Town of New Boston
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
February 9, 2010
The Coordinator noted that Chairman Stu Lewin would not be at the meeting until approximately 7:30 p.m. The Planning Board Assistant stated that Peter Hogan had left a message saying that he would not be at the meeting. Dean Mehlhorn had also called to say he was sick and would not be here. At 6:30 p.m. only Douglas Hill and David Woodbury were present. Don Duhaime was in the audience regarding the Commercial Design Guidelines public hearing. Since he had not submitted a formal resignation he agreed that if Mark Suennen did not arrive in the next 15 minutes he would sit in on the meeting at least until the Chairman Stu Lewin arrived.
The meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by Vice Chairman Douglas Hill. Present were regular member Don Duhaime and Ex-officio David Woodbury. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Board Assistant Shannon Silver and Recording Clerk Valerie Diaz. Chairman Stu Lewin arrived at the meeting at 7:45 p.m. +/- and Mark Suennen arrived at 8:20 p.m.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Jay Marden, Dennis McKenney, LLS, Brian Towne, Don Chapman, Brian Roy, PE, Morgan Hollis, Esq., Jim Beaumont, Cyndie Wilson, Brandy Mitroff, and Melissa Harvey.
Public Hearing on adoption of the Town of New Boston Commercial Design Guidelines
Douglas Hill read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Jay Marden.
Douglas Hill indicated that questions regarding the Commercial Design Guidelines would be addressed and discussed.
David Woodbury stated that he was unsure of how a guideline differed from an ordinance or regulation and whether or not the Town had any power to enforce the guidelines. Douglas Hill stated that Town Counsel had given his opinion with regard to this issue. The Coordinator added that Town Counsel had commented that some of the language in the first draft flip-flopped between trying to be a regulation and being a guideline. She continued that it was decided to proceed with the language as guidelines and noted that they are unenforceable as such. She advised that the reason that guidelines generally work is due to them being provided to commercial developers at the onset of a project to enable them to be good neighbors right from the start. David Woodbury asked if
consideration of an application could be affected should an applicant violate all the principles of the Design Guidelines. The Coordinator advised that the Board would only be able to vote against an application if the applicant had failed to follow the Site Plan Review Regulations not the Design Guidelines.
Douglas Hill asked for comments or questions from the public. Jay Marden commented that if Board was recommending that granite curb cuts be used for driveway construction the Town should also be required to install the same. He continued that the Town of Hanover, Massachusetts had required that all new roads should have Class A granite on both sides for the purposes of slowing development. Don Duhaime pointed out that the guideline Jay Marden was referring to solely addressed entrances and exits to commercial property to help clearly identify the location of the development and not road construction.
Jay Marden asked how the guidelines would be enforced. Douglas Hill clarified that the guidelines were not enforceable. Jay Marden commented that he believed the Planning Board could face difficulty approving future applications if the guidelines were not followed. Douglas Hill explained that the Board had to ensure that Zoning and Subdivision Regulations were met to approve applications and not the guidelines.
Jay Marden restated that if the Board was going to require granite curb cuts that it would be unreasonable to not require the same for Town development. David Woodbury pointed out that towns and counties were not bound by their own planning regulations.
Douglas Hill asked for further questions or comments; there were no further questions or comments.
David Woodbury MOVED that the public hearing be closed. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
David Woodbury MOVED that the Commercial Design Guidelines be adopted as printed and presented. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2010.
1. Approval of minutes of January 12, 2010, distributed by email.
David Woodbury MOVED to approve the meeting minutes of January 12, 2010, as written. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Endorsement of a Condex Site Plan for Salisbury Crossing, Tax Map/Lot #13/15-4, Kettle Land & Salisbury Road, by the Planning Board Chairman.
Douglas Hill advised that the endorsement would be made at the close of the meeting.
3. Endorsement of a Site Review Agreement for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (“AT&T”), Thomas Lorden and the Town of New Boston, by Planning Board Chairman.
Douglas Hill advised that the endorsement would be made at the close of the meeting.
6. Final draft of the Town of New Boston Open Space Plan, for the Board’s review. (To be discussed at 2/23/10 meeting)
Douglas Hill acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
7. Letter from Department of Environmental Services re: Shaky Pond Lane, Tax Map/Lot #15/15, amendment to Alteration of Terrain Permit WPS-8067, for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator advised that a 5 year extension had been granted in the above-referenced matter.
9. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Charles M. & Rachel L. B. Swinford, Tax Map/Lot #2/15, Tucker Mill Road, by the Planning Board Chairman & Secretary.
Douglas Hill advised that the endorsement would be made at the close of the meeting.
10. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing form the Town of Windham, re: installation of a wireless telecommunication facility.
Douglas Hill acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
11. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing from the Town of Hooksett, re: installation of a wireless telecommunication facility.
Douglas Hill acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
Public Hearing on the changes and additions to the Town of New Boston Driveway
Regulations
Douglas Hill read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Jay Marden.
Douglas Hill invited questions or comments from the Board. David Woodbury asked if Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, had accepted responsibility of regulating driveways as the regulations require. Douglas Hill advised that Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, did not have any issues with the requirement and noted that the Building Inspector and Road Agent continued to deal with the day-to-day issues of the driveways. David Woodbury commented that the Planning Board had been advised by counsel that they should not, by statute, be involved with driveway inspections and should delegate the responsibility to another entity. He asked if such a delegation had occurred. Douglas Hill answered that a delegation of the responsibility of the driveway inspections had occurred and that the Building Inspector would
oversee the inspections. Don Duhaime pointed out that should an applicant disagree with the Building Inspector then a review by the Planning Board could occur.
David Woodbury asked the audience for questions or comments; there were no questions or comments.
David Woodbury MOVED to close the public hearing. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
David Woodbury MOVED to accept the proposed amendments to the Town of New Boston Driveway Regulations as presented this evening. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Board took a twenty-five minute recess prior to the start of the next hearing.
TOWNES FAMILY TRUST
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: South Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #13/55
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
Douglas Hill read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Dennis McKenney, LLS, Brian Towne, Don Chapman, Jay Marden, Brian Roy, PE, Morgan Hollis, Esquire.
Douglas Hill asked Dennis McKenney, LLS, what he was submitting to the Board. Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that an Erosion Control and Sediment Plan had been submitted and that he had received a plan review but had not yet made the changes.
David Woodbury pointed out that a waiver request needed to be acted on. The Coordinator advised that the waiver was relative to the ISWMP being prepared by an LLS rather than a PE.
Dennis McKenney, LLS, asked the Board if the Erosion Control and Sediment Plan was acceptable as is. Douglas Hill stated that there were no issues with the plan.
Dennis McKenney, LLS, indicated that the final plan would have a stamp and seal provided by wetland scientist Chris Danforth. He also noted that the final plan would have the requested 200’ foot square identified. He asked the Board where a list of the granted waivers should be located on the plan. The Coordinator answered that the list could be located where he wished and added that the list needed to be ordered by date and section number.
Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator if any issues arose from accepting the final plan after the approval of the application. The Coordinator answered that the application would be accepted with the condition that the plan be approved after review.
Dennis McKenney, LLS, referenced the checklist under Existing Easements, #19, and indicated that a question mark was listed next to “utilities”. He explained that note 7 of the plan contained recording information for the utility easement and asked if the note was adequate. The Coordinator stated that the note was complete and there was no issue.
Dennis McKenney, LLS, referred the Board to the checklist, #38, Acreage Breakdown, and stated that because the entire property was not mapped for wetlands it would not be accurate to record the areas that were wet as other areas could exist. He added that by agreement of the Board the requirement to map all the wetlands was waived. The Coordinator stated that there were no issues with the aforementioned matter.
Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator if there were any other issues pertinent to the plan. The Coordinator indicated that there were no other outstanding issues.
Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that he would confirm the waivers and the dates with the Coordinator prior to recording them on the final plan.
David Woodbury MOVED to grant the waiver contained in Robert Todd, LLS’s, memorandum of February 1, 2010, regarding allowing him to prepare the ISWMP rather than the required PE. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
David Woodbury asked if the conditions precedent, 1 through 6, continued to be outstanding. The Coordinator answered that items 1 through 6 were standard and noted that the office still needed the revised plans, mylar, a digital copy of the plan, and note regarding stormwater management plan fees and advisement of when the plans will be sent to the Registry of deeds.
David Woodbury asked if a date certain was needed. The Coordinator answered yes, that a date certain was needed.
Dennis McKenney, LLS, asked the Coordinator if the digital copy of the plan needed to be provided on a CD or by email. The Coordinator indicated that digital copies of plans were typically provided on floppy discs. Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that the plans were too large to fit on a floppy disc. The Coordinator stated that this was not usually a problem to anyone but she would check with Bob Todd, LLS, to confirm whether or not a floppy disc was needed. Shannon Silver, Planning Assistant, stated that she believed the software that Bob Todd, LLS, used was only compatible with floppy discs. She added that everyone submitted their plans on floppy discs. Douglas Hill stated that the Planning Office would have an answer with regard to the use of the floppy disc at the time the final plan
was submitted.
Dennis McKenney, LLS, asked the Board if the mylar, both the copies with the topographical map and without, were recorded. The Coordinator indicated that typically the mylar without the topographical map was recorded as it was the cleanest plan.
Douglas Hill asked for a date certain for completion of the conditions precedent. Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that one month would be sufficient. Douglas Hill stated that the date certain would be April 1, 2010.
David Woodbury MOVED to approve the application of Townes Family Trust, Major Subdivision/2 Lots, Location: South Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/55, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of five (5) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections, notes of waivers granted and any corrections as noted at this hearing.
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F,3
4. Approved Pre-Engineered Individual Stormwater Management Plans may be resubmitted at the final Individual Stormwater Management Plans at the time of application for a building permit provided the builder complies with those plans. If critical areas are to be disturbed beyond those shown on the Pre-Engineered Individual Stormwater Management Plans, revised Individual Stormwater Management Plans shall be prepared and submitted for approval. If the Pre-Engineered Stormwater Management Plans are not to be used at the time of application for a building permit new Individual Stormwater Management Plans shall be submitted for approval. In any event, the bonds for the Individual Stormwater Management Plans must be submitted prior to issuance of a building
permit
5. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
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 April 1, 2010, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Board took a fifteen minute recess prior to the next hearing. The Chairman arrived during the recess.
FREDERICK K. LORDEN REVOCABLE TRUST (OWNER)
HARVEY J. DUPUIS FAMILY TRUST (OWNER)
SHIV K. SHRESTHA (APPLICANT)
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/43 Lots
Location: McCurdy Road
Tax Map/Lot #’s 12/19 & 93-34
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Brian Roy, PE, Morgan Hollis, Esq., Jay Marden, Brandy Mitroff, Cyndie Wilson, and Jim Beaumont.
The Chairman stated that the application had been before the Board previously and was withdrawn. It was before the Board again following changes in owners/applicants. He advised any abutters or interested parties to hold their questions until they were addressed.
Brian Roy, PE, with Cuoco & Cormier Engineering, introduced himself to the Board. He also introduced Morgan Hollis, Esq., as the agent for the applicant who could not be present this evening. He stated that the purpose for the meeting was to inform the Board of the new developer’s plans and to ensure that the Board and applicant were on the same page prior to final subdivision approval.
Brian Roy, PE, indicated that the application began in February of 2006 when the applicant appeared before the Board with a preliminary design for a conventional subdivision. He noted that the road design was essentially the same as the preliminary plan except that the preliminary plan had no open space and was a large lot conventional subdivision.
Brian Roy, PE, stated that following the design review process the applicant had applied for state permits. He continued that the process for applying and receiving the permits turned into a lengthy ordeal. He explained that the property had some wetlands and because there were two other projects in the area filing at the same time a regional impact was assessed to the project. He stated that as a result of that process and negotiations it was determined that the project would be developed as an Open Space subdivision and that a permanent conservation easement would be granted. He indicated on the plan that of 103 acres shown, 97 acres would be put into permanent conservation by agreement with the Army Corp of Engineers, State Dredge and Fill, and the local Conservation Commission. He noted
that the local Conservation Commission would end up being the caretaker of the project. It was his belief that money had been allotted to the Town to assist in the start up of the care of the permanent conservation land.
Brian Roy, PE, stated that once all of the permits had been applied for and received the application was submitted for final subdivision approval. He noted that the application was accepted on September 9, 2008, and a site walk took place during October 2008. He stated that at the time of the site walk the Board members walked the entire center line from McCurdy Road to Susan Road and viewed the wetland crossings.
Brian Roy, PE, stated that three meetings followed that addressed a road waiver that had been submitted. He indicated on the plan the location of the original formerly proposed road at a point where McCurdy Road had a 9% grade for which the Board did not want to grant a waiver. He noted the Board indicated their willingness to allow a driveway to a single lot from the 9% section of McCurdy Road. The proposed road entrance was moved further along McCurdy Road to a point at 8%. He further noted that this location created an issue with trying to achieve the required 3% negative grade from the road which put the new road 8’ below the wetland they were trying to cross. Brian Roy, PE, stated that discussion took place as to how to meet the Town’s intent to maintain the drainage,
maintain a negative sloping area for stopping, etc. He indicated that during a December 2008, meeting with the Board and Road Committee, an agreement was reached that it was probably best for the given situation to reduce the slope from -3% to -1.5% away from the road for the minimum distance and then go back up.
Brian Roy, PE, stated that the Board had requested that all technical reviews be completed as well as revising the plans to meet the engineering and attorney comments so that the plan would be ready for final review. He noted that at this point the previous developer stalled. He stated that in February of 2009, the developer, Dana Lorden, appeared before the Board and withdrew the application without prejudice. He stated that Dana Lorden had advised himself and the applicant that it would not be a problem to bring the plan back to the Board when they were ready to move forward. He also stated that Dana Lorden had indicated that the Board would be willing to waive the application fees moving forward as it was essentially the same plan being resubmitted. He noted that the preliminary plan
before the Board this evening had been submitted with a waiver request for application fees exclusive of secretarial, abutter, design review, and attorney fees.
Brian Roy, PE, stated that the new developer had an agreement with the Lorden and Dupuis families to consolidate the three parcels of land and file for a subdivision of 41 lots. He noted that by consolidating the land there would no longer be two separate projects but one that would be under the sole control of the applicant.
Brian Roy, PE, advised the Board that all of the appropriate permits had been obtained and were up-to-date. He noted that the applicant had received a 5 year extension on the AOT permit in January of 2010. He stated that he would like to carry forward all previous reports that had been completed as well as impact studies as the project had not changed.
Brian Roy, PE, stated that a lengthy waiver request had been submitted with the preliminary application. He explained that since the time of the initial submission some planning rules had changed relative to plan and checklist items. He stated that rather than re-drafting sixty pages for the preliminary submission it was his opinion that the information that was contained in the application was sufficient for the preliminary review. He indicated that at the time of final approval the plans would be re-drafted and revised.
Brian Roy, PE, stated that the previous waiver request for a driveway on an existing road greater than 8% had been made and would still be requested. He also advised that a waiver request for a road that was less than -3% grade at an intersection would be made.
Brian Roy, PE, commented that the previous developer of the project did not address phasing. He continued that the current developer intended to complete the project with three phases. He explained that moving forward with the project in three phases would require a cul-de-sac length of greater than the allowed 1,000’. He stated that he wanted to discuss the possibility of constructing a temporary cul-de-sac longer than 1,000’. He noted that the reason such a cul-de-sac was necessary was because of the placement of wetlands and the fact that a fair amount of road needed to be constructed to reach the proposed lots. He indicated on the map the location of the proposed cul-de-sacs. The Chairman asked what the proposed lengths of the cul-de-sacs were. Brian Roy, PE,
answered that each cul-de-sac would be 1,500’. He added that the plan included a temporary easement as previously discussed with the Board, the Road Agent, and the Road Committee.
The Chairman asked if the applicant had received comments from the Planning Office with regard to issues with the plan review and stormwater management plans. Brian Roy, PE, answered that he did have a copy of the comments. The Chairman asked if there were any issues with the comments. Brian Roy, PE, did not believe there were any issues. The Chairman asked for confirmation that the applicant would be submitting a completed checklist with the final plans. Brian Roy, PE, stated that he would be submitting a completed checklist as well as confirmation that the conditional use permits and driveway permits had been filed.
Douglas Hill asked if any official decisions had been made relative to the entrances. The Coordinator answered no because the waivers were not granted. Brian Roy, PE, added that an informal discussion had taken place wherein the Board had instructed to him to use the -1.5% grade for the first 75’ per the Road Committee’s memo. Douglas Hill asked if there were any additional waiver requests with regard to the previous application. Brian Roy, PE, answered that only the two waivers previously mentioned were made and additionally a waiver was requested to not set the bounds before the subdivision was approved.
David Woodbury asked for clarification that the applicant would be submitting a revised application that would show the additional lot onto Susan Road as the 41st house lot and that the Board was being asked to consider the previous waivers but in the context of a larger subdivision. Brian Roy, PE, stated that the project would be a larger subdivision, however, the Susan Road project had not been formally introduced before as it was originally part of a separate application. He added that the proposed lot was an existing lot on Susan Road under a different subdivision. He further added that the applicant was incorporating the lot into the previous subdivision. David Woodbury asked if the Board was going to have to deal with an extensive number of waivers and then have to revisit those
waivers under a new application. Brian Roy, PE, answered no and explained that the submission of the preliminary application included the waivers. He noted that the only new waiver that may be requested would be with regard to the extension of the length of the proposed cul-de-sacs.
David Woodbury asked if an initial cul-de-sac would be constructed with a length of 1,500’ and at some point in the future that cul-de-sac would be extended by an additional 1,500’. Brian Roy, PE, answered no and explained that the cul-de-sacs would not extend beyond 1,500’ but instead would join up in the third phase. David Woodbury asked if the applicant had anticipated a significant length of time that the two 1,500’cul-de-sacs would exist prior to completion of the route. Brian Roy, PE, answered that should the market remain as it was today it could take a long time to sell off all of the proposed lots.
Board Member Mark Suennen arrived at 8:21 p.m.
Don Duhaime commented that he would like the Board to receive some kind of assurance with regard to a time frame for the connection of the two cul-de-sacs. He suggested requiring the applicant to complete the connection within 1 ½ to 2 years if it had not been built out by then. He continued that should the economy stall there could be potential for letting ten years go by
before the connection was completed. The Chairman added that rather than being temporary the cul-de-sacs could become permanent. Douglas Hill stated that it was his recollection that the Road Agent had recommended paving the temporary cul-de-sacs in the event that the project stalled. Brian Roy, PE, stated that the Road Agent wanted the full right-of-way as a temporary cul-de-sac easement. He added that the road would be bonded and in the event that the project could not be completed by the developer the Town could make the necessary connection. The Coordinator asked if the applicant was planning on bonding the entire road as it was typical only to bond one phase of a project at a time. Brian Roy, PE, noted that with the previous application discussion of bonding phases had not taken place but he now
understood that the Town only required bonds for particular phases. He stated that a one year requirement to make the connection of the cul-de-sacs may not be enough time but he would speak with the developer about proposing a time frame. Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated that the issue being discussed was one of the key elements of design and that there was no point in developing a design that could not function. He asked where the Town would like to see this project should disaster strike and completion was not possible. The Chairman stated that the construction of the final cul-de-sac in the middle of the project was less of an issue than the connection of the two cul-de-sacs proposed at either end of the project. He indicated that should the temporary cul-de-sacs become permanent they would be longer than the regulations allowed. Morgan Hollis, Esq., asked if there would be any issues with the plan if the cul-de-sacs were 1,000’ in length. The Chairman stated that there would
not be any issues as no waivers would be required. David Woodbury commented that creating 1,000’ cul-de-sacs could be the solution but recognized that the plausibility of implementing the 1,000’ cul-de-sac did not give much leeway at the McCurdy Road end of the project. He did point out, however, that creating the 1,000’ cul-de-sac at the Susan Road end of the project would be sufficient. It was his opinion that a solution could be made that did not include the creation of two possibly permanent 1,500’ cul-de-sacs. Morgan Hollis, Esq., asked if the Board would be concerned with ending up with a temporary 1,500’ cul-de-sac becoming permanent should a waiver be requested and fire approval was sought and obtained. The Chairman indicated that the Fire Department had historically been very firm with regard to the 1,000’ requirement. Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated the applicant intended to speak with the Fire
Department.
The Chairman asked if the proposed project would have cisterns and/or sprinklers. Brian Roy, PE, answered that both cisterns and sprinklers would be installed. He added that the Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, had requested a 10,000 gallon cistern as well as sprinklers for the project. He noted that no final decision regarding the cisterns and sprinklers had been made.
David Woodbury asked what the total length of the proposed Lorden Road was from McCurdy Road to Susan Road. Brian Roy, PE, answered 4,400’. Morgan Hollis, Esq., pointed on the plan an alternative route to using the 1,500’ cul-de-sacs, by constructing a 1,500’ cul-de-sac from Susan Road as phase one and connecting out to McCurdy Road as phase two and completing the short cul-de-sac of the middle of the road as phase three. The Chairman commented that the idea Morgan Hollis, Esq., explained was a better approach. Brian Roy, PE, indicated on the plan the areas of drainage.
It was David Woodbury’s understanding that the Board had tentatively approved the waiver for the lot that was on McCurdy Road as well as a waiver for the construction of the intersection between Lorden Road and McCurdy Road at -1.5% grade rather than -3% grade. He asked if the regulations in Zoning Ordinance had changed making the informal position that the Board previously took any different today. The Coordinator answered no.
Douglas Hill asked for a summary of the Board’s previous thoughts on the 9% lot on McCurdy. Brian Roy, PE, indicated that there was not a lot of discussion with regard to the lot on McCurdy. He continued that the previous developer did not have any issues with the 9% driveway with regard to sight distance. He added that the Board was concerned with the road coming in at 9%. Brian Roy, PE, indicated that the applicant was seeking the Board’s opinion of the proposed subdivision. The Chairman commented that as long as what had been previously stated was consistent with the Road Agent and Road Committee’s recommendations he did not believe there would be any issues.
The Chairman stated that he would like go on a site walk for the purposes of viewing the ends of the road, not the entire property. He noted that the site walk could be conducted either before the application was submitted or at the time of submittal. Brian Roy, PE, advised that the stakes were no longer at the property on Susan Road. He stated that he anticipated that it would take a couple of months to complete the revisions to the plan and merge the two projects. He continued at that point the snow would most likely be gone. Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated that for purposes of future expense relative to the project the applicant would be interested in any of the Board’s concerns with the proposed project prior to submittal of a final application. The
Chairman stated that he did not have any issues with the proposed project, he merely wished to view the area to refresh his memory.
Douglas Hill asked if Susan Road was currently a temporary cul-de-sac. Brian Roy, PE, indicated that Susan Road was indeed a temporary cul-de-sac and was also gravel. Douglas Hill asked how far the new road was up from the existing road. Brian Roy, PE, indicated that it would be about 700’ to 800’ from Carriage Road. Douglas Hill believed the Board should take into consideration that the proposed 1,500’ cul-de-sac would be coming off an existing temporary cul-de-sac from another subdivision.
David Woodbury asked if there was a location for the proposed driveway on lot #1. Brian Roy, PE, pointed out the location of the driveway on the plan and stated that the driveway would be relatively flat.
The Chairman asked Mark Suennen for any questions or comments; Mark Suennen had no further questions or comments.
The Coordinator noted that Mr. Roy had indicated that the applicant would need to resubmit all the studies, reports, drainage calculations, etc., that were part of the original application. She noted that she only had one copy of each of the pertinent documents; she asked that the appropriate number of copies be provided to the Planning Office. Brian Roy, PE, stated that he would provide the correct amount of copies.
The Chairman asked there were any other comments or questions about the waivers regarding the driveways and the entrances. Douglas Hill did not believe that further discussion was necessary as three meetings had been spent on the aforementioned issues and the Road Agent and Road Committee had approved the plans.
The Chairman invited comments and questions from the audience. Jay Marden asked how much land was going to be placed into conservation and what group was going to be responsible for its maintenance. Brian Roy, PE, pointed out the 97 acres of land that was being placed into a permanent conservation easement on the plan and maintained by the Town of New Boston not by a homeowners association. He noted that the land would stay with the homeowners.
Jay Marden asked if his understanding that the applicant may move forward with one 1,500’ cul-de-sac waiver request, therefore, creating the possibility of a permanent 1,500’ cul-de-sac was accurate. The Chairman stated that he shared the same interpretation as Jay Marden. Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated that it was not the applicants desire to do this because the goal was to develop all of the lots. He stated that the first phase would be a cul-de-sac, the second phase would be an additional cul-de-sac, and the third phase would connect the cul-de-sacs. Jay Marden stated that moving forward with Morgan Hollis, Esq.’s, scenario would create the possibility of having one permanent 1,500’ cul-de-sac. Morgan Hollis, Esq., agreed with Jay
Marden.
Jay Marden asked if a cistern was being required for the subdivision in addition to sprinklers. Brian Roy, PE, answered that both a cistern and sprinklers were being required. Jay Marden commented that when the Town agreed to require sprinklers it was decided that either sprinklers or cisterns would be required for subdivisions but not both.
Cyndie Wilson identified herself as an abutter to the subdivision. She asked who would own the land of the conservation easement. Brian Roy, PE, answered that the ownership of the land would stay with the homeowners and that an easement would be on top of the land and the Town would control the easement. Cyndie Wilson commented that the Town would monitor the easement but it would not maintain it. She noted that any problems that occur with the easement would be reported to the homeowner for their action. She wanted to know who would be responsible for overseeing the easement if there was not a homeowners association. Douglas Hill noted that each homeowner would be responsible. Brian Roy, PE, explained that there may be a simple covenant for each
stating that a homeowner would have 1% ownership in the easement. He also indicated that the creation of a homeowners association was another option. He added that the homeowners would not be allowed to do anything with the easement land further than passive recreation. Cyndie Wilson asked if the Conservation Commission was aware of this ownership. Brian Roy, PE, stated that the Conservation Commission was aware of the ownership. Cyndie Wilson stated that the last she had heard was that Dana Lorden and his brother-in-law would own the easement in question and not that there would be 40 separate owners. Brian Roy, PE, clarified that Dana Lorden had misspoken and advised that he was no longer the developer of the project. Cyndie Wilson suggested that the applicant meet with the Conservation Commission to notify them of the changes. Brian Roy, PE, suggested that Cyndie Wilson review the dredge and fill permit that had been issued by DES
in 2008 as the easement was a condition. Cyndie Wilson stated that she understood that the easement was a condition of the permit, however, she noted that the New Boston Conservation Commission did not have to hold the easement. Brian Roy, PE, advised that an agreement was already in place that the Conservation Commission would be the steward of the easement. The Chairman suggested that the applicant contact the Conservation Commission for the purposes of refreshing them on the easement agreement.
Brandy Mitroff stated that the applicant had been discussing 41 lots and pointed out that the agenda had listed 43 lots for the subdivision. Brian Roy, PE, stated that 2 lots were going to be Open Space lots.
David Woodbury commented that having 41 separate owners of the conservation land in common with one another did not seem workable and he believed that the option of creating a homeowners association may be helpful. Brian Roy, PE, advised that the agreement listed the Conservation Commission as the steward and allowed for them to do maintenance. He restated that the homeowners would have no rights to the land. Morgan Hollis, Esq., believed that the homeowners association was a good suggestion and relatively simple to establish.
Jay Marden asked if the subdivision was a cluster development that would require a homeowners association. The Coordinator advised that the subdivision was a cluster development but an association was not required.
Jim Beaumont of 6 Carriage Road asked if the proposed plan that was presented to the Board this evening was the agreed upon layout of the subdivision. Douglas Hill stated that the plan had not yet been approved but it was the plan that would be submitted for approval. Jim Beaumont asked if ledge blasting would take place with the construction of the new road and if so would it affect the aquifer. Douglas Hill answered that there would be ledge blasting. He indicated that he did not believe an aquifer existed near the location of the proposed road but noted if there was an aquifer blasting from the proposed distance would most likely not have an affect.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2010.
8. Email received February 5, 2010, from Melissa Harvey, to New Boston Planning Board requesting time at meeting to discuss use of Don Grosso’s commercial property located on Route 13, Tax Map/Lot #8/110, formerly New Boston Hardware.
(Melissa Harvey will be present)
Melissa Harvey stated that she owned a natural food business, Will and Roses, that she had been operating out of her home for the past six years. She added that because the business was expanding she needed to relocate. She advised that she would like to operate a food manufacturing facility out of the above-referenced property. She noted that she would be producing grain bars, granola, nuts, and seeds. She added that a small retail space would be located in the front of the business that would offer dry goods. She indicated that the property was currently zoned as Commercial and either restaurant or retail seemed to be the closest allowable uses to her proposal. She was unsure if the zoning wording needed to change to
accommodate her business.
The Coordinator suggested that the Board review the list of categories allowed in the Commercial District. Douglas Hill read through the list of categories allowed in a Commercial District. He asked for the definition of a business incubator. The Coordinator stated that a business incubator occurred when several businesses rented one space and shared all expenses. The Chairman asked if there was a specific zoning area where food manufacturing was allowed. Mark Suennen and the Coordinator advised that food manufacturing would be allowed in the Industrial District. The Coordinator noted that currently there was one industrial lot in Town located at the bottom of Byam Road. It was Douglas Hill’s opinion that Melissa Harvey’s proposed business could fall under the Commercial
District category of restaurant/retail. The Coordinator advised that rather than trying to shoehorn the business into a category that it did not really fall under, Melissa Harvey could request a hearing with the ZBA to request a variance.
Mark Suennen asked if Melissa Harvey had been operating out of her house. Melissa Harvey advised that she had been operating out of her licensed home kitchen. Mark Suennen asked how much product Melissa Harvey was currently producing in her home kitchen versus how much she was intending to produce at the new location. Melissa Harvey advised that she had recently made an arrangement to produce for a distributor. She continued that it was necessary to have more space because she could potentially be tripling her production. Mark Suennen asked if it was necessary for Melissa Harvey to operate out of an industrial kitchen. Melissa Harvey answered that she only needed a commercial kitchen.
Douglas Hill suggested that Melissa Harvey apply for a variance. Melissa Harvey asked if applying for a variance needed to be done by herself or through Don Grosso, owner of the property. Douglas Hill believed that Don Grosso would have to be involved as it changed the use of his property. Melissa Harvey asked if the use was changed from commercial to industrial would it change back to commercial at the commencement of her use. The Coordinator advised that variances run with the property so that the use can run indefinitely.
Jay Marden was concerned that a Town resident who was operating a business out of her home would have to wait at least a month to appear before the ZBA. Melissa Harvey stated that she did not have any issues with waiting to appear before the ZBA.
Jay Marden suggested that Melissa Harvey meet with the Building Inspector prior to scheduling a hearing with the ZBA. Douglas Hill did not believe it was necessary for Melissa Harvey to meet with the Building Inspector. He explained that as long as codes were met for internal building changes approval would not be an issue.
Mark Suennen stated that based on the description given by Melissa Harvey the proposed use did not fit within the current definition of commercial space. The Chairman agreed with Mark Suennen’s statement. Mark Suennen commented that it should be the Planning Board’s recommendation that Melissa Harvey apply for a variance from the ZBA to pursue her business. The Chairman agreed with Mark Suennen’s statement.
David Woodbury stated that Melissa Harvey’s use would be clearly permitted in an
industrial district and added that an argument for a permitted use in a commercial district could be made. He wanted to clarify that the Planning Board was not passing on the merits of Melissa Harvey’s business but for the sake of avoiding any unforeseen issues in the future it may be advantageous to apply for a variance at the ZBA. Melissa Harvey asked if the ZBA would create a category for her business to operate in as it did not appear one existed. Douglas Hill answered that the ZBA could allow for a light industrial use in the proposed location. Mark Suennen believed that the ZBA could also limit the use to food wholesaling and distribution or add such other conditions as they saw fit.
The Chairman reiterated that the Board was not commenting on the merits of the business but believed it was best for Melissa Harvey to appear for the ZBA for a variance.
5. Updated Table II and CIP Narrative for Board review and discussion.
Brandy Mitroff stated that she was present to discuss the configuration of the CIP Committee.
The Chairman asked if the current CIP schedule was subject to change. Brandy Mitroff indicated that the schedule that had been provided by the Coordinator was final. The Chairman asked Brandy Mitroff to list the changes that had been made. Brandy Mitroff stated that the Lyndeborough Road Bridge was now a zero, the Historical Building Renovations had gone up by $3,000.00, and that funding for the school addition had been postponed for one year. She also noted that the funding for the cisterns had been removed from the CIP list following a vote by the Planning Board.
Brandy Mitroff asked the Board if she could discuss the removal of the cistern funds from the CIP schedule. She stated that she was worried the CIP process could be undermined if the Planning Board began a pattern of changing a committee’s work without being advised of the background of a project prior to removing from the CIP schedule. She added that she was not asking for the vote to be changed but instead asking for guidance on how to proceed with the CIP Committee to this regard. The Chairman noted Brandy Mitroff’s concerns were valid and stated that prior to next year’s CIP meetings he agreed that some guidance on how the Committee should proceed needed to be provided.
Brandy Mitroff stated that currently the CIP Committee consisted of two Finance Committee members, two Planning Board members, two at large members, and one member from the Board of Selectmen. She proposed changing the membership to include two Finance Committee members, one Planning Board member, one member from the Board Selectmen, and three at large members. She added that she had volunteers to fill all of the seats. Douglas Hill asked for the identification of the three at large volunteers. Brandy Mitroff stated that Kevin LaFebvre was already a member and Fred Hayes and Cyr Daniel had volunteered. Douglas Hill asked which members of the Planning Board were on the Committee this past fall. Brandy Mitroff advised that Don Duhaime and Dean Mehlhorn were part of the Committee.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if the CIP Committee had always been composed as it currently is. The Coordinator explained that the original CIP Committee membership was made up of all the department heads and every member of the Planning Board. She continued that prior to the current CIP composition the Committee consisted of all of the Planning Board members with the department heads contributing but not being on the Committee.
The Chairman asked for any further questions or comments on changing the composition of the CIP Committee. David Woodbury stated that he did not have any objections to Brandy Mitroff’s proposal of the CIP Committee membership. Douglas Hill asked if the Committee typically appeared before the Board to discuss the CIP schedule. Brandy Mitroff indicated that a member from the Committee would appear at a Planning Board meeting to update the Board on any new information or substantial changes, but stated that after this length of time everyone should be familiar with things like the CRFs for Fire and Highway vehicles. The Chairman asked how many times the Committee met. Brandy Mitroff answered that usually the Committee met three times. Mark Suennen commented that he believed it was
great Brandy Mitroff had taken a lead role in the Committee and presented a plan to the Board. He added that if the Board decided to cut back to only one Planning Board member then that member should be responsible for finding a replacement to attend a meeting if they are unavailable. The Board agreed with Mark Suennen’s suggestion.
Douglas Hill MOVED to change the composition of the CIP Committee to consist of two Finance Committee members, one Planning Board member, one member from the Board Selectmen, and three at large members. David Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Brandy Mitroff asked how the new members, Fred Hayes and Cyr Daniel, should be
notified of their membership. The Coordinator advised that she would mail the appropriate applications to the new members.
4. Discussion re: subdivision/site plan review regulation amendments.
The Coordinator advised that at the last meeting proposed amendments to the Subdivision/Site Plan Review Regulations were reviewed that addressed changes in state law and housekeeping items that arose from the regulation audit. She noted that all of the changes that had been made at the previous meeting were included and needed to be reviewed by the Board for approval. She explained that following approval of the Board a public hearing could be scheduled.
The Chairman stated that he was not present at the last meeting but believed if the items were discussed and amendments were made a public hearing could be scheduled.
The Board decided to discuss the amendments at the beginning of the next hearing with the public hearing scheduled for March 23, 2010.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 9:48 p.m. David Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted, Valerie Diaz, Recording Clerk Minutes Approved: 02/23/10
| 
