are stormwater management regulations in the subdivision/site plan regulations. Board has to decide whether to put into approvals the requirement that any driveway extensions must meet the subdivision/site plan rules. This condition should be entered into the NOD, on the DPA and on the plan. The downside is that when you get out 5 or 6 years the regs could change but we would be stuck using the old ones. It is an unanswered question as to whether this is a valid requirement or not. Board may not want to do it because we may be stuck with the old regs at some point.
Dave Woodbury asked if they knew to what degree of detail in the interior of the lot the subdivision could reach. He noted that while it could not be considered legitimate within the Subdivision Regulations to say what color a house should be, at some point it could be considered legitimate to control certain aspects of driveway design/construction. The Coordinator agreed and replied that in terms of the statutes it provided the Board the means to look at health and safety and for erosion and runoff and as part of stormwater management, a pre-engineered plan could be submitted. She noted that if the house location moved a new plan would need to be submitted confirming that no critical areas would be allowed to erode down into the Town road or wetlands. Dave Woodbury
clarified that health and safety seemed to be the key to the Planning Board’s jurisdiction here. The Coordinator agreed.
6. Requests for waivers of any of the standards to whom? To FC for NFPA 1 issues; to PB for anything to do with stormwater management, or subdivision/site plan things.
7. Approved by FC for installation of driveway. Stormwater management plan approved by PB, probably as part of subdivision/site plan rather than driveway permit process.
8. Driveway installed an inspected to standards by FC or designee for NFPA issues and BI/CEO for PB stabilization issues prior to issuance of BP.
*Above noted as prior to bond being issued*
9. If driveway doesn’t meet standards, go to PB for relief? or FC? Depends on which item wasn’t right. Really will end up being both.
10. If need bond for stabilization, go to Planning Board.
11. Final inspection of curb cut by RA.
12. Final inspection of interior by FC or designee and BI/CEO.
13. CO issued.
The Chairman noted that for item #’s 3 & 4 it appeared that the Board was out of the permit process and asked if a curb cut could be approved prior to the rest of its plan. The Coordinator replied that it could be but it would need to be clarified later that it matched the plan. The Chairman felt that the biggest change was detailed in item #8 and the inclusion of the NFPA standards and Fire Chief in the process. The Coordinator noted that the Planning Board would no longer do the inspections and the Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Official would be looking at these installations for compliance. The Chairman stated that he felt the Coordinator’s handout was more appropriate to address given the two, as it addressed the issues that the Board needed
to concentrate on next to meet their goals. Dave Woodbury thought that the next step would be to look at the existing language of the regulations and see what needed to be changed. The Coordinator noted that the process of changing the regulations, etc., to suit the goals the Board wished to meet create more burden in that it would bring people into the process who were not involved previously and a next step may be to meet with those individuals. Dave Woodbury thought that a synopsis of the evenings discussion noting the important points could be circulated to the parties that would be involved followed by a meeting to address their questions. The Chairman also thought that a list of policy and logistical questions should be compiled.
The Coordinator stated that because it was uncertain if the Driveway Regulations usurped the Subdivision Regulations currently, in relation to driveways, the Board may want to consider a second meeting in March, 2009, (where they now were currently scheduled for one only due to Town Meeting) in order to keep the process moving forward. Dave Woodbury replied that he had no issue in having a second meeting scheduled in March. The Chairman noted that in doing so the Board could work on language changes at the first April meeting an possibly hold a public hearing on the modifications at the second April meeting.
From the audience, Bob Todd, LLS, asked if the Board would be addressing driveways on private roads in their review as the ZBA had faced that issue a few times. Dave Woodbury thought this would be the same consideration as a subdivision on a Class V road. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the Road Agent would have no jurisdiction in such a case. Dave Woodbury replied that Bob Todd, LLS’s point was well taken as no public right-of-way would be involved, therefore, he felt that the issue of public safety clarification would fall back to the Planning Board, not the Road Agent.
Mark Suennen asked the consequences/alternatives of item #5 (Coordinator’s handout), between being beholden to regulations in effect at the time of approval as opposed to regulations in effect at the time of installation. The Coordinator noted that there may be no difference if the driveway was installed in the usual time frame after approval, which was fairly quick. However, if the lot lay empty for a while and the regulations changed, the Board may want to use the current regulations but be stuck with the old. Mark Suennen felt that a statute of limitations seemed necessary and wondered about the time period and where a start point would be defined. The Coordinator replied that it could hinge on the vesting statute already in place but that she would
check with Town Counsel.
The Board returned to the discussion of holding a meeting on March 10, 2009, which currently was not scheduled due to Town voting. Dave Woodbury stated that if the only reason holding back the decision was because he would be over at voting signing the ballot box, he could still make it to the meeting because other Selectmen could handle the duties at the town vote. Peter Hogan stated that he did not agree with the urgency of holding this meeting to move the process along and added that he would not be able to be present. He noted that he also thought Douglas Hill would likely not be able to make it since not holding the meeting was pre-determined a while ago. Peter Hogan stated that in regard to those that would be delegated to perform driveway inspections they
would have to be willing. The Coordinator replied that they would have no choice per the statutes. Peter Hogan stated that the Fire Chief was a volunteer position in Town and that the Planning Board could not arbitrarily throw out new job positions to people. He wondered why the Fire Chief would take on such a task and then place his designee in the hot seat. The Chairman explained that this was how the State statutes were set up. Peter Hogan replied that no one else in the State was doing this. The Chairman did not see that as a reason for the Town to operate incorrectly relative to State statute. Peter Hogan replied that abiding by the law was not necessarily the answer to the problem and that the Town was not consistent with the State always, therefore, blazing new territory may not be a position in which the Board wanted to place themselves. The Chairman disagreed and added that this discussion was for another time. The
Chairman asked that a quorum be queried for March 10, 2009. Dave Woodbury felt that if Board member attendance would be low on the 10th then it may be best to not hold the meeting. Peter Hogan asked if the Board was considering the passing of a resolution that would have the authority over driveways go to entities that would not represent it properly and create an enforcement agency that was not spelled out in regulations that would delegate such authority away from the Board. He asked if the Board had fall back authority. The Chairman replied that the issue at hand was that the way the Board handled driveway approvals was a problematic procedure. He reiterated that a query on a quorum for March 10, 2009, should be done otherwise they could set aside time on March 24, 2009, prior to the public hearings. The Coordinator noted that the issue had flown under the radar for some time as Town Counsel mentioned in his discussion with the
Board a few meetings ago and that he was now advising towns on how to move forward following the lines of what the Board had been discussing this evening. The Chairman stated that the decision on whether to hold a meeting on March 10, 2009, would be decided in the upcoming week based on the query.
The Chairman appointed Mark Suennen a full voting member on the Board in Douglas Hill’s absence.
McCURDY DEVELOPMENT, LLC Adjourned from 1/13/08
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 were the applicants Dana Lorden and Dean Glow. There were no abutters or interested parties present.
The Chairman noted that they were operating on a meeting by meeting extension with the applicant and that there were two ways they could continue: continue to vote the extensions with a date in mind or withdraw the application with the intent to resubmit at a future date. Dean Glow stated that he favored a 60 day extension but asked the Board their thoughts on the matter. The Coordinator noted that the only difference in withdrawing and resubmitting was that the application would have to be re-noticed to abutters and there would be some additional secretarial work, both items involving fees, however, there would be no new application fee imposed. Dave Woodbury questioned the Board’s authority in continuing to issue extensions. The Coordinator replied that this
was just a matter of continuing to tie up the agenda and nothing else. She reiterated that the end results of the two options were the same except for the additional fees for resubmitting/re-noticing a withdrawn application.
Dave Woodbury recalled that the last issue discussed with the applicants at a prior meeting involved the 1% versus 3% platform at the intersection entrance and asked what other issues were on the table. The Coordinator replied that this intersection issue was something that had needed to be resolved prior to getting into the meat of the application and had been a starting point. Peter Hogan thought that the applicants should withdraw the application and come back with an updated one at a future date. He noted that he was not aware of any Zoning changes proposed on the ballot that would hold the application to a different set of standards once resubmitted. Mark Suennen clarified that by the applicant withdrawing the application the Board was confirming that they had
no objections and would rehear the application without predjudice. Dave Woodbury clarified that the applicants were in between engineers at the moment which was delaying their progress. Dana Lorden replied that they had not officially signed on a new engineer as of yet. Dave Woodbury noted that if the applicants opted for the 60 day extension instead they may not be prepared to consider all the questions the Board would have at that time. Dean Glow asked if they withdrew their application if they would be held to a time frame while waiting to resubmit. The Chairman replied that they would not and could resubmit when they were prepared to do so. The Coordinator noted that the Planning Department would need a 15 day window prior to the rescheduled hearing once the application was resubmitted in order to re-notice abutters.
The applicants requested that their application be withdrawn and clarified that they would abide by the 15 day window for re-noticing purposes in conjunction with resubmitting at a future date.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to accept the withdrawal request of Dean Glow and Dana Lorden, applicants for McCurdy Development, LLC, Major Subdivision, 42 Lots, Location: McCurdy Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/19 & 96, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, without prejudice. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Discussion with Rick Martin, Right Way Builders, re: status and deadline dates for Beard Road Subdivision, Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 5/52.
The Coordinator stated that she was not surprised that Rick Martin was not present, as she understood he owned no further interest in this land, but she had expected to see present, a representative for the Garretsons, who owned the larger lot. An interested party present was Kim Burkhamer.
The Coordinator explained that the issue was that this subdivision had been approved since 2006, with conditions unmet and now there had apparently been a change in ownership and the deadlines on the conditions were set to expire March 1, 2009. She added that if the deadline was not met the approval ran the risk of being revoked. Dave Woodbury asked if Rick Martin was now out of the picture. The Coordinator replied that they had no received any notice of who may have repurchased his land. Dave Woodbury did not see how the Board could take any action tonight with no representatives present and felt that they may have to extend discussion on the matter beyond the approval deadline. The Board agreed. The Board determined that they would allow 15 minutes for
any parties involved to arrive and would then close the opportunity for discussion. In the meantime, the Board took care of some Miscellaneous Business.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 24, 2009
1. A copy of a letter received February 18, 2009, from Thomas J. Sauser, SHB Properties, LLC, to Town of New Boston Planning Board, re: request for extension on conditions subsequent to the subdivision approval of Tax Map/Lot #12/65, was distributed for the Board’s action.
The Chairman asked the Board’s opinion. Peter Hogan stated that he had no issue with the extension as only the finish coat remained. Mark Suennen asked if the Board would be setting a precedent in granting the extension when the request letter came in after the conditions had expired. The Coordinator replied that this was a different scenario since the construction was complete and the Town was not plowing the road, with the only item remaining one condition subsequent.
Peter Hogan MOVED to grant the extension request for SHB Properties, LLC, and to extend the conditions subsequent deadline to October 15, 2010. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Notice of receipt of 2008 traffic count figures from SNHPC. (No copies. Reports available in office)
The Coordinator explained that these reports were on traffic counts done for various roads in Town. The Chairman asked if this was done every year and was considered raw data. The Coordinator replied yes to both and added that each year SNHPC would send a notice to the Planning Department that the traffic counts would be held soon and did they want the Town to focus on any particular roads. Dave Woodbury noted that the Selectmen had received copies of this study also and were not surprised by the results, such as heavy traffic flow at 7:00 a.m.
3. A copy of a letter received February 17, 2009, from Roger Stephenson, Vice President,
Clean Air-Cool Planet, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: The Carbon Coalition “Climate Change Resolution”, was distributed for the Board’s information.
4. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing for February 2, 2009, from the Weare Planning Board, re: an expedited application for change of use on property located on Twin Bridge Road.
5. The minutes of February 10, 2009, were noted as having been distributed by email for approval at the meeting of March 24, 2009.
6. Copies of an announcement of an Erosion Prevention & Sediment Control 1 training course, June 4, 2009, Keene, were distributed for the Board’s information.
7. Copies of an announcement of the 16th Annual Spring Planning and Zoning Conference, May 2, 2009, Center of NH, Radisson Hotel Manchester, were distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that if any Board members were interested they should contact the Coordinator.
Peter Hogan MOVED to close any discussion opportunity for the 7:45 p.m. scheduled discussion for the Rick Martin, Right Way Builders, re: status and deadline dates for Beard Road Subdivision, Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 5/52, due to the fact that no representatives had arrived within 15 minutes from the scheduled start time. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
ELLIOT, SCOTT C. & ROBYN A.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: Pine Echo & Tucker Mill Roads
Tax Map/Lot # 5/5-1, 5/5-2 and 5/5-3
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Bob Todd, LLS, and Rick Kohler of Robert Todd Land Use Services and the applicants Scott and Robyn Elliot. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Bob Todd, LLS, explained that Rick Kohler had done the ground work for the proposal. He noted that in 1987 his own office had completed a subdivision of a 9 acre lot (with Pine Echo Road to the south and Tucker Mill Road to the east) into 3 lots of 5 acres, 2 acres and 2 acres. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the applicants purchased one of the 2 acre lots in 1988 on which they built a house and started a business followed by a purchase of the other 2 acre lot in 1999 to expand their business for storage of construction equipment. At this time he explained that they felt the need to adjust lot lines between the lots. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that in 2005 a lot line adjustment was made that added more land to the parent lot but did not change lot sizes. He went on to
state that in 2006 the applicants purchased the 5 acre lot previously owned by Tina Yost and now owned all 9 acres. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that the applicants now wished to sell the Yost house lot and the lot with the house trailer, keeping as much land with their parent lot as possible via a lot line adjustment that he noted on the plan. Peter Hogan asked if the 5 acre lot was able to be further subdivided. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this was not feasible per the current regulations. He further noted that there were no changes in land use proposed.
Scott Elliot stated that it had taken him 30 years of working 7 days a week to accumulate the land he had and if not for the present economy he would not sell it, therefore, the best he could do was narrow the two 2 acre lots as proposed and be left with land on his parent lot. Peter Hogan stated that he had no issue with the proposal. The Chairman had a question about the Wetland Conservation District requirement and whether or not the lots conformed with 1.5 acres of contiguous dryland after the lot line adjustment. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he did not have with him a calculation of the size of the wetland on the lot. Rick Kohler felt that the additional wet area after the lot line adjustment was more likely stormwater runoff from Pine Echo Road and in examining
the delta felt that the calculation would not fall below 1.88 on the lot and an overall 1.3 on the site. In summary he did not feel that changing the configuration of the lot would pose an issue. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that because they could not perform a wetland delineation at this time of year they would request a waiver. The Chairman clarified that the waiver would be for providing the information only and the applicants would still need to prove that the requirement was met. The Coordinator replied that was correct and that a letter could be submitted or it could be confirmed by a note on the plan. She added that providing this information would not necessarily require an additional meeting. Peter Hogan asked Rick Kohler how sure he was that the requirement for contiguous dry was met given the proposal. Rick Kohler replied that he was quite familiar with the site and given the proposal he did not think there would be any issues.
Peter Hogan noted that he would be satisfied having a statement on the plan as confirmation. Dave Woodbury agreed. The Chairman thought that this could be made a condition of approval. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that if the 1988 mapping were referenced there would not be a noticeable difference as far as disturbance except for where the existing pond was enlarged.
The Chairman stated that the Board could vote on the waivers requested for the requirement of the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies.
Peter Hogan MOVED to grant the waivers requested for the requirement of the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies in Bob Todd, LLS’s letter dated 2/05/09, for the application of Scott C. and Robyn A. Elliot, Minor Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment
Location: Pine Echo & Tucker Mill Roads, Tax Map/Lot # 5/5-1, 5/5-2 and 5/5-3, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Peter Hogan MOVED to accept the application of Scott C. and Robyn A. Elliot, Minor Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, Location: Pine Echo and Tucker Mill Roads, Tax Map/Lot #5/5-1, 5/5-2 and 5/5-3, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dave Woodbury asked if there was any benefit in having the Board do a site walk or if a condition on the approval regarding the contiguous dry requirement would suffice. The Chairman replied that he would be fine with the latter. Mark Suennen asked if the well encumbrance noted on the plan meant that in this case it was encumbering the applicants’ own property. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that was the case and explained that an attorney had draw up a declaration for the record saying when the lot was conveyed it would be done with an easement protecting the well, encumbering the land to be owned and protecting the well by prohibiting activities in the well radius per NHDES rules (no fuel oil, fertilizers, septic systems, etc.). Scott Elliot noted that it was common
to have an easement for a well radius.
Peter Hogan returned to the subject of the contiguous dry requirement and noted that if the lot line had to be moved to meet the contiguous dry land he would prefer that it be done with a straight line towards the parent lot. Rick Kohler noted that this would work but that the pink line on the plan detailed the limits of turning and parking for the business’ construction equipment.
Peter Hogan MOVED to grant the waivers requested in Bob Todd, LLS’s memo of 2/05/09 with the exception of the acreage breakdown for wetlands. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dave Woodbury noted that the above motion was contingent on a new plan being submitted that all properties continued to meet the 1.5 acre contiguous dry acreage. He stated that he would be willing to accept this representation this evening versus having the applicants come back to the Board for another hearing. Rick Kohler felt that the most logical solution was to swing the line over to create a triangle within the upland that would create the delta needed. Peter Hogan stated that he mostly preferred that a bulge shaped extension not be created by any required line adjustment simply to meet the requirement. Mark Suennen clarified that this confirmation would be an administrative approval handled under Miscellaneous Business at a subsequent meeting. The
Chairman stated that he would have no issue in doing it that way.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Scott C. & Robyn A. Elliott, for Tax Map/Lot #5/5-1, 5/5-2 & 5/5-3, Tucker Mill and Pine Echo Roads, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,
including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing; including certification of the acreage breakdown per the Wetlands Conservation District.
2. Submission of the mylar for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be March 24, 2009, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, including a review at a Planning Board meeting under miscellaneous business. 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. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
CLARK HILL TRUST By RR & JH TRUSSELL, TRUSTEES
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/12 Lots
Location: Clark Hill and Dennison Roads
Tax Map/Lot #8/1 & 4/62
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Art Siciliano, LLS, the applicant, Ruth Trussell and her land consultant John Ashworth. An abutter present was Katie Kachavos.
The Chairman briefly ran through the history of the application, noting that certain waivers had been granted but the environmental impact study waiver was not granted and the applicant had withdrawn the application until the study could be presented. That study was now in hand so the application could resume.
Art Siciliano, LLS, stated as a review that the site was a proposed 12 lot subdivision on the north side of Clark Hill Road with 6 shared driveways for 11 lots and one 12 acre lot on Dennison Road. Art Siciliano, LLS, stated that the Coordinator had reviewed the lot design and suggested that because lot #11’s driveway had moved to the eastern side of lot #10 the lot numbers should be reversed; also that the backlot strip to lot #10 should be modified to the required 50’ which would require the jogging of the two lines. He added that the easement language for the Stormwater Management structures still needed to be reviewed by Town Counsel and that the Coordinator was unsure if the Slope and Drainage Easements on sheet #5 were private. John Ashworth replied that
they were. The Chairman stated that this would need to be written on the plan. The Coordinator noted that it would need to be noted somewhere in a legal document. She added that although there was a plan within the Drainage Report a separate Stormwater Management Plan was needed as it detailed how water flowed from the site to different structures. Art Siciliano, LLS, stated that he would submit this plan. The Coordinator explained that the issue was that while there was a sheet showing stormwater management for lot #1, the details for all structures on the site were needed so that when the plan was split up between the Building Inspector, contractor, property owner, etc., they would all have the same information.
Art Siciliano, LLS, stated that the Environmental Impact Study had been submitted as
this was something that had been delaying the application process. Ruth Trussell added that a letter from Peter Schauer had also been submitted which she felt addressed the concerns voiced by Gordon Russell, a resident of the Town and a member of the Piscataquog Land Conservancy.
Peter Hogan MOVED to accept the application of Clark Hill Trust By RR & JH Trussell, Trustees, Major Subdivision, 12 Lots, Location: Clark Hill and Dennison Roads, Tax Map/Lot #8/1 & 4/62, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman noted that the Road Agent had added some requirements to the Driveway Permits. Art Siciliano, LLS, asked if approval was given for the most recent Driveway Permit Application submitted. The Coordinator replied that once the plan was approved the Driveway Permits would be acted upon and if approved the applicant would receive copies of the permits with all signatures.
The Chairman asked if the Board thought that Northpoint Engineering should review the Stormwater Management Plans for this project. Peter Hogan thought that they should and questioned the culvert lengths for the lots and asked if the measures totaled one continuous run. The Coordinator noted that the longest run she observed was 62’ and there was another that appeared to be 86’ but this was likely 2 culverts together. Peter Hogan questioned what appeared to be a 186’ culvert pipe for lot #10. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that this total was from 4 separate plastic pipes for that lot and their individual lengths were 40’, 46’, 38’ and 62’ with three having 15” diameters and one with a 12” diameter. Peter Hogan
wondered about the feasibility of homeowners keeping such long pipes clear of debris and sediment. He asked if a document was included with the plan regarding maintenance. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that he thought it was in the plans but not on each sheet. Peter Hogan felt that the maintenance involved would be excessive and that an environmental attorney would be needed to explain it. He asked the size and scale of the detention ponds proposed. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that they were approximately 45’ to 50’ long with a 20’ radius. Peter Hogan noted language that pointed to aerating and de-thatching the bottoms of the detention ponds once a year and did not think it was a realistic requirement. John Ashworth felt the instructions could be spelled out. The Coordinator noted that the Stormwater Management Plan was a very good one but not practical as there would be a lot of water to treat and long culverts to
maintain. Mark Suennen thought that this would not be practical for individual homeowners unless they paid a fee into an association for such maintenance. Ruth Trussell stated that she would run it by her engineer again given the Board’s reception of the plan. Dave Woodbury felt that at some point in the process the Town Engineer would also need to review the applicant’s Stormwater Management Plan given that there could be drainage issues on the site that could fail and impact Clark Hill Road. The Chairman clarified that the question was whether the applicant wished to first go back to her engineer and get a more feasible drainage design before the Town Engineer reviewed it. Peter Hogan thought it was reasonable to assume that the applicant did not want to pay to have the Town Engineer review the plan twice and she may want to secure a more feasible design first. Ruth Trussell stated that she was disappointed in the results of the
Stormwater Management Plan as she had asked her engineer to come up with something simple and clearly this was not.
The Chairman stated that the application would need to be adjourned and asked the Board members if they wished to address any others items this evening. Dave Woodbury stated that he had not been seated on the Board for the application’s whole process thus far but was concerned about the driveway entrance proposed on Dennison Road that went through a wetland. Ruth Trussell replied that she had received a Dredge and Fill Permit from the State and that a site walk had also been held.
Peter Hogan referred to a letter submitted to the Board regarding the open space that the applicant wished to keep in current use. He added that he would be more comfortable with that lot if the other lots each owned one twelfth of it as it would keep it land locked along with the conservation easements and deed restrictions that went with it. Peter Hogan noted that keeping the lot in current use would only serve to give tax relief and brought nothing to the table for the tax payers or the applicant. Ruth Trussell noted that there was not much incentive for owners to pull the land out of current use as they would need to have recreational use status and she felt the Board could encourage these owners to place easements or no-build zones on the land. She thought that
it was unfair to advise her to sell the land without that flexibility. Peter Hogan noted that once the land was sold the Board would have no reason to deal with the new owners. He added that no-build zones could be added on when the property was subdivided. Ruth Trussell stated that taking the land out of current use posed a hardship for her. She noted that she was a member of “SPACE”, a group who maintained that current use was the reason for much of the open space in New Hampshire and that current use had a lot of advantages Peter Hogan was not acknowledging. Peter Hogan clarified that as an applicant very interested in the conservation aspect of her property he was pointing out to her that current use was not the tool to accomplish it and offered no protection. Ruth Trussell felt that the wetlands and natural features of the land offered its own protection, therefore, why go into a higher tax bracket. Peter Hogan stated that,
as a subdivider, the choice was hers.
Abutter Katie Kachavos asked if the letter dated February 19, 2009, by the Piscataquog Land Conservancy (PLC), had been received by the Board. The Planning Assistant replied that it had, just that day. As the applicant had not received a copy of this letter the Planning Assistant made one for her. Ruth Trussell wished to note that the letter she referred to earlier in the discussion by Peter Schauer addressed Gordon Russell’s concerns pointed out in one of PLC’s earlier letters to her.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the application of Clark Hill Trust By RR & JH Trussell, Trustees, Major Subdivision, 12 Lots, Location: Clark Hill Road and Dennison Roads, Tax Map/Lot #8/1 & 4/62, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to March 24, 2009, at 8:00 p.m. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Informational session with Anderson & Krieger, LLP, for AT&T, to discuss a proposed telecommunications facility on Old Coach Road, Tax Map/Lot # 8/132.
Present for this discussion was Shannon McManus, KJK Wireless, contractor for AT&T. Shannon McManus stated that she thought her attorney for the project was to be present. The Planning Assistant offered that she use the office phone, which she did, but was unable to reach him.
The Chairman stated that there was some question as to whether the required Warranty Easement Deed granted right-of-way usage for construction of a cell tower off Old Coach Road. Shannon McManus stated that they were trying to obtain an easement from the Society for the Protection of NH Forests and hoped that it would come through next month in which case they would follow up with the Board. She thanked the Board for their time.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn at 9:20 p.m. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion
and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk Minutes Approved:
| 
