TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of November 10, 2009
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members Peter Hogan and Don Duhaime, alternates Mark Suennen and Dean Mehlhorn, and Ex-officio David Woodbury. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Board Assistant Shannon Silver and Recording Clerk Valerie Diaz.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Jay Marden, Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, Lou Lanzillotti, Brandy Mitroff, Gail Parker, and Don Grosso.
Discussion, re: Zoning Ordinance Amendments including discussion with Workforce Housing and Multi-Family Committee
Present in the audience were Workforce Housing Committee member Jay Marden and Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
The Chairman asked Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, to discuss the recommendations he made to the definitions of building and structure found in the Zoning Ordinances. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, recommended that the words, “permanently located”, be struck from the definition of building. He continued that after his review of building codes adopted by other towns it was determined that the language “permanently located” was not included in the definition of building. With regard to the definition of structure, he recommended striking the language “a fixed location on the ground” as structures such as some barns and small sheds were buildings not fixed to the ground but were
set on small block foundations. He added that he allowed a block foundation for a building up to 200 square feet.
In the Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards, Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, recommended striking the word “living” from Section 404.3,9, and to replace the word with “conditioned” to exclude from consideration closets and larger spaces that were not definitively heated or conditioned as living space. The section would then read: “An accessory dwelling unit shall have living conditioned space of no less than 300 square feet and no greater than 1,000 square feet.”
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, recommended that Section 404.2 inform property owners that in the event a primary dwelling was built to be classified at a later date as an Accessory Dwelling Unit (on account of the construction of a second larger primary dwelling) the property owner should take care to build the first dwelling within the limits of Section 404.2.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, recommended changing the Town’s sign ordinance to allow for the identification of multiple businesses at one property. He explained that under the current sign ordinance a property owner was limited to one sign placed alongside a road. He added that this limitation prohibited an owner of a professional business complex with multiple units from indentifying more than one business operating within the complex.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, also recommended that the sign ordinance allow for advertisement as the current sign ordinance prohibited the same. The Chairman noted that Damien’s by the River had a sign advertising pies. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, commented that the situation was convoluted as the owner was operating under old permits; moreover, he was not sure if the signs on the subject property were permitted on account of a preexisting nonconforming use. The Chairman stated that under the example he presented the pie advertising was not a matter of grandfathering but was an example of signs not allowed because it did not indentify the business. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer,
responded that the zoning ordinance regulating signs did not permit advertising.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, recommended that the Building Code specifically incorporate a requirement that wetlands be shown on the plot plans submitted with Building Permit applications. His current practice was to ask property owners if there was wetland impact and/or look at septic plans to determine the applicability of wetland setbacks. The Chairman asked if the Board had jurisdiction with regard to such matters. The Coordinator confirmed jurisdiction, noting that it was the Planning Board’s job to update the Building Code.
The Chairman asked the Board for comments or questions. David Woodbury inquired of Section 404.2 concerning Accessory Dwelling Units and asked if a property owner was allowed to build an Accessory Dwelling Unit without the existence of a Primary Dwelling Unit. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, replied that a property owner was permitted to build a garage on a vacant lot. David Woodbury asked if a garage containing an apartment was a dwelling. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, replied yes. David Woodbury then asked how the inspector would classify the garage if the primary dwelling was never built. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that David Woodbury presented an issue that needed
clarification. David Woodbury asked under his hypothetical if the garage with no primary dwelling unit would be a non-conforming structure. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that there was no regulation prohibiting a barn with a dwelling unit as the structure would be deemed the primary dwelling; however, the issue he sought to remedy with reference to Section 404.2 concerned the need to ensure an understanding that the first structure to be built was constructed within the limits imposed by Section 404.2 so that if a primary dwelling unit were to be built at a subsequent date the preexisting structure would retain its identity as an Accessory Dwelling Unit under Section 404.2. David Woodbury further inquired of the essential difference between a free-standing primary dwelling and a free-standing accessory dwelling. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, said size was the primary difference as an accessory
dwelling was restricted to living space of no less than 300 square feet and no greater than 1,000 square feet. David Woodbury, with reference to his hypothetical, asked if was conceivable to have a number of accessory dwelling units that were being used as undersized dwelling units. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that according to the International Residential Code, a primary dwelling unit could be no smaller than 120 square feet, which was even smaller than the Town’s Accessory Dwelling Unit requirement.
The Chairman asked if a property owner, under current regulations, was allowed to build three garages each containing an apartment on one parcel of land. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that a property owner was limited to two dwellings per parcel. The Chairman stated that if a property owner was restricted to two dwellings, then multiple dwellings would be prohibited. David Woodbury stated that there could be multiple lots each containing an accessory-like dwelling as the primary dwelling.
Jay Marden stated that Chatham, Massachusetts had a zoning ordinance permitting a guest house half the square footage of the main house with no more than two bedrooms. He added that an existing house could be converted to a guest house as long as the house to be built was no more than two times the size of the existing house.
David Woodbury asked if the first dwelling was not a so-called accessory dwelling but a primary dwelling could that be changed to an accessory dwelling upon the construction of a second dwelling. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, replied yes and further stated that the current regulations did not expressly account for such a change but only accounted for the creation of an accessory dwelling with an existing primary dwelling. Ed Hunter stated that he advises property owners to limit the apartment to 1,000 square feet to allow for the subsequent construction of a primary dwelling.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if there were towns with regulations which addressed the circumstances presented by Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer. The Coordinator stated that her review did not include a review of such regulations.
The Chairman asked if there were additional questions or comments.
Mark Suennen commented that the risk with the Building Inspector’s proposed change to Section 404.2 to the landowner was if, for example, the landowner built a 990 square foot dwelling thinking that it would meet the size for an accessory dwelling unit at such time in the future that they built a larger primary dwelling unit, if the ordinance changed in the meantime to have a smaller allowed size the homeowner could find themselves with a non-conforming ADU on their hands. The Chairman stated that he too recognized the problem. David Woodbury suggested that the proper time for considering the stated problem would be at the time of the proposed amendment.
Don Duhaime stated that this was a non-issue on account of the original dwelling unit having pre-existing use status. The Chairman stated that the first dwelling unit would be a primary dwelling and not a preexisting nonconforming accessory dwelling unit. The Coordinator asked if the Building Inspector, at the time of permitting, could advise the property owner of the limits placed on the size of an accessory dwelling and allow for an adjustment of size to allow for conformity with the ordinance. Mark Suennen recognized the plausibility of the Coordinator’s recommendation. He then asked if the Board should regulate that. Peter Hogan asked if the Board was working on a problem that did not exist. He further questioned why the Board would downsize an
Accessory Dwelling Unit. Peter Hogan commented that the problem was a nonissue.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator to research if other towns have addressed the issue Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, identified relative to his proposed change to Section 404.2.
The Chairman asked if there were questions or comments. No further discussion occurred.
The Chairmen proceeded to address the recommendations of the Workforce Housing Committee which were to be prioritized for implementation in the current year on account of the number of recommendations presented at the prior hearing.
The Chairmen noted that Jay Marden and Mark Suennen were present as representatives of the Workforce Housing Committee and proceeded to read the written recommendations of the Committee into the record as follows:
Recommendation #1: Adopt a “Workforce Housing” Overlay District.
Recommendation #2: Eliminate the special exception requirement for accessory dwelling units.
Recommendation #3: Review the requirement for corner lots to have two front yards and therefore two 50’ setbacks.
Recommendation #4: Review the off-street parking requirements.
Recommendation #5: Consider permitting accessory dwelling units for workforce housing in open space subdivisions.
Recommendation #6: Review the language, procedures and definitions of the Non Residential Site Plan Review Regulations relative to the residential aspects that they governed.
The Chairman asked if there were questions or comments. The Coordinator stated that the overlay district before the Board tonight was identical to that which was submitted at the previous Board meeting with the exception of page 3, paragraph 7 which had required that the applicant would disclose the amount of the third part subsidy being used for a project. The Committee had since learned that at the time of the submitting of the application the applicant would not know the amount and would therefore, be limited to a disclosure of their intent to use a subsidy.
The Chairman asked if the Committee used a model for the overlay district. The Coordinator stated that the Committee had used the R-1 District and changed it to satisfy the Workforce Housing requirements.
Peter Hogan asked what land in New Boston would apply to Workforce Housing. The Coordinator answered any land currently zoned R-A and R-1. Peter Hogan asked if a property owner could choose not to apply Workforce Housing regulations. The Coordinator said yes, adding that such regulation applied only if a property owner chose to make use of it. Peter Hogan asked if the Workforce Overlay District allowed building on 1.5 acres versus 2 acres. The Coordinator said yes, adding that there was less frontage and the opportunity to construct multi-family. Peter Hogan asked if the acreage requirements changed with regard to multi-family homes. The Coordinator stated that the land-use regulations did change in that regard, noting that 2.5 acres was
required for the first 3 units with 0.5 acres for each additional dwelling unit to a maximum of 12.
The Chairman asked if there were questions or comments. There were none.
The Coordinator referenced a table in the regulation audit that had just been updated with current affordability and wage data and also noted that she had added the driveway regulation page and completed the bibliography.
Mark Suennen informed the Board that Ellen Kambol’s research on assessed home values in New Boston showed that approximately 52% now met the definition of Workforce Housing and not 28% as originally reported. Peter Hogan asked what the average home was worth. Mark Suennen answered $228,000.00. Peter Hogan asked if the stated number was accurate. Mark Suennen said yes, $228,000.00 or less was the affordable number for the New Boston area.
With reference to the Coordinator’s updated affordability and wage data, the Chairman inquired of the year the data represented. The Coordinator answered 2008, with exception of that marked with an asterisk which represented 2007.
The Chairman referenced Recommendation #2 of the Workforce Housing Committee and asked for an explanation. The Coordinator explained that at the time of the development of the town ordinance relative to Accessory Dwelling Units, it was noted that every other town had a special exception requirement which the Town of New Boston adopted. The Chairman asked how the elimination of the special exception rule would eliminate barriers to workforce housing. The Coordinator stated that its elimination would change the timing of the process to allow the applicant to present the matter to the Building Inspector for a permit rather than having to go to the ZBA for a hearing with the costs and delays associated therewith.
The Chairman asked if the Board had questions or comments. There were none.
The Chairman referenced Recommendation #3 of the Workforce Housing Committee. Mark Suennen noted that the recommendation sought to eliminate a development restriction caused by the enforcement of a second 50ft setback applied only to a corner lot which has road frontage along two lot sides. The Chairman stated that he had two questions (1) whether an applicant could present the matter to the ZBA for a variance and (2) whether the recommendation of the Committee assisted the development of Workforce Housing.
The Coordinator explained that the ZBA had jurisdiction to decide the matter. With regard to the second question, Mark Suennen explained that the recommendation would preclude the need to go to the ZBA for a variance. Jay Marden asked if the recommendation of the Committee applied to vacant lots or lots with an existing structure. Mark Suennen explained that it would apply to either. Jay Marden commented that if there was an existing lot to which the setback applied, there would be an existing nonconforming use. Mark Suennen stated that the nonconforming use status would be grandfathered to the extent a structure, like an accessory dwelling unit, existed prior to the effective date of the setback.
Peter Hogan stated that there was an assumption that the applicant could develop the road and make the lot nonconforming. He further added that if there was an existing house on the corner lot, the developer would be prohibited from constructing the road making the lot nonconforming. Mark Suennen clarified that his hypothetical concerned a vacant lot. Peter Hogan asked the Coordinator if under his hypothetical the proposed road would be prohibited on account of the creation of a nonconforming lot. The Coordinator agreed but if there was no such restriction to develop a road the corner lot would be prohibited from building into the setback. Peter Hogan asked if the build out restriction was the desired result. The Coordinator answered that where a
lot had two sides with road frontage the Board had consistently required 200ft of frontage for each side with 50ft setbacks. Peter Hogan commented that it was desirable to enforce the development regulations relative to road frontage to prohibit a property owner from using their side setback as their road frontage citing the placement of a side deck within the 50ft setback. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, agreed, explaining that the 50ft setback along road frontage took into consideration road plowing and the town right-of-way. In consideration of the foregoing, Peter Hogan concluded that there were good reasons for having a 50ft setback along road frontage which should not be abrogated per the recommendation of the Committee.
The Chairman agreed with Peter Hogan, adding that an application for a variance could be made to the ZBA. Peter Hogan added that a developer could also design larger corner lots to allow for build out without the need to encroach into the road frontage setbacks and, in the alternative, if there was a unique circumstance calling for development within a setback, an application could be made to the ZBA for a variance.
The Chairman asked if the Board members had anything to add to the discussion. David Woodbury stated that he was unsure if there was a reason to decline the Committee’s recommendation as the plow zone could not be extensive, and he was not sure if the setback served to advance anything other than an aesthetic. The Chairman stated that the setback did not appear too arbitrary for the reasons previously discussed and that an argument for its elimination to the side of the lot should apply equally to the front side. David Woodbury replied that the Chairman’s point was valid and that perhaps there should be discussion to address whether the setback should apply to either side of a lot with road frontage. David Woodbury added that there were plenty of houses
built within 20ft of a street which brings into question whether there was credence relative to substantial safety issues and/or aesthetics.
The Chairman asked if there were additional comments or questions. There were none.
The Chairman referenced Recommendation #4 of the Workforce Housing Committee relative to off-street parking. The Committee recommended that the Board review the required two off-street parking spaces for every dwelling unit. The Chairman asked if the Committee recommended the elimination of two off-street spaces in favor of one on-street and one off-street. Mark Suennen explained that the current regulation as applied to a quadplex, for example, required 8 parking spaces even if each of the quads were a one bedroom apartment. He stated that under his quadplex example, the Committee was asking the Board to consider reductions in the required parking spaces. The Chairman stated that he did not believe that the town had streets wide enough to accommodate
off-street parking during any season.
The Coordinator noted that New Boston did not have many multi-family structures, but towns that had more multi-family structures had ordinances which did not require two off-street parking spaces per unit. Under workforce housing, the Coordinator explained that the parking lots required for multi-family could be considered a barrier if 2 per unit were required.
The Chairman clarified that his comment concerning the reduction of parking spaces assumed the same number of cars per unit and the likelihood that cars would park on the street on any given day because of the lack of off-street parking spaces. The Coordinator advised that the Board need to determine the correct number of parking spaces based on statistics, size of the units and the number of bedrooms per unit for a block of buildings.
Peter Hogan commented that he did not believe there was one house in New Boston that had one car. In response, the Coordinator stated that the Board could not rule out the need for one car. Peter Hogan added that he could not imagine what that looked like. Mark Suennen stated that it would be a single parent with kids or possibly elderly residents.
The Chairman indicated that the Coordinator would provide specific information for later discussion.
The Chairman next referenced Recommendation #5 of the Workforce Housing Committee relative to permitting Accessory Dwelling Units in Open Space Subdivisions. The Coordinator advised that in an Open Space Subdivision a calculation of the lot size down to a minimum of one acre was permitted with open space left. The Coordinator added that Open Space Subdivisions allowed duplexes on a one acre lot but did not allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit in a detached structure. The Coordinator explained that the Committee was curious to know why a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit was not permitted.
Peter Hogan asked what the minimum building lot size was. The Coordinator stated that it was one acre. Mark Suennen stated that it was more advantageous to allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit than to allow a duplex on a smaller lot because the Accessory Dwelling Unit by statute was limited in size to 1,000 square feet whereas the duplex in theory could be two four bedroom houses attached by the same roofline.
The Chairman asked if there was a reason why the Board decided that Accessory Dwelling Units should be excluded from an Open Space Subdivision. The Coordinator stated that she did not know but would find out. The Chairman asked the Board if there were questions or comments. There were none.
The Chairman referenced Recommendation #6 relative the review of the language, procedures and definitions of the Non Residential Site Plan Review Regulations. The Coordinator explained that the Non Residential Site Plan Review Regulations mainly applied to commercial development but due to state definitions they also apply to some kinds of residential including Multi-Family and Cluster Developments. Mark Suennen asked if multi-family was 5 units or more. The Coordinator stated that multi-family was three units or more but workforce housing was 5 units or more. The Coordinator further explained that because Non Residential Site Plan Regulations were written with businesses in mind, the regulations did not make sense when applied to residential development. The
Chairman commented that he expected someone to present specific things to consider. The Coordinator noted that these could be addressed at a later date because this was a separate process than zoning.
The Chairman noted that the second page of the Committee’s recommendations contained matters for future consideration including the Master Plan, Zoning Ordinances, Subdivision Regulations and Site Plan Review Regulations.
The Chairman asked Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, if he had reviewed the Committee’s recommendations relative to the Building Code which included consideration of a rehabilitation code and also making sure the Town’s Building Code referred to multi-family dwellings which it currently did not. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, said no but that he believed that at the state level there was consideration of adopting a rehabilitation code for older buildings. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, indicated that the International Building Code addressed multi-family housing and commercial buildings. The Coordinator explained that the Town’s Building Code, by adopting only the International
Residential Code did not apply to multi-family and someone could conceivably refuse to file a permit if the code did not require it, for example. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that the New Boston Building Code had adopted the IRC but not the IBC.
The Chairman asked if there were comments or questions. There were none.
The Chairman indicated that at some point in the future the Board would vote on each of the recommendations and asked the Coordinator to look at specific recommendations for recommendation #4. The Chairman asked if there were comments from any Committee members. There were none.
Public Hearing on the Capital Improvement Program, Plan of 2010, as proposed by the CIP Committee.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice on the Capital Improvement Program of 2010 as proposed by the CIP Committee for the purpose of considering the capital improvement program.
The Chairman stated that he had read the CIP Committee minutes and noted that the capital improvement data was subject to revision at the end of the year. The Chairman asked for clarification with regard to whether the Board’s vote was based on information subject to revision. Brandy Mitroff stated that some of the CIP information contained within the CIP minutes would be subject to revision at the end of the year and the Committee wanted the plan published in the Town Report to match the Finance and Selectmen’s recommendations.
The Chairman asked Brandy Mitroff to identify the information that was subject to revision. Brandy Mitroff noted that the 4 classroom build out at the New Boston Central School would most likely need revision on the CIP list. She continued that Rick Matthews, Principal, had advised her of his intention to postpone the addition of the proposed build out to the 2011 ballot. The Chairman asked for clarification if the removal of the build out from the 2010 schedule would suggest that the $44,000.00 would be spread across the rest of the years in the table. Brandy Mitroff clarified that entire line would be moved over by one year starting in 2011 instead of 2010.
Brandy Mitroff noted that the proposed costs for the Fire Department's vehicles currently reflected on the CIP scheduled posed future problems. She explained that Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, was attempting to resolve this issue. She added that the Committee would have a better idea in 2010 of whether or not the CRF for the Fire Department would need to be increased.
Brandy Mitroff noted that the only change to the Highway Department was the addition of a salt shed. She explained that half of the cost for the salt shed, $65K, would be collected in 2010. She noted that the Highway Department would not be collecting any funds for the Heavy Equipment CRF in 2010.
Brandy Mitroff stated that an estimated $32K would be needed for renovations to the Historical Society building. She added that the Recreation Department would be relocating to the building following the renovations. Brandy Mitroff explained that the Finance Committee questioned adding the cost of the renovations to the budget instead of the CIP schedule this being a town building not a Recreation project. She indicated that because a decision had not been made to date she was unsure if the item would remain on the schedule.
Brandy Mitroff stated that collections of funds for the Town Hall renovation which still had no final plan in place would remain on the CIP schedule, however, the cost would be lower than originally proposed.
Brandy Mitroff commented that the Committee believed that the potential land acquisition for the Town (Thibeault property) did not belong on the CIP schedule. She indicated that the Committee felt it was necessary to address the impact of the land acquisition with the public and created a line under the subtotal on the schedule to reflect the $1.4 million purchase.
The Chairman asked if the vehicles in the table were listed on the basis of replacement priority. Brandy Mitroff answered no and asked if the Board had questions relative to the capital projects.
Jay Marden asked how the CIP would handle the Thibeault land purchase and whether it would entail a bond. Brandy Mitroff stated that a bond would be required. Jay Marden asked how the matter would be presented to the public. Brandy Mitroff advised that the matter would be a separate warrant article like any bond. She continued that the CIP would draw a total on the capital improvement projects and highlight the bond to show the acquisition cost. Brandy Mitroff added that the CIP Committee recognized the benefit of the land acquisition but CIP Committee members did not like the price tag even if the land were purchased for the assessed/appraised value of $1.4 million.
The Chairman asked if Board members had questions or comments.
Brandy Mitroff raised an issue with lack of membership on the CIP Committee, a subcommittee of the Planning Board, and suggested that only one member of the Planning Board attend together with an additional member of the general public. Brandy Mitroff added that the CIP Committee was required to have 2 members from the general public but recently only had one. Donald Duhaime asked why Shawn Fish had not been replaced after two years of absence. Brandy Mitroff explained that there had not been enough effort to replace Shawn Fish and that the efforts made to date have been unsuccessful.
David Woodbury asked if the CIP Committee was a statutory committee. Brandy Mitroff replied that it was an advisory subcommittee of the Board. David Woodbury asked if the Committee had statutory origins or was created by the Board. The Coordinator explained that a statute granted the Board authority to create a CIP Committee but the statute did not specify the composition of the Committee’s membership. The Coordinator added that the Committee was a subcommittee of the Board but that it served in an advisory capacity on budget matters not limited to the Board. David Woodbury further asked if the Board had the authority to decide the composition of the Committee. The Coordinator stated yes. Brandy Mitroff stated that she had recently assumed the
role of Chairperson of the Committee and had taken the initiative to increase the Committee’s membership.
The Chairman asked Brandy Mitroff if the Committee was winding down its business for the year. Brandy Mitroff stated that the Committee had completed its work but was interested in establishing the Committee membership for next year to include 7 members and not 5. The Coordinator advised that the Committee currently had 7 members. Brandy Mitroff explained that she wanted to boost the Committee’s membership and leave it to the Board to decide whether to have 1 or 2 Board members in attendance. The Chairman asked when the Board was scheduled to discuss or decide on the composition of the Committee membership. The Coordinator advised that the matter could be addressed in August next year if desired as the Committee does not start its work until October. The Chairman suggested
that the Board take the matter up in June 2010. Brandy Mitroff requested that the Board not delay as she preferred more time to find members. The Chairman asked Brandy Mitroff to return to the Board with a specific proposal concerning the desired composition of the Committee to be discussed at a future hearing date.
The Chairman asked if there were comments or questions.
Peter Hogan commented that the proposed fire cistern in the center of town was a waste of money as it appeared to him that the tax dollars to be appropriated only served the interest of one building, Dodge Store, which he believed did not have a smoke detector. Brandy Mitroff explained that the cistern plan originated with the Board and the Fire Department conditioned on a reasonable design to be presented to the public at Town Meeting. Lou Lanzillotti advised that the Fire Department felt strongly about the cistern. Don Duhaime stated that the Fire Department had doubled and tripled the cost of this cistern and was out of control. Lou Lanzillotti agreed that it was a waste of money. Peter Hogan inquired of the use of sprinklers and asked how money would be spent on
a potential problem. Brandy Mitroff stated that the matter should go to ballot and be decided by the public. Lou Lanzillotti agreed that Dodge’s Store was a significant fire hazard even with the assistance of a cistern. Peter Hogan further commented that Dodge’s Store was the one building in town that was not owner occupied and not wired for early smoke detection. He added that Don Duhaime made suggestions on different types of above-ground fire cisterns at a fraction of the cost only to be disregarded because the Fire Chief, Dan MacDonald, had his own design warranted by Michie Corp. Brandy Mitroff advised that the Board should discuss the matter of the cistern and decide whether it should remain on the schedule of capital improvements. Peter Hogan stated that there has been a constant disagreement between the Board and the Fire Department relative to fire suppression methods. He added that when he was the Board Chairman, the
Board had recommended and passed on to voters a sprinkler system utilizing domestic water with assurance from the Fire Department that tanks would not be required in cellars, auxiliary pumps, back up power, hard piping or sprinkler heads would not be required and that the domestic water source would be sufficient. Peter Hogan stated that the Board’s understanding of the proposed fire suppression method was different than that which was presented to the voters at Town Meeting and subsequently approved. He found out later that the fire suppression method the Board recommended did not allow for a domestic water system. Peter Hogan disagreed that the Board
and the Fire Department were ever in agreement on a fire suppression system. Peter Hogan also stated that the Board was told that a both a cistern and a sprinkler system would not be needed in a subdivision unless there was a unique circumstance requiring the use of both systems; yet, the Fire Department has required cisterns when it is of the opinion that there is not enough water at the site of the subdivision. The Chairman closed the discussion for vote.
Peter Hogan MOVED to zero out the amount to be budgeted for the town center cistern installation or research. DISCUSSION: The Chairman asked if the vote could address items by piecemeal. The Coordinator replied yes. The Chairman acknowledged the motion to zero out the amount to be budgeted for the for the town center cistern installation of $43,000.00 from 2011 through 2015. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Peter Hogan asked if the item could be removed as he feared that the $43,000.00 would be added during a deliberative session. The Chairman was of the opinion that the motion as presented was adequate. David Woodbury sought clarification that the vote concerned the matter of the cistern only and not the entire CIP Plan. The Chairman confirmed that
the Board was voting on the matter of the cistern and that there would be another vote for a proposed amendment if necessary. Mark Suennen stated that there was no money appropriated for 2010 but that the appropriation started in 2011. The Chairman called for a vote. Mark Suennen, Dean Melhorn, Don Duhaime, Peter Hogan – AYE. David Woodbury – NAY. The motion PASSED.
The Chairman stated that he would entertain a motion to present the Final Draft of the CIP Plan as amended to the Board of Selectmen and Finance Committee.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the Final Draft of the CIP Plan as amended and to forward the rest of the CIP recommendations as printed to the Board of Selectmen and Finance Committee. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and the motion PASSED unanimously.
Brandy Mitroff commented that the Board should make a motion to allow for the revisions to the CIP Plan as she had previously explained.
Peter Hogan MOVED to accept and consider amendments to the CIP Plan as they come forward. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
David Woodbury addressed the Chairman recommending that the record be corrected relative to representations made concerning the adequacy of the alarm system at Dodge’s Store. He was of the opinion that within the last year or more the Fire Inspector Russ Boland had worked with the owners on a system that is agreeable to the owners and the Fire Department creating a significant improvement in the alarm system. Peter Hogan commented that he would like to be corrected if David Woodbury’s representations were correct.
The Board took a five minute recess.
Discussion, re: Zoning Ordinance Amendments, cont.
The Chairman noted that the Board had previously discussed the Workforce Housing proposal and moved on to a discussion of Personal Wireless Services Facilities. The Chairman indicated that they had previously discussed the proposed changes to the wording of the ordinance and asked the Board members if they had comments or questions concerning the proposed amendments.
David Woodbury asked Mark Suennen for clarification relative to whether there was such a thing as an RF Engineer. Mark Suennen stated that there was no licensure status for an RF Engineer. David Woodbury asked Mark Suennen to comment on the clarity of the ordinance to utilize the term RF Engineer. Mark Suennen was of the opinion that the use of the term RF Engineer did not create clarity as there was no stamped certificate to be provided by an RF Engineer. David Woodbury noted that RF Engineer is defined on the second page as an Engineer specializing in electrical or microwave engineering and further inquired if the definition was helpful. Mark Suennen stated that the definition was potentially helpful but that there was no licensure to authenticate a
stamp by an RF Engineer. He added that the licensure would represent an Engineer who specialized in RF. David Woodbury stated that the engineer might not be a PE or the equivalent. Don Duhaime asked if it would be an electrical engineer.
Mark Suennen clarified that the PE or EE would be the licensure and there was no licensure for a PE/RF. David Woodbury asked if one could be an RF Engineer for purposes of the ordinance if they received a PE degree and later worked in the microwave engineering field with no licensure. The Chairman noted that the Board had received an application by a health physicist who stated his qualifications were equivalent to that of an RF Engineer, which prompted the current discussion. The Chairman was of the opinion that an electrical engineer was sufficient having reviewed the requirements of Verizon which showed category of engineers wherein electrical engineers were identified. The Chairman asked if the problem was solved if the wording were amended to replace RF Engineer with Electrical Engineer. Mark Suennen
answered that it would solve a problem because the ordinance would allow for an engineer with a stamp. The Chairman stated that using the title Electrical Engineer would also provide for a profession who had knowledge of RF. Mark Suennen commented that not all Electrical Engineers had knowledge of RF. The Chairman asked Mark Suennen for his advice on what licensed engineer should be indentified in the ordinance. Mark Suennen questioned the need to have a signed and stamped certificate to say that the maximum radio frequency radiation at the site does not exceed the FCC Guidelines because excessive radio frequency radiation is a matter to be regulated by the FCC. The Chairman asked whether Mark Suennen was of the opinion that the signed and
stamped certificate should be dropped from the ordinance. Mark Suennen explained that a signed and stamped certificate was not needed but if it stayed in the ordinance the requirement should simply be that a certification be provided, not specifying who should prepare same.
The Chairman next addressed the diameter of antenna arrays and the maximum specifications with regard to the diameter of the arrays. The Coordinator added that the Town’s ordinance had a maximum array of 4 feet but the recent applicants needed 14 feet. The Chairman commented that the difference could be the result in the change in technology. The Coordinator acknowledged the Chairman’s comment but indicated that she did not know where to look to find the correct specification. The Chairman replied that he would find out. Peter Hogan asked that the Chairman also ask about the effective height of a cell tower. Mark Suennen advised that the effectiveness of a cell signal was based upon frequency such that the higher the frequency the greater the interference caused by trees.
The Chairman started a discussion on the timing of the cell tower operation commencement noting that the Board had suggested a commencement date no later than 12 months from the date the application was approved, instead of nine, with the possibility of extension by the Board. The Chairman invited comments or questions. Peter Hogan stated that it was his recollection that the nine month restriction was adopted to discourage applications submitted for the sake of preserving building rights only. He added that there was concern that applicants who did not plan to build the tower within a short time would be acting to bar the construction of cell towers by applicants ready to build.
The Chairman noted that the Coordinator recommended that the Board or Planning Office make the necessary modifications to the Small Scale Planned Commercial District guidelines rather than reforming the committee to do so. The Chairman asked the Board members if they took exception to the Coordinator’s recommendation. There was no comment.
The Coordinator further noted that the subcommittee on Small Scale Planned Commercial District proposed parking and signage changes and the rezoning of a few lots to commercial. The Chairman recalled that the Board decided to seek the input of the affected property owners. The Coordinator advised that the Board should only approach the property owners if the Board was going to propose the rezoning to the ballot and that the Board should ultimately decide the issue of rezoning for the good of the Town in accordance with the Master Plan. The Coordinator recommended that should the Board decide not to make changes to the zoning, the property owners should not be contacted. The Chairman asked if the zoning change would fundamentally affect the lots. The
Coordinator explained that the rezoning would place the affected properties within a new district. Mark Suennen stated that the residential buildings would exist as preexisting nonconforming uses. Peter Hogan inquired of the status of an undeveloped lot under the change. The Coordinator explained that an undeveloped lot would be zoned commercial. Don Duhaime stated that he understood that the proposed change would give the property owner the choice of commercial or residential use. Mark Suennen commented that the change would not be a matter of choice for the property owner as the Board would have the final decision.
Don Duhaime stated that he was of the opinion that the Board should proceed with a discussion of the rezoning. Peter Hogan advised that the Board should proceed only if the property owners were interested in the rezoning. David Woodbury stated that he did not have a problem proceeding. Mark Suennen informed that the Board should hold two public hearings. The first hearing would serve to inform the affected property owners that the Board intended to rezone the lots. He added that a second hearing would be held for the Board to vote on placing the matter on a warrant article. Peter Hogan asked why the Board would not first contact the affected property owners. Mark Suennen stated that it depended on how many sections of the small scale planned commercial district options that the
Board selected. The Coordinator advised that there were seven proposed lots and that the Board had not decided as a group whether the small scale planned commercial district was a good idea. Peter Hogan added that the Board should first contact the affected property owners and ask their opinion of the proposed zoning change as the property owners rights were overriding considerations. The Coordinator recommended that the Board not proceed with the rezoning unless the members believed it was a good change for the Town. Peter Hogan stated that before the Board did anything it should do a lot of research. Don Duhaime commented that the Board had already seen the plans and the area where the lots were situated. He pointed out that some of the land along Route 77 was residential with commercial all around and that the Board had an interest in creating a block of commercial zoning by eliminating the mixed residential. Don Duhaime commented that
if the commercial zoning did not exist then the commercial development in New Boston would not occur. The Coordinator explained that the Board would have to be ready to make a decision for the benefit of the Town and that research would be important to making an informed decision to meet adverse or contrary opinions held by the public. Don Duhaime agreed that proper research was necessary.
The Chairman inquired of the next step toward reaching an informed decision as a Board on the rezoning proposal. The Coordinator answered that visiting the property was not a bad idea and that a history of the zoning was needed together with an understanding of how it fit into the Master Plan. The Chairman asked if the materials could be produced at the next meeting. The Coordinator answered that the Board was running out of time. Don Duhaime advised that there was not enough time to place the matter for vote at Town Meeting in 2010 but that something could be put together for 2011. The Chairman asked for comments. Don Duhaime asked if it was necessary to reconstitute the subcommittee. Peter Hogan stated the committee had finished its work and that
it was a matter for the Board to decide. Mark Suennen added that the Board did not know how many lots were vacant to determine how a zoning change would affect the property owner’s development rights. The Chairman stated that the matter of the rezoning would be an objective for the 2011 Town Meeting. Peter Hogan commented that it might be worthwhile to phase some of these lots and sites in to the Board's site walks as they took place in the general area.
The Chairman next presented the matter of a proposed change to the Wetlands and Stream Corridor Conservation District. The Coordinator explained that the proposed amendment by the Conservation Commission addressed the removal of vegetative matter within the setback.
The Commission suggested the inclusion of a provision allowing property owners to remove trees or limbs that presented an imminent threat to safety or property. There were no comments or questions by the Board.
The Chairman inquired of the housekeeping items and asked if the Board had addressed them at some point. The Coordinator answered that the list was not new but had not been addressed by the Board. The Coordinator added that the housekeeping items served to point out changes in the zoning ordinance that conflict with other zoning districts.
The Coordinator explained that Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission recommended an amendment that would require the marking of the 50ft Vegetative Buffer within the Wetland Conservation District so that future property owners would have notice of prohibited cutting areas. The Coordinator recommended that the delineation of wetlands occur prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Chairman asked if the markers were to be provided by the Conservation Commission. The Coordinator answered that the Commission would have the markers made up. The Chairman asked if the purpose of the proposed regulation was to inform the builder of prohibited areas. The Coordinator said yes. The Chairman advised that he did not have an issue as it was not going to cost the Town. Mark Suennen
commented that there could be a burden on the Town if there were no signs available at the time of permitting because it would create an administrative delay. The Chairman suggested that the wording be changed to require suitable markers in the event the Commission’s markers were unavailable. Mark Suennen asked who was responsible for delineating the wetland. The Coordinator answered that the delineation should already exist as a consequence of the land survey. Dean Mehlhorn advised that the engineer could place the markers. Mark Suennen stated that would not be the case if the lot had not seen a surveyor for a decade. The Chairman sought clarification from Mark Suennen that he was against the proposed ordinance. Mark Suennen advised that he believe it was unnecessary. Dean Mehlhorn stated that he had to do it in every other town and was not opposed. David Woodbury agreed with Mark Suennen that it was unnecessary.
Don Duhaime agreed with Mark Suennen. Peter Hogan stated that it was the cost of developing land; however, he added that it could present an issue for a land owner who had a large parcel with wetland that was not subject to development. Mark Suennen reiterated that the delineation was unnecessary whether the lot was 2 or 200 acres and it created an administrative burden on the property owner. Peter Hogan asked Mark Suennen if he thought the markers were necessary if someone decided to increase their lawn and cut into the wetland buffer not knowing where the wetland started and the buffer ended. Mark Suennen replied that any changes were not acceptable unless you knew what you were doing. The Chairman asked if were better to mandate it so as to prevent a violation. Mark Suennen answered that he was not concerned if the property owner was caught violating the setback. The Chairman asked if it was simply the property owner’s
problem. Mark Suennen said yes. Peter Hogan asked who was going to enforce the delineation. The Chairman stated that the consensus of the Board was to not to propose this change to the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board decided to finish their discussion of Zoning Ordinance amendments at the next meeting.
MISCELLANOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 10, 2009
1. Approval of minutes of October 13, 2009, distributed by email.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the minutes of October 13, 2009, as written. Don
Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED. Mark Suennen, David Woodbury, and
Dean Mehlhorn abstained.
2. Discussion, re: Bond Estimate for SIB Trust (Formerly One Chestnut Hill Development, LLC) Susan Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/93-38.
The Coordinator noted that the subdivision in question was originally approved for One Chestnut Hill and has been purchased by SIB Trust. She noted that one wetland crossing had been included in the road plans and that the bond was included in the road estimate bond. She stated that the permit was set to expire in December. She advised the Board that SIB Trust, in an effort to avoid the permit expiring, had submitted a separate bond for the wetland crossing with intention of completing the work. She added that once the work was completed the Board would schedule a site walk. She further noted that the owner had been advised that this was at his own risk. The Board agreed.
3. Request received October 23, 2009, from Jay L. Marden, Agent, New Era C.F. Trust, for an extension on conditions precedent deadline, Lull Road, Gregg Mill Road and West Lull Place, Tax Map/Lot #3/9 & 3/10, for the Board’s action.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the extension to the conditions precedent deadline from October 25, 2009, to December 25, 2009. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
4. Request received October 28, 2009, from George & Carol Merrill, for an extension on conditions subsequent deadline to Phase V & VI, Whipplewill Road & NH Route 114, Tax Map/Lot #3/63-13, for the Board’s action.
The Chairman noted that the extension being requested was for two years, to November 11, 2011.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the extension to the conditions subsequent deadline to November 11, 2011. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
5. Letter received November 4, 2009, from Kirsten Montgomery, to New Boston Planning Board, re: requesting a change in hours, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman stated that KiKi’s Restaurant was currently approved to open at 12:00
p.m. He continued that the owner was seeking an approval to open at 11:30 a.m. Tuesday through Thursday and 10:00 a.m. on Sunday. Peter Hogan inquired if there was a reason why breakfast hours were not previously approved. The Coordinator pointed out that the previous owner did not offer breakfast. She continued that should the Board approve the request a note would be added to the site plan. The Chairman suggested that an update should be done to the plan at the completion of the project. The Chairman invited further questions or comments.
There being no further comments Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the November 4, 2009, request for change in hours. David Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
6. Letter copy received November 2, 2009, from Douglas Hill Construction, to the Board of Selectmen, re: Christian Farm Drive, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter. No discussion occurred.
7. Letter copy received October 26, 2009, from Kirsten Pulkkinen, Wetlands Specialist, DES Wetlands Bureau, to Victor Lemay, re: Standard Dredge and Fill Application, Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/21-5, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter. No discussion occurred.
8. Letter copy received November 2, 2009, from Alteration of Terrain Program, State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services, to Town Clerk, Town of New Boston, re: Twin Bridge Estates, Phase II, Alteration of Terrain Permit, Tax Map/Lot #2/62-12 & 3/5, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter. No discussion occurred.
9. Read File: Notice of Public Hearings from the City of Nashua, re: case #9 & #10, installation of wireless telecommunications facilities.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter. No discussion occurred.
10. Site Inspection Notes, Saturday, November 7, 2009, Albert Lachance, Lull Road, Tax Map/Lot #2/112-2, and Twin Bridge Land Management, LLC, Twin Bridge Road, Tax Map/Lot#2/62 & 3/3, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman asked if any member had anything specific to point out with regard to the above-referenced site walk.
The Coordinator referenced a discussion that took place with regard to the materials from the stonewalls on the Lachance property and clarified that this was a stipulation within the applicant’s Declaration of Covenants, not something the Board required.
11. Daily road inspection reports received November 5, 2009, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: Lachance, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter. No discussion occurred.
12. Daily road inspection reports received November 5, 2009, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, Twin Bridge Estates, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter. No discussion occurred.
13. Letter copy received November 9, 2009, from Alteration of terrain Program, DES, to New Boston Town Clerk, re: J.M. Bussiere et al – Indian Falls Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/88, Application for Alteration of Terrain Permit, for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator advised the Board that the Bussiere, Indian Falls, and One Chestnut Hill projects have been purchased by one owner. She continued that the applicants have revised their Alteration of Terrain Permits to reflect changes in the rules.
14. Letter copy received November 9, 2009, from Alteration of Terrain Program, DES, to New Boston Town Clerk, re: SIB Trust – Indian Falls & Susan Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/89 & 12/93-38, Application for Alteration of Terrain Permit, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter. No discussion occurred.
15a. Letter received November 10, 2009, from Kevin M. Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, to Stuart Lewin, Chair, Town of New Boston Planning Board, re: Proposal for Professional Services, for the Board’s information.
15b. Northpoint Engineering Project Summary (thru November 1, 2009), for the Board’s information.
The Chairman addressed 15a and 15b together as they were related. The Chairman asked if the Board of Selectmen were responsible for approving the above-referenced matter or was it the responsibility of the Planning Board. The Coordinator answered that the Board needed to discuss whether they would reconsider the Northpoint Engineering Contract and propose that Northpoint be rehired as the Town Engineer. She continued that should a motion be approved it would be forwarded to the Board of Selectmen for approval.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if a vote could be taken at the next meeting to give the Board a chance to review the proposal. Peter Hogan commented that he did not need any further time to make a decision. David Woodbury inquired if any there was any substantial debate surrounding the matter. The Chairman answered that he would just like time to review the proposal.
Don Duhaime asked the Coordinator for her opinion on the matter. The Coordinator stated that working with Northpoint Engineering had gone well. She further stated that Kevin Leonard, P.E., was responsive to questions, helpful with regulations, helpful with the Fire Wards, and easy to work with.
16. Letter copy received November 10, 2009, from Kevin M. Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, to David Woodbury, Chair, New Boston Board of Selectmen, re: Proposal for Professional Services with Agreement for Professional Services attached, for the Board’s action.
The Chairman advised that a following a vote the Board’s recommendation would be Forwarded to the Board of Selectmen. The Coordinator noted that currently a review of the Town Engineer’s contract was conducted on a yearly basis and she asked the Board if they would consider extending the review period for longer than a year. Peter Hogan stated that he did not have a problem with the annual review. The rest of the Board agreed.
Peter Hogan MOVED to forward the contract to the Selectmen with a recommendation of acceptance. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
17. Memorandum dated November 10, 2009, from Nic Strong, Planning Board Coordinator, to Planning Board Members, re: Zoning Ordinance Amendments, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman noted that the above-referenced matter had been previously addressed.
18. Distribution of the October 27, 2009, meeting minutes via email for approval at the meeting of November 24, 2009.
The Chairman acknowledged the receipt of the above-referenced matter. No discussion occurred.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn at 9:20 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted, Minutes Approved:
Valerie Diaz, Recording Clerk
| 
