 |
TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Minutes of May 12, 2009
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular member Douglas Hill, Don Duhaime, alternates Mark Suennen and Dean Mehlhorn; and ex-officio Christine Quirk. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong and Planning Assistant Michele Brown.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Matt Caron, SNHPC, Roger Dignard, Jed Callen, Esq., Bob Todd, LLS, Cyndie Wilson and Rebecca Balke, Conservation Commission, Eric Seidel, Library Trustee, Deanna Powell, Brandy Mitroff, Daniel and Donna Hodgkins, Katie Napierkoski.
Land Use Transportation Presentation by Southern NH Planning Commission.
Matt Caron, SNHPC, was present for this discussion. He submitted copies of the CTAP (Community Technical Assistance Program) Linking Land Use and Transportation Document and explained that the NH Department of Transportation was committed to a five year program that would support 26 towns and cities in the area that were influenced by the reconstruction of NH Interstate 93. He noted that although New Boston was not one of these 26 communities, along with the town of Weare, SNHPC felt that it would still be helpful to have the PowerPoint presented to the Board this evening. In most cases Matt Caron read verbatim from the PowerPoint documents as recorded in the text that follows.
Matt Caron stated that the overall goal of the CTAP program was to develop and implement land use and transportation strategies that would prevent sprawl, preserve the capacity and safety of existing and future roadways and promote smart growth; and, to improve integration of land use and transportation planning in an effort to reduce the need for highway expansion, auto dependency, improve effectiveness of alternative modes of travel and help maintain the quality of our communities. He noted the Land Use Transportation Cycle of the Past which involved road improvements to improve access which increased land values that brought land use changes and increased trip generation and conflicts which was what they were now trying to move away from. Matt Caron stated that some
key planning principles were to utilize low impact development techniques and green building design; preserve historic buildings and other cultural and community assets; build “complete streets”, which he would explain later in the presentation; and, discourage auto dependency in favor of balanced multi-modal transportation. He added that key principles were to manage access and establish curb cut specifications through an MOA with District Engineers' offices; require smart traffic design; encourage nodal development; and, discourage highway strip development in favor of mixed used developments. Matt Caron noted by slide presentation the population growth in the CTAP communities which had been researched by SNHPC back to the 1800’s. The next slide illustrated population trends from 1970 to 2000 at a 1% growth increase per year. He noted that percentage growth predicted for the State for the years 2000 to 2025 were 1.1% and for the NH
Interstate 93 influenced communities 1.6% per year from the year 2000 to 2020. He pointed to a brief caption “1962 Land Use in Rockingham County” with the two slides following showing the change in land use patterns in 1974 and 1998.
Matt Caron gave a definition of “sprawl” as “…an inefficient pattern of land use which consumes open space and degrades the environment, increases the municipal costs of service, is automobile dependent, and erodes our New Hampshire traditional community character." Impacts of sprawl were described as increased auto dependency, fuel consumption and air pollution; increased commuting times and cost; reduced opportunity for public transportation services; and, increased health problems in children and adults due to sedentary lifestyle. He went to the next slide titles Land Use and Transportation Tools and noted that it listed topics he would touch upon later in the discussion, Low Impact Development, Complete Streets, Transit Oriented
Development (TOD), Access Management, Context Sensitive Solutions and Traffic Smart Design.
The next slide detailed Alternative Geometric Roadway Design Standards noting that the intent of these standards is to promote the creation of low impact residential neighborhoods with enhanced “livability” for residents. Alternative minimum standards are applied to low volume residential streets recognizing the need for safe and efficient travel, but also the creation of aesthetically pleasing residential and pedestrian environments. The next slide detailed alternative standards for different roads with average daily traffic counts. The Chairman clarified that this was a table referenced by the Board when they began their Bedford Road Study with Jack Munn. Matt Caron replied that was correct. The next two slides were Low Impact Street Design and
Traffic Calming, defined as involving "…changes in street alignment, installation of barriers, and other physical measures to reduce traffic speeds and/or cut through volumes, in the interest of street safety, livability and other public purposes.” Traffic Calming Goals (picture provided on slide was Rye, NH) were listed as the following bullet points: “encourage safety vehicle speeds; reducing collision frequency and severity; reducing the need for police enforcement; increasing access for all modes of transportation; reducing cut-through motor vehicle traffic; incorporating the preferences and requirements of the people using the area; creating safe and attractive streets; helping to reduce negative effects of motor vehicles on the environment; and, promoting alternative modes of transportation. Matt Caron next described Complete Streets as representing "…a paradigm shift in traditional road construction philosophy. Instead of a
project-by project struggle to accommodate bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly practices, complete streets policies require all road construction and improvement projects to begin by evaluating how the right-of-way serves all who use it; and, ensures that the entire right of way is routinely designed and operated to enable safe access for all users." Elements of a Good Complete Street Policy were bulleted with the points noting that it specifies that ‘all users’ includes pedestrians, bicyclists of all ages, transit vehicles and motorists; aims to create a comprehensive, integrated, connected network; recognizes the need for flexibility: that all streets and users are different and need to be balanced; adoptable by all agencies and municipal departments; and, establishes performance standards with measurable outcomes. With “Complete Street Elements” it was noted that speeds are reduced to be more compatible with pedestrians and bicyclists;
sidewalks, if missing are installed; street parking maintained or installed, which helps discourage speeding; pedestrian crossings are enhanced with ladder-style crosswalk markings, signal modifications such as leading pedestrian interval or countdown timer, etc.
For Access Management the goal was to limit the number and control the spacing of access points (ideally before development occurs), thus reducing the number of conflict points a user may encounter. The result is a roadway that functions more safely and efficiently for its useful life, and a more attractive corridor. Access Management-Issues-Strip Development: Access management seeks to limit and consolidate access along major roadways, while promoting a supporting street system and unified access and circulation systems for development. Matt Caron noted that the next slide showed an aerial view of NH Route 28 (South Willow Street) Access Management Phase 1 Plan for which SNHPC received a state planning research grant in the fall of 2007 where they evaluated the corridor
for opportunities to consolidate or limit curb cuts. The next slide was a continuation of Access Management which detailed what effective access management could do: increase highway capacity 25-30 percent; reduce the total number of vehicle trips; minimize traffic delays and congestion; reduce travel and delay times by 40-60 percent; decrease energy consumption by 35-50 percent; reduce vehicle emissions by reducing acceleration, deceleration, and stops; and, encouraging compact development patterns. The next slide was an aerial view of US 1- Hampton Falls, which Matt Caron explained was out of the territory of SNHPC, however, offered a different perspective. The next slide was titled Access Management-Local Examples and listed the following items: Town of Bedford-zoning ordinance requires a minimum separation of 120 feet between curbs; Town of Hooksett-US Route 3 Performance Zoning District Ordinance-shared driveways, development of frontage or service roads;
and, Allenstown-Intersection of US Route 3 and Granite Street-reducing number of curb cuts, improve flow onto Granite Street and improve parking.
Matt Caron noted that Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) results from deliberate planning and code provisions drafted to produce a mix of uses in close proximity to transit that facilitates access to transit use. He continued with Transit Oriented Development-Examples in New Hampshire which included the following bullet points: Nashua Transit Overlay District-MBTA Lowell commuter rail extension; Mixed-uses, including commercial/retail space, office space, and residential condominiums; and, Financed by Tax Increment Financing and developed by private investors. Matt Caron also noted TOD examples in Massachusetts. The next slide, Transit-Oriented Development-Benefits listed the benefits as: greater mobility with ease of moving around; increased transit ridership; reduced
traffic congestion and driving; reduced incentive to sprawl, increased incentive for compact development; and, enhanced ability to maintain economic competitiveness.
The next slide was Traffic Smart Design which bulleted the following: allow appropriate mixed land uses to reduce the need for, or shorten, auto trips; pedestrian, bicycle and transit- friendly design at the site level; trip generation performance standards; parking standards; require building, site design, and landscaping that supports community character; encourage development in and around existing village and town centers, or, around already developed intersections and interchanges; and, discourage development along the highway between nodes.
On the slide entitled Context Sensitive Solutions the definition was provided: "A collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders in developing transportation facilities that fit the physical setting and preserve scenic, aesthetic, historic, and environmental resources, while maintaining safety and mobility." Matt Caron noted that this bullet point was not derived from SNHPC. He read the benefits listed for Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) as: conserves environmental and community resources; facilitates and streamlines the process of NEPA compliance; saves time and money by gaining consensus early eliminating obstacles down the line; builds support from the public and from the regulators; and, helps prioritize and allocate scarce
transportation funds in a cost effective way, at a time when needs far exceed resources. He noted a case study that had been done for New Boston where NH Route 77 met NH Route 13 where the DOT and SNHPC looked at ways to alleviate traffic in the Village and DOT had come up with several alternatives. He noted that although there was no funding present for it at this time the purpose of the CSS was so that when funds did become available communities could pick from the alternatives offered and the process of addressing a solution could then begin. The next slide gave two examples: Bow/Concord- section of Interstate 93 (from I-89/I-93 interchange to the I-93/I-393 interchange, along with Pelham-improvements in the area of Pelham Town Center. Slides with pictures of existing conditions in Pelham, NH, followed with alternative slide photos. The Coordinator asked what issues existed in the Pelham, NH, to spawn alternative solutions. Matt Caron replied
that he was unsure of the logistics.
Matt Caron ended the slide presentation with a summary entitled "Four strategies you can use to benefit your community", which included the following bullet points: 1. Concentrate new development in town centers, and discourage development between centers, 2. Encourage mixed uses, 3. Encourage alternative transportation and 4. Promote access management.
Matt Caron stated that he realized that the slide presentation was a lot of information to absorb and added that he would be happy to field any questions. Mark Suennen asked what was meant by trip generation performance standards on page 9 of the slide handout. Matt Caron replied that this was similar to access management where the number of vehicle trips in and out of complexes or plazas was being reduced. The Chairman asked what CTAP accomplished overall. Matt Caron replied that the purpose of the document submitted to the Board this evening was to provide communities with tools to address roads in their communities and specifically those to be influenced by the I-93 widening but beyond this they were covering several other programs. He noted that he had
spoken with the Coordinator prior to the meeting about how New Boston and Weare, NH, were bedroom communities that could be impacted by traffic flowing in and out to I-93 but were not included in the region that was said to be affected.
The Chairman clarified that the presentation offered tools to do some of things to meet agendas independent of the fact that CTAP has funds available for certain communities that qualify for the program. Matt Caron replied that was the case. He noted that if the Board had any other questions they could contact him through the Coordinator and he would be happy to address them. The Board thanked Matt Caron for his time.
Discussion, re: Driveway Regulations
Douglas Hill stated that he had read the most recent draft earlier in the day. Regarding common driveways he asked if, as described in section 14.6, it was standard practice that the Town engineer was involved in the escrow process. The Coordinator replied that nothing had been changed in this section although things had not been happening as the language was written which was why discussion was needed. Douglas Hill thought that having the Town engineer involved in escrow was unnecessary and he did not see why the process could not flow as it did for all driveways. The Chairman asked why the process for common driveways was so different than for individual driveways. The Coordinator replied that when this language was originally
drafted the Town was concerned that if more than two lots were to share a common driveway certain standards should be followed, i.e., the driveway should be inspected to greater depth than an individual driveway as it would see greater traffic. The Chairman asked if a common driveway with more than two lots existed currently in the Town. The Coordinator replied that there were none currently and this had been set up to prepare for such a scenario. She added that at the time the language was written the Beard Road subdivision was being proposed with some shared driveway proposals so the issues were being raised at that time. Douglas Hill thought that section 14.5 covered the NFPA standard and he did not see why section 14.6 was needed. The Chairman asked if the language should be changed to read “…not for more than 2 lots…” Douglas Hill thought that more than two lots would be a subdivision anyway and would fall under those
guidelines. The Board agreed to delete Section 14.6 and there were no other comments from the Board.
The Chairman stated that he had some minor draft changes but would give them to the Coordinator to review. He added that on page 7, section 9.16, he thought that there should be some definition as to what “…the end of construction…” meant. The Coordinator thought that this pertained more to lot construction that the driveway. Douglas Hill agreed and did not think this needed definition. The Chairman did not pursue the matter. He continued with page 9, section 11.9, and wondered if in the design criteria section the maintenance of all season access for Town emergency equipment should be deleted as this section was about construction and maintenance was covered later on. The Board agreed. The Chairman thought that section 12.3
on page 10 could be deleted as it talked about common driveways and there was already a section that dealt with that. The Board agreed. The Chairman referred to page 11, section 14.8, which he also thought could be deleted since common driveways were discussed somewhere else with points towards length and width.
Another open question was how long the Road Agent should have to process a Driveway Application. As the Road Agent had not yet been consulted on this the Board determined that two weeks should be reasonable. The Chairman next referred to page 5 where critical areas were noted as requiring an engineered plan. The Coordinator stated that she had spoken to the Town Engineer regarding this topic and guard rails and he had suggested adding phrasing that would allow the Planning Board’s discretion in requiring engineered plans and guardrails. Douglas Hill agreed. The Coordinator added that the Town Engineer had also suggested adding language that referenced the height or run of a 3:1 slope to prevent the issue that Peter Hogan had with guardrails suddenly being
required for every little section of 3:1. The Board agreed. The Chairman referred to page 10, section 13.1. Mark Suennen stated that he did not like the last sentence which pointed to the use of 2” binder and felt it limited anyone who wanted to put concrete in. The Board thought that the term “recommended” could be used instead to prevent any gray areas and to allow alternatives to pavement. The Coordinator noted that there were some sketches attached to the current set of Driveway Regulations drawn up by former resident and Planning Board member, Bob Furey. The Coordinator stated that for section 15.1, Temporary Driveways, bonds were listed as “may” be required, however, since the Road Agent had never accepted a bond she wondered if the Board would state that they would accept a bond after the Road Agent viewed the driveway and determined the amount. The Board agreed. The Chairman next went to page 14,
section 19.2. The Coordinator questioned the language she had incorporated and whether the Board liked the way it was written, noting that Town Counsel would need to review it. The Board was satisfied with the language. They determined that they would send the draft, with the changes noted this evening, to Town Counsel and review it with his notes upon return.
The Chairman appointed alternate mark Suennen a full voting member of the Board in Peter Hogan’s absence.
There being time before the first scheduled hearing, the Planning Board addressed Miscellaneous Business.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 12, 2009.
1. Approval of minutes of April 14, 2009, distributed by email.
Mark Suennen MOVED to approve the minutes of April 14, 2009, as written. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
6. A copy of the Technical Review Committee meeting minutes of May 7, 2009, was distributed for the Board’s information.
7. A copy of a letter dated May 7, 2009, from Jeffrey W. Santacruce, PE, Project Manager, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc., to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Chestnut Hill Road and Bedford Road intersection, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman asked if the Town had requested this information. The Coordinator replied that they had not. She noted that Jeff Santacruce, who used to work for NH DOT District 5, had worked with Tim White, Senior Transportation Planner, SNHPC, in the past, and Tim had suggested that he get in touch with New Boston as they had some time over the winter to work on projects. The Coordinator stated that the company was obviously hoping that this complimentary work would lead to more work from the town and at least was the opportunity to get their name out. She noted that the report regarding the Chestnut Hill and Bedford Road intersection would be forwarded to the Board of Selectmen and the Road Agent for their use.
8. Town of Goffstown Planning Board Public Hearing, May 14, 2009, re: site plan review application, for 92 townhouse style condominium units, totaling 13 building on Tax Map 4, Lot 87-6, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman asked if a copy of the study could be requested versus attending the public hearing. The Coordinator replied that this could be done.
Informational discussion for the library, Tax Map/Lot #8/111.
Roger Dignard, architect, was present for this discussion. Also present were Bob Todd, LLS, Jed Callen, Esq., Deanna Powell, Eric Seidel, Library Trustee, Cyndie Wilson and Rebecca Balke, Conservation Commission, and Brandy Mitroff. The Chairman stated that this was an informational session that would look at basic concepts with nothing discussed being binding for the Board or the applicant. He added that because this was a government land use the government did not necessarily follow the same rules as a regular applicant regarding zoning or site plan review. He noted that the law allows for the Planning Board or Selectmen to decide if they want to hold a public hearing and provide non-binding written comments in a certain time frame. The Chairman noted
that interested parties would get a chance to speak after the presentation.
Roger Dignard put a plan up on the easel and noted the geographic location adding that when the lot was previously subdivided a 50’ wide right-of-way was created to share the driveway to the Post Office to access the Library site. He stated that the site was approximately 11 acres with a small wetland that was formerly a canal running through the space. He added that Bob Todd, LLS, had prepared the wetland crossing permit and noted that the septic design plan was in process. Roger Dignard stated that traffic flow would be two-way and utilize the existing Post Office driveway and entrance. He added that there would be a stop sign for traffic on the way out of the Library and at least the beginning of the driveway to the site would be paved. He added
that because the funding had not passed the Town vote, the Library was trying to do what they could on a limited budget and, therefore, would have some things on a contingency plan, one being to not pave the driveway and parking area at this time but have a gravel base although this could be changed if funds permitted in the future. Roger Dignard noted that there were no built structures for water drainage but with a gravel base there should be good reabsorption. He added that if the driveway were paved later on they might propose some leaching structures. Roger Dignard stated that the one story building would be proposed at just under 7,000 s.f., with flexibility built in for future growth to the wings on the building. He noted the location of the proposed well in a back corner away from the septic field and preferred underground power through the edge of the right-of-way into a pad mounted transformer (a 500’ run). Roger Dignard added that an
underground propane tank would be located in the front yard to feed the mechanical room in the back and phone and cable would be run in the same trench. He noted that although not in the immediate plan a utility shed was foreseen at some point.
Roger Dignard next showed the most recent floor plan, a simple “T” structure with the children’s room at the front and meeting room at the back with the reference section at the "crossroads" and the adult wing in the rear with flexibility built in for growth. The building height at the eave was show at approximately 9’, with 12’ to the roof slope and an overall height of 21’ to the ridge. The cupola was shown as an option that would add to the rise of the center point of the building. Roger Dignard noted a two tone finish possibly shingles or clapboard with white trim and an architectural gray asphalt shingle roof.
The Chairman asked if the Dredge and Fill Permit had been received. Roger Dignard replied that it had been filed. The Chairman stated that he did not understand the issue of the one-way traffic versus two way for sight distance. The Coordinator explained that when the Post Office was subdivided in 2003 the plan showed the Post Office going to a one-way traffic pattern because there was discussion at the time that with the incorporation of the Library traffic this could add to the flow of the Library traffic coming in and inhibit sight distance. Jed Callen, Esq., Library Trustee, noted that in looking at the research done on the Driveway Permit by the Coordinator he recalled that in 2002 or 2003 when the current Driveway Permit was granted it stated that it was
anticipated that a library would be added to the site in the future and would not greatly impact traffic but that the permit should be updated by submission of a site plan when that occurred. He noted that he interpreted this to mean that they did not need to apply for a new driveway permit when the time came.
Douglas Hill asked if box culverts were to be proposed regarding the wetland as they were quite expensive. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the flow was only significant in high flow periods which did not occur on a regular basis. Douglas Hill asked if standard culverts might be used or if discussion was had on other options. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that an open box culvert had been suggested for wildlife given discussions with the Conservation Commission. The Chairman asked if the Library had considered the new Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act updated in the summer of 2008. Roger Dignard replied that he did not think that the proposed building would impact the variety of parameters along the river. The Chairman suggested that this be double
checked as a section of the proposed structure was within 250’. Roger Dignard noted that there were suggestions as to what could be done within certain distances of the water and he felt they fell outside these boundaries. Jed Callen, Esq., noted that 150’ was considered the protected shoreland/woodland buffer and they were not building/cutting trees within that measure. Douglas Hill asked if the Library planned to cut any trees so that people could access the river view. Jed Callen, Esq., thought that while a walking trail to the river was planned at some point, they did not have to cut trees to build the structure because of the natural clearing. Roger Dignard stated that that a sign would be placed at the end of the driveway on Mont Vernon Road to designate the Library site with the cooperation of the Post Office. The Chairman noted that this should also be coordinated with NHDOT since it was out of the Board’s jurisdiction
and the highway right-of-way had to be considered. He asked if the Selectmen had discussed whether a public hearing should be held. Christine Quirk replied that the topic had not yet been presented at a Selectmen meeting.
Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission, stated that the Commission was pleased with the decision made to propose box culverts on site. Rebecca Balke, Conservation Commission, stated that she had an engineering background and noted that they wanted to assure that any runoff was not increased, kept on site and not discharged to the river. Roger Dignard replied that they planned grading around the building and a 30” to 36" wide crushed stone drip strip with filter fabric around the building which he felt would provide adequate runoff protection. He doubted that sheet runoff would take place from the parking lot until the time they considered pavement and at that point they might need to look at closed drainage. Rebecca Balke clarified that this would
be considered ahead even before the pavement option came up. Roger Dignard replied that it would be. He added that test pits and soils studies had been performed on the site and test pits had resulted that gravel was the main material. Cyndie Wilson requested that there be no curbs on the parking lot for the wood turtle as they could not get over them. Jed Callen, Esq., asked if there was concern regarding wood turtles getting into the parking lot would a curb not be preferred to prevent them from so doing. Cyndie Wilson thought that further investigation might be warranted with Fish and Game, noting that the turtles might try to continue to use existing paths and curbs might interrupt their passage. Roger Dignard noted that precast pavers or brick pavers would be used for the paths to the entrances. Rebecca Balke suggested the use of porous pavers and Roger Dignard stated that he would look into that idea. Cyndie Wilson asked that
limited salt use on the parking lot be implemented. Roger Dignard did not think salt would be needed on the initial gravel parking lot, and thought the Town would probably use the same mix used on the dirt roads. He noted that the walkways would be shoveled or snow blowed.
Cyndie Wilson asked if the exterior lights proposed would be directed downward. Roger Dignard replied that he anticipated two lights poles for the parking lot and additional lights on the building and did not see the need for excessive lighting. He added that they would be controlled downcast lighting and on the building there could be lighting built into the soffits of the main building and entry/exits. Interested party Brandy Mitroff asked if the lights would be shut off once the Library was closed for the day. Roger Dignard replied that from a security standpoint he did not anticipate that the Library would be left totally dark but there would not be so much that it appeared to be open.
Eric Seidel, Library Trustee Chairperson, noted that the Trustees were required to hold a public hearing specifically for the Trustees per the process of accepting private funds for the Library and this was scheduled for June 9, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the School gym. Jed Callen, Esq., stated that in regard to having a public hearing with the Planning Board he preferred fewer hearings as he had become a bit wary over the past 12 years in trying to get the new Library passed, however, he was not against having one and wanted it to be as open a process as it could be. Eric Seidel noted that their own public hearing would be noticed in the New Boston Bulletin. The Chairman noted that in terms of holding a public hearing not much would be different for the Board other than the
fact that abutters would be noticed versus the Library’s own hearing which would be much more publicized and likely get a larger crowd. Brandy Mitroff noted that a site plan hearing offered a level of oversight that would appease some members of the public by knowing that the library had followed all the rules. Douglas Hill clarified that Brandy Mitroff would be keeping the public abreast of the Library topics. Brandy Mitroff replied that she had run information in recent papers to keep the residents informed.
The Chairman asked the Board if they thought they should hold their own public hearing. Douglas Hill did not see a need for one. Brandy Mitroff asked if the Board chose not to hold a hearing if they could make a statement to the fact that they chose not to do so as they did not foresee any issues. The Chairman asked if this could be considered as a motion. Brandy Mitroff thought it would be appreciated as “following the rules” where the public could perceive something amiss if the Board chose not to have a hearing merely because they did not have to do so. Christine Quirk clarified that the Board was in favor of the Library holding their own public hearing. The Board agreed. The Chairman felt that the minutes would reflect that
the Board had no basic concerns going forward. Don Duhaime asked if the Library felt the plans could change. Roger Dignard did not think there would be any substantive changes. Don Duhaime clarified that the Library felt their plan was 90% complete. He did not think the one-way option around the Post Office was the best idea. Christine Quirk noted that the Board would need to agree to that change. Jed Callen, Esq., noted that although tonight was just a discussion and the Library was to be two-way traffic to a stop sign anyway, he suggested that the exit to the Post Office at the far side be marked “Do not exit” (entrance only) as the first opportunity to enter the Post Office parking lot was certainly wide enough for two way traffic. Douglas Hill liked that idea. The Chairman agreed. He clarified that the Board’s consensus was that a hearing before the Board was not needed. Mark Suennen noted that if the
Board did decide on a hearing then there would be, statutorily, a 30 day time frame, and could they extend that and have a concurrent hearing with the Library's budget hearing. The Coordinator stated that the law stated a hearing needed to be held within 30 days after notice was received, therefore, the Board did not have the authority to extend that time frame.
The Chairman polled the Board. Dean Mehlhorn, Don Duhaime and Douglas Hill thought no hearing was necessary. Christine Quirk abstained. The Chairman also thought a hearing was not necessary.
The Chairman asked if the Library had heard any complaints from abutters. Jed Callen, Esq., replied that they had not and noted that one of the abutters had sold the land to the Library as they were strongly in favor of having it as a building location. Douglas Hill clarified that private funds versus public were being used currently with the intention of expanding should public money be voted in. Eric Seidel replied that after the super-majority vote failed they had a re-planning phase and the legal basis for going forward using the private funds they had referred to two warrant articles, one passed in 1994 giving the Trustees the authority to accept and expend unplanned monies whether they were from a private donation or grant. On the same ballot he explained that
the Selectmen had received the same authority. Eric Seidel added that funds over $5,000 required a public hearing although he felt they would have held one anyway. Secondly the legal question of whether the Library could build on that land was answered by the warrant article that authorized the purchase of that land in 2001 and this was confirmed by Town Counsel. Eric Seidel stated that financially the question was "could anything reasonable be done with the $850,000 in hand with private funds?" and Roger Dignard had reworked the plan based on that. He added that they may not commit to new furniture, built in desks and shelves but may instead use existing furnishings, borrow and buy cheaply for now and invest in new things later. Douglas Hill clarified that the Library was not returning to the “public funds/bond” option. Eric Seidel replied that a CRF of $103K was tied to the bond and with the warrant article voted down they
expected to put forward a warrant article in 2010 to authorize the expenditure of that CRF for paving, and so on. Douglas Hill asked how the Library would be maintained going forward. Eric Seidel replied that it would be maintained by the Trustees out of the operating budget as usual, i.e., public funds. Douglas Hill asked the cost difference for maintenance between the old and new library. Eric Seidel replied that they expected to keep salaries the same, fuel usage should go down and maintenance costs should be lower for a 5 to ten year time frame, therefore, the cost should be less than 5% increase to maintain a building twice the size as the current facility. Jed Callen, Esq., added that the Trustees went through their budget yearly and updated the Town on this every year as they had always done. Douglas Hill clarified that maintenance such as re-paving, roof replacement and so on down the road would be the Town’s expense. Jed
Callen, Esq., replied that was correct. A brief discussion took place regarding possible future uses for the current library building. Roger Dignard thanked the Board for their time.
At 7:55 p.m. the Planning Board took a 5 minute break.
HODGKINS, DANIEL L. & DONNA M.
Submission of Application/Public hearing/Minor Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: Parker Road
Tax Map/Lot #3/46 & 3/135
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Bob Todd, LLS and the applicants Dan and Donna Hodgkins. Also present was abutter Katie Napierkoski.
The Chairman noted that State Subdivision Approval had been received, there were no outstanding fees and some waivers. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that this was a 23 acre parcel on the southwestern side of Parker Road. He added that it was 4.1 miles from the Village and Fire Department and noted a lot nearby that was owned by the applicant's parents and had been subdivided off the parent parcel in the past. Bob Todd, LLS, pointed to an-out lot represented by a triangle on the plan that went back several decades and noted the peculiar shape of the site which had a tail so long it could not all fit at scale properly on the plan and had to be included as a separate sketch with match lines. He noted that the southerly running “tail”, although 4.3 acres, was
not configured to be usable and added that there was not enough upland to make any more lots as it was also in the flood plain. Bob Todd, LLS, noted the Shoreland Protection Act line and what it encompassed from the abutting river including the long “tail”. He noted that the site was somewhat impacted by Steep Slopes and a Wetland Conservation District overlay. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the parcel with the old home’s chain of title went back approximately 100 years and ended up with a separate tax parcel number (#3/46) while the remainder was know as Lot #3/135, and shortly before this application the applicants sought to merge the two which they hoped this plan would accomplish. He noted that the current use application submitted was filed as parcel #3/135. The Chairman asked if the Coordinator’s memo on researching this site related to this. The Coordinator replied that it did. The Coordinator contended that her
research had shown that the two were one lot and the definition of it being two separate lots had been a mistake on the Town’s part, however, this plan was a cleaner way to resolve the matter.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the plan showed 104.71’ of frontage which became the case when the Planning Board approved the subdivision that took off one part of the conventional lot #3/135. He added that the 200’ square at that time fit at the setback line and still did. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that the proposal was to have the driveway enter the site at the point noted and serve the proposed subdivided lot only. He noted that a Driveway Permit Application had been submitted, the site surveyed and flagged and sight distance successfully determined. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that most of the site except for the wetlands was mapped on the Hillsborough County Soil Map as Hinckley (sandy gravel), Group 1 (infiltration rate is the fastest of the 6
classifications). He added that the perc test was 2 minutes per inch, a little too fast for a well, therefore, it should be at least 75’ away from the septic area. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the toned area on the plan represented a 15% slope while the cross section tone was 25%. He noted that the critical slope areas were not contiguous and were separated by slopes of a lesser degree which would allow for infiltration back into the soil. Bob Todd, LLS, added that it would also be easier to control sediment with short slopes such as these. He noted the proposed driveway site on the plan. Bob Todd, LLS, showed the Stormwater Management Plan proposed to divert water from critical slopes that might inhibit disturbed areas on the lot and also noted that he proposed Filtrexx filter socks versus silt fencing as he felt it a more accommodating product. He noted that most of the site was wooded but smaller timber as it had been an open field
in the past which he had surveyed for the applicant’s father in 1985. Bob Todd, LLS, mentioned a note on the plan that stated they would like the woodland buffer on site to remain as it was. The Chairman asked the grade of the proposed driveway given the slopes on site. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it would be cut in to be no more than 10% grade. Bob Todd, LLS, assumed the status of the Town driveway application was pending. The Board noted this to be the case. Douglas Hill asked the grade of Parker Road, i.e., was it less than 8% in consideration of the driveway entrance. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was.
Bob Todd, LLS, requested a waiver to the Site Specific Soils survey requirement because there was one very favorable soil type on the whole site. The Board agreed. Abutter Katie Napierkoski asked the acreage of the proposed subdivision. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was 2.79 acres. Katie Napierkoski asked what the circled area on the plan represented. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this was the existing tree line. Douglas Hill noted that although building within 20’ of an applicant’s property line was not allowed a lot owner could cut trees right to their property line. Douglas Hill asked Bob Todd, LLS if Mrs. Napierkoski's home was close to the property line. Bob Todd, LLS, thought it was at least 80’. Katie
Napierkoski stated that she did not have any specific questions and was here to listen. She asked if there was a standard sized home that was approved. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the State had approved a septic system for a four bedroom house. Douglas Hill added that the zoning in this location allowed single family and duplex styles in this location.
Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the waiver requested by Bob Todd, LLS, in his memo of 4/13/09, for the requirement of soils mapping. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he requested a waiver to the requirement of a Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Study. He explained that this was a one lot subdivision off a road already seeing trucks and heavy equipment and he did not think one lot would adversely impact what was already existing for traffic. Regarding the environmental impact he stated that while he had not calculated the runoff increases that the proposed subdivision would generate, the site’s soil type would filter/absorb any runoff very well. Douglas Hill agreed.
Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the waiver requested by Bob Todd, LLS, in his memo of 4/13/09, for the requirement of a Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Study. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill MOVED to accept the application of Daniel and Donna Hodgkins, Minor Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location, Parker Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/46 & 3/135, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the Board’s deadline for action was now July 16, 2009. He added that there were no outstanding issues from the plan review. He asked Bob Todd, LLS, to clarify his reasons for requesting a waiver to the requirement of a Stormwater and Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that engineering was usually required for defined structures and those that they had specified would not be considered structures for engineering review. He added that he was CPESC certified and felt that those certified as such should be able to do Erosion and Sediment Control Plans that did not involve structures. The Chairman clarified that such waivers had been granted in the past for Bob Todd, LLS, based on the same
justification. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that was correct.
Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the waiver requested by Bob Todd, LLS, to be allowed to prepare the plans as a certified erosion control specialist instead of an engineer. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked the Board if they felt a site walk was warranted and they did not.
The Chairman asked if there were any other question from abutters. Katie Napierkoski was unsure and asked the Board for advice. The Chairman felt that she had asked the standard questions during the discussion. Katie Napierkoski referred to the site walk mention and added that it would be nice to walk the property. Douglas Hill noted that even if the Board had scheduled a site walk applicants must give permission to abutters to accompany the Board. Katie Napierkoski stated that although it was in the applicants’ right to cut, it would be nice to keep the tree buffer on site on all sides as with any property.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision of Daniel L. and Donna Hodgkins, Tax Map/lot #3/46 & 3/135, Parker Road, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of five (5) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of the mylar for recording at the HCRD;
3. Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set, and the appropriate fee for recording same with the HCRD. (if necessary.)
4. Approved Pre-Engineered Individual Stormwater Management Plans may be resubmitted as the final Individual Stormwater Management plans at the time of the application for a building permit provided the builder complies with those plans. If critical areas are to be disturbed beyond those show on the Pre-Engineered Individual Stormwater Management Plans, revised Individual Stormwater Management Plans shall be prepared and submitted for approval. If the Pre-Engineered Stormwater Management Plans are not to be used at the time of the application for a building permit new Individual Stormwater Management Plans shall be submitted for approval. In any event, the bonds for the Individual Stormwater Management Plans must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit.
5. Submission of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application or recording documents at the HCRD.
6. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be July 12, 2009, 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 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.
Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
2. Discussion, re: release of maintenance bond for Olde Colony (Susan Road), for the Board’s information.
Mark Suennen thought this was acceptable and noted that he had looked at the cracking along the road which he thought was very minor. The rest of the Board had no other issues.
Mark Suennen MOVED to release the maintenance bond for Olde Colony (Susan Road). Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. A copy of a letter received April 17, 2009, from Northpoint Engineering, to the Planning Coordinator, re: Highland Hills (Popple/Swanson) – Field Observations, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that he had driven by and saw the sink hole at the driveway near lot #41. The Coordinator added that with regard to the edge of the road cracking per discussion between the Road Agent and Town Engineer, this road was constructed before the Town had a standard cul-de-sac design and this one was quite small, therefore, the plow truck driver had tended to stay to the sides of the road for plowing, therefore, it likely contributed to the wear and tear along the edge. She added that the developer should probably come back and address the sink hole after investigating why it happened. The Chairman agreed as it was a good sized hole.
The Board determined that the developer should be sent a letter requesting that they investigate the sinkhole and make the appropriate repairs thereto.
4a. A copy of a letter received May 6, 2009, from Clifton LaBree, to new Boston Planning Coordinator, re: Proposed subdivision by Victor & Lise S. Lemay, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Addressed with item #4b. below.
4b. Copies of Land for Sale document and Purchase and Sales Agreement, re: 4a above, were distributed for the Board’s information.
The Board determined that this was a legal matter between two parties that was not under the jurisdiction of the Board.
9. The minutes of April 28, 2009, were noted as having been distributed via email for approval at the meeting of May 26, 2009.
10. A copy of a letter dated May 5, 2009, from Dwight Sowerby of Drescher & Dokmo, PA, to the Planning Dept. and the Planning Board, re: Clark Hill Trust, Tax Map/Lot #8/1 & 4/62, Clark Hill Road, was distributed for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator explained that the legal documents from Ruth Trussell did not quite meet standards, therefore, if the Board could vote to release the above noted letter so that she could make changes to keep the process moving it would be helpful to her.
Mark Suennen MOVED to allow the Planning Department to release the letter dated May 5, 2009, from Dwight Sowerby, Esq., of Drescher & Dokmo, PA, to the Trussell Estate. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
11. A copy of a letter dated May 1, 2009, from Douglas Hill, re: request for extension of Christian Farm Drive, for the Board’s action.
Mark Suennen MOVED to allow the extension of the conditions subsequent for Christian Farm Drive to May 1, 2010. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
12. As-built plan review comments dated May 8, 2009, from Northpoint Engineering, re: Christian Farm Estates, Douglas Hill, were distributed for the Board’s information.
13. A copy of a letter dated May 7, 2009, from Steven Whitley, Esq., Baldwin & Callen, PLLC, to Ed Hunter, Building and Code Official, re: site excavation on Whipplewill Road, John Neville, was distributed for the Board’s information.
14. The Coordinator stated that an abutter had filed a property tax abatement which would very likely be granted to the value of his property based on the nuisance of Mr. Bilodeau’s cordwood location on his property. She added that an abatement meant that this abutter had asked the Selectmen to lower their homes assessment so that their property taxes would be less. Don Duhaime asked if this abutter was the same one that had been complaining about Mr. Bilodeau’s cord wood business from the start. The Coordinator replied that this was a different abutter. She asked that the Board consider this for the next agenda.
Mark Suennen questioned point #7 on the Town Engineer’s letter pertaining to Miscellaneous Business item #12 for Christian Farm Estates where the term “professional engineer” had been used in reference to line and grade determination as he thought this was a land surveyor’s job. The Coordinator replied that she would consult the Town Engineer and also look at the As-Built Regulations. Douglas Hill agreed with Mark Suennen’s point.
5. Discussion, re: What is “RF Engineer” for AT&T Cell Tower Apps?, May 8, 2009, by Stu Lewin, Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman noted that the applicant proposed a cell tower that could hold three locators while the report only covered one and he also felt the calculations for the max power output was not reflected properly based on the pattern they provided and his discussions with people with whom he worked. He added that the question remained as to what the Board would accept regarding the options of accepting the RF report as it was, grant a waiver (if requested) to the RF Engineer requirement or reject this and require an RF Engineer. Mark Suennen felt that the report provided stated that radiation would not exceed FCC Guidelines and that whoever could confirm this should be acceptable. He noted that the range of 4-6 miles was where the FCC got involved regarding hearing a tone
from the tower and the applicant’s charts did not reach this measure, therefore, he did not see an issue. The Chairman wanted to avoid setting a precedent that could cause an issue later. The Coordinator thought the regulations in general should be considered. Don Duhaime stated that he had been surprised at the number of waivers granted to the applicant at the previous hearing for which he had not been present but had recently read the minutes on. The Chairman noted that there were waivers the Board had denied such as for runoff calculations and items that were important to the town historically versus some items that did not affect anything such as structures on site within a certain measure where the site itself was so large that only the area of the proposed tower location was important. The Board determined that they would ask the applicant to correct the two technicalities the Chairman had noted and submit a formal waiver to the RF Engineer
requirement that the Board seemed inclined to now grant.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn at 9:45 p.m. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted, Minutes Approved:
Suzanne O'Brien
Recording Clerk
| |
