The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Vice Chairman Douglas Hill, in the absence of the Chairman who would be arriving later in the meeting. Present were regular member Mark Suennen, Stu Lewin, alternate Dean Mehlhorn, and Ex-officio Christine Quirk. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Shannon Silver and Recording Clerk Valerie Diaz.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Ken Lombard, Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, Jay Marden, Bob Todd, LLS, Brian Pratt, PE, Tim LeClair, James Denesevich, Peter Moloney, Nathan Chamberlin, PE, Charlie Cleary, Esq., Dorothy Gagnon, Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, Jason Martel, Ian McSweeney, Joel Bedard, Conservation Commission and Donna Mombourquette.
Public Hearing on Subdivision/Non-Residential Site Plan Review Regulations
SEE SEPARATE NOTICE
Present in the audience were Ken Lombard and Jay Marden. Douglas Hill read the public hearing notice. He stated that he would review each proposed amendment for the Subdivision Regulations and Non-Residential Site Plan Review Regulations. He invited the Board to share comments or questions during the review.
Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator to inform the Board of any issues they should be aware of. The Coordinator stated that she had spoken with Dwight Sowerby, Esq., earlier that day and that he was unable to forward a letter with his comments on the proposed amendments in time, however, he asked that the Coordinator share his comments from their conversation. She noted that with reference to upstream dam owners Dwight Sowerby, Esq., suggested, based on his review of the statutes, that the following language should be added to all the locations where it is listed, “the nearest upstream dam owner” rather than “upstream dam owners”.
The Coordinator stated that Dwight Sowerby, Esq., recommended striking Subdivision Regulations proposed amendment #3, as it was not necessary to include notice to the upstream dam owners during the pre-application design review.
The Coordinator noted that Dwight Sowerby, Esq., had a question for future discussion not relative to the proposed amendments. She stated that Dwight Sowerby, Esq., questioned why the Board granted approvals for preliminary plans as the approval was non-binding for both the Board and applicant. She indicated that Dwight Sowerby, Esq., therefore, questioned the proposed language for informing an applicant about a conditional approval of a preliminary plan. She added that once Dwight Sowerby, Esq., became aware that the language was reflected in the statute he recommended that the language remain as is.
The Coordinator stated that with regard to proposed amendment #4 of the Non-Residential Site Plan Review Regulations, Dwight Sowerby, Esq., advised that it was not necessary to notice the upstream dam owners because it was the design review phase which did not require such notice. Douglas Hill reviewed proposed amendment #1; there were no questions or comments. Douglas Hill reviewed proposed amendment #2. The Coordinator advised that proposed amendment #2 would include the previously discussed “nearest upstream dam owner” language Douglas Hill asked the Board if they agreed with Dwight Sowerby, Esq.’s, recommendation of striking proposed amendment #3; the Board agreed to strike the language.
Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator to explain proposed amendment #4. The Coordinator explained that the statue relative to proposed amendment #4 required that applicants be informed that the approval of a preliminary plan marks the end of the design review process. There were no further questions or comments.
Douglas Hill reviewed proposed amendment #5. The Coordinator pointed out that the Planning Office had already been informing applicants within 10 days of the Board’s conditional approval of preliminary plans, however, the proposed amendment was being made to comply with statute that now requires this.
The Coordinator advised that “nearest upstream dam owner” would be added to proposed amendment #6. Mark Suennen asked if the reference to “Section V-T” located in item g, of proposed amendment #6 was accurate. The Coordinator confirmed that “Section V-T” was not accurate as it was being deleted. She noted that “the Town of New Boston Driveway Regulations” would replace “Section V-T”.
Douglas Hill reviewed proposed amendments #7 through #17; there were no questions or comments.
Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator to explain proposed amendment #18. The Coordinator explained that proposed amendment #18 deleted the requirement to submit State Subdivision Approval and Dredge and Fill Approval as part of a preliminary application because the permits were not required at that time.
Douglas Hill reviewed proposed amendments #19 through #22; there were no questions or comments.
Douglas Hill reviewed proposed amendment #23 relative to As-Built Guidelines, requiring that stump dumps be added to as-built plans. He asked if the Coordinator had to add guidelines for stump dumps. She explained that a section for As-Built Guidelines currently existed, however, stump dumps were not included in it. She noted that the location of the stump dumps was being required. She also noted that the proposed amendment had previously stated “stump dump location” but the Chairman had made an argument to remove the word “location”. Douglas Hill pointed out that there was more to As-Builts than location and the Board should only be interested in location, not anything else. It was Douglas Hill’s opinion that the word “location” be added to
stump dumps to avoid confusion. The Board agreed with Douglas Hill and the word “location” was added to proposed amendment #23.
Douglas Hill reviewed proposed amendments #24 through #26; there were no questions or comments.
Douglas Hill asked the audience for questions or comments; there were none.
Douglas Hill reviewed proposed amendments #1 through #12 of the Non-Residential Site Plan Review noting that Proposed Amendment #4 would be stricken per Dwight Sowerby, Esq.’s, recommendations; there were no additional questions or comments.
Douglas Hill asked the Board for questions or comments. Mark Suennen asked why the sections in the Subdivision Regulations were numbered with roman numerals and the Non-Residential Site Plan Review sections used numbers. The Coordinator explained that the regulations were written at different times.
Douglas Hill asked the audience for questions or comments; there were none and he closed the public hearing.
Dean Mehlhorn MOVED to adopt the amendments to the Subdivision Regulations as presented in this public hearing. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dean Mehlhorn MOVED to adopt the amendments to the Non-Residential Site Plan Review Regulations as presented in this public hearing. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Discussion, re: Revised draft of Open Space Plan
Present in the audience were Ken Lombard, Open Space Committee, Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, and Jay Marden.
Douglas Hill asked Ken Lombard to discuss the revised draft of the Open Space Plan. Ken Lombard commented that the Coordinator had done an excellent job reviewing the Open Space Plan. Douglas Hill asked Ken Lombard to highlight any changes that had been made to the Open Space Plan. Ken Lombard advised that references and statistical data had been updated per the request of the Planning Board. He noted that the Committee had difficulty in updating some of the statistical information but hoped that following the census pertinent information would be available. He went on to say that the Open Space Plan would be a stand alone document for right now but would eventually be included as part of the Master Plan.
Ken Lombard stated that the Open Space Plan contained goals of the Open Space Committee. Douglas Hill asked for Ken Lombard to review the goals. Ken Lombard stated that the Open Space Committee was formed in 2001 as a subcommittee of the Conservation Commission and that the Town had voted to allocate 50% of the current use change tax for funding of open space. He advised that the function of the Open Space Committee was to attempt to preserve open space, working farms, forests, recreational land and the rural character of New Boston.
Ken Lombard invited questions or comments from the Board. Christine Quirk commented that she found the Open Space Plan interesting and that the Committee had done a wonderful job creating the Plan.
Ken Lombard advised that the Open Space Plan had a table that contained a point allocation system for the purpose of evaluating and comparing lands for the preservation of open space. He noted that currently the Committee was working on acquiring two properties in Town that rated high on the point allocation table.
Ken Lombard noted that if the Board had any minor changes that they would like to incorporate he would be able to do so, however, he was hopeful that the Board would be satisfied with the Open Space Plan and accept it.
Douglas Hill asked the Board for any questions or comments. Dean Mehlhorn commented that he was pleased with the incorporation of updated dates to the Open Space Plan.
Ken Lombard pointed out that he was unable to add updated annotations to the maps contained within the Open Space Plan. He continued that he would work with Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission to make the appropriate changes.
Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator if the Board needed to make a motion to accept the Open Space Plan. The Coordinator advised that the Open Space Plan would be adopted as an adjunct to the Master Plan and as such a public hearing needed to be scheduled.
Douglas Hill asked for questions or comments from the audience. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, commented that the Open Space Committee had done a great job with the Open Space Plan. He continued that the Open Space Plan very nicely dovetailed with the Master Plan. He stated that he would like the Planning Board’s support of the Open Space Plan.
The Board and Ken Lombard agreed to schedule a public hearing on the Open Space Plan for the first meeting in May 2010.
MISCELLANOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF MARCH 23, 2010.
1. Approval of minutes of February 23, 2010, distributed by email.
Dean Mehlhorn MOVED to approve the meeting minutes of February 23, 2010, as written. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Vista Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/33, Wilson Hill Road, by the Planning Board Chairman & Secretary.
Douglas Hill advised the endorsement would be made at the close of the meeting.
3. Request for extension of conditions precedent date from April 1, 2010, to August 1, 2010, received March 17, 2010, from Charles M. Swinford, for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator informed the Board that Dwight Sowerby, Esq., had advised that the Declaration for Common Driveway was not the correct document needed. She explained that deeds of easement were required to be ready for transfer at the time properties were conveyed. She noted that Mr. Swinford needed more time to complete the documents.
Mark Suennen MOVED to extend the conditions precedent deadline from April 1, 2010, to August 1, 2010, for the Swinford development. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
6. Memorandum from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, dated March 4, 2010, to Planning Board Members, re: State Plane Coordinates – GIS, for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that during review of the Subdivision Regulations a question arose as to why an option existed to use state plane coordinates for two of the property corners. She continued that she had spoken with Bob Todd, LLS, regarding this issue and the above-referenced memorandum explained why it was useful to have this option, which was particularly helpful if the Town had GIS capabilities.
7. Technical Assistance Bulletin from the Maine State Planning Office, “Promoting Quality Outdoor Lighting in Your Community”, for the Board’s information. Douglas Hill acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
8. Information re: 17th Annual Spring Planning & Zoning Conference to be held Saturday, May 8, 2010, distributed by email.
The Coordinator advised the Board they could review classes for the above-referenced conference at the given website. She continued that should a Board Member wish to attend a class, registration could be made through the Planning Office.
9. Letter received March 9, 2010, from Public Service of New Hampshire to Mr. Stuart Lewin, New Boston Planning Board, re: Transmission Line Easement Encroachment Review Requirements, for the Board’s information.
Mark Suennen asked if the above-referenced review requirements required permission from PSNH to access transmission line easements. The Coordinator stated that the requirements prohibited building on the easement, i.e., fences and swimming pools.
10. Information, re: NH Planners Association Spring Development Workshop, Thursday, April 22, 2010, at 12:00 p.m. at NH Local Government Center, for the Board’s information.
Douglas Hill acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
11. Construction Services Report from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: Karen M. Morin Rev. Trust, Daylily Ln. & Greenfield Rd. project, for the Board’s information.
Douglas Hill what the current bond was for the above-referenced matter. The Coordinator answered that there was currently no bond. She noted that the issue needed to be discussed. Douglas Hill stated the issue would be discussed at the end of miscellaneous business.
12. Letter Copy received March 1, 2010, from NHDES Wetlands Bureau, re: Alteration of Terrain Permit WPC-3702, Sand & Gravel Excavation, Tax Map/Lot #1/2 & 35, for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator advised that with regard to gravel the NHDES Wetlands Bureau had re-districted the state in terms of people covering certain areas and that Emily Lucas was the representative for the New Boston area. She noted that Emily Lucas was reminding the Town that site specific plans needed to be updated within a certain time period.
13. Read File: Notice from the Town of Londonderry, received March 15, 2010, re: wireless telecommunication facility application.
Douglas Hill acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
14. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing, March 23, 2010, from the Town of Windham, Board of Adjustment, received March 11, 2010, re: request for variance.
Douglas Hill acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
15. Read File: Notice from Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, re: Local Agricultural Commissions Workshop.
Douglas Hill acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
19. Read File: Natural Resources Advisory Committee Agenda, April 20, 2010, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission.
Douglas Hill acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
21. Election of Officers
The Coordinator advised that the election of officers for the Planning Board would take place at the beginning of the next meeting. She also noted that should the Board not be able to discuss the Earth Removal Regulations this evening the discussion would be scheduled for the beginning of next meeting as well.
20. Letter dated February 23, 2010, from Ernie Thibeault, re: Incremental escrow account deposits.
The Coordinator advised that Ernie Thibeault wanted the Board to consider allowing incremental deposits for construction monitoring for the Bussiere/Indian Falls/One Chestnut Hill Subdivisions. Douglas Hill asked if the Board currently allowed incremental deposits. The Coordinator answered no. It was Douglas Hill’s opinion to deny the request.
The Coordinator explained that three separate subdivisions previously existed, Indian Falls, Bussiere, and One Chestnut Hill. She continued that the three subdivisions had been purchased by one owner, Bussiere, and that construction would be completed all together. She stated that the final plans had been submitted for Kevin Leonard, P.E.’s, review. She explained that because initially there were three separate projects there were three separate construction monitoring estimates. She noted that the estimates appeared to be high for this project as construction for all the subdivisions was going to be completed at once. She stated that Kevin Leonard, P.E., was going to submit a new estimate based on all three projects being completed together.
The Coordinator explained that the applicant was requesting that the Planning Board allow incremental deposits for escrow rather than putting the full amount in all at once with an understanding that if it drops to a certain level more money will be put in. She noted that the full amount for the construction monitoring was not yet determined.
Douglas Hill stated that once the amount was determined the applicant should be required to submit the money as the Town requires all applicants. Mark Suennen stated that once Kevin Leonard, P.E., submitted an amount then the applicant could present the alternative scenario as opposed to making any arrangements prior to determining the amount for the inspections.
The Board decided to wait for the updated amount to be determined before discussing this matter further.
18. Letter dated March 22, 2010, from Kevin M. Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Review of Guarantee Worksheets, for the Board’s review and discussion. (worksheet attached)
The Coordinator stated that Kevin Leonard, P.E., had reviewed the unit prices on the Town’s bond estimate forms and made updated suggestions to those prices. She stated that it was Kevin Leonard, P.E.’s, opinion that the contingency fee of an additional 10% was low. She continued that Kevin Leonard, P.E., had provided examples from other towns of how they assess their contingency fees. She pointed out that the Town of Derry adds 20% of the subtotal with an additional 8% to account for escalation over a period of time.
Christine Quirk asked if the bond estimate form was previously completed in 2004. The Coordinator answered yes.
Mark Suennen agreed that the 10% contingency amount was low, however, he did not agree with the Town of Derry’s model. He asked if a bond had had to be called in the last eight years. The Coordinator answered no. Douglas Hill stated that he did not have an issue with keeping the current 10% contingency. Dean Mehlhorn stated that some of the proposed prices appeared to be high.
Douglas Hill asked for questions or comments from the Board; there were no further questions or comments.
It was the consensus of the Board to update the revised unit prices and keep the 10% contingency fee as is.
4a. Email received from Emile R. Bussiere, Jr., Esquire, of Bussiere & Bussiere, P.A. on March 17, 2010, re: bond option for Indian Falls and Susan Roads for the Board’s review & discussion.
4b. Draft copy, Control Agreement, re: 4a) above.
Douglas Hill addressed 4a and 4b together as they were related. The Coordinator explained that the applicant would like the Board to consider an alternative way of bonding; the applicant submitted his request and explanation via email on March 17, 2010. She noted that she was not familiar with the applicants proposed bonding and suggested that the Board submit the request to legal counsel for review.
Douglas Hill did not have an opinion on the matter. He asked for comments from the Board. Mark Suennen stated that he would not accept the applicant’s request without prior review from legal counsel. Dean Mehlhorn and Christine Quirk agreed to send the applicant’s bond request to legal counsel for review at the applicant’s expense.
The Board took a 5 minute recess prior to the start of the next hearing.
Douglas Hill appointed Dean Mehlhorn and Mark Suennen as full voting members in
Peter Hogan and Stu Lewin’s absence.
LEMAY, VICTOR & LISE S.
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/9 Lots
Location: Wilson Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #’s 9/21-5
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Brian Pratt, PE, Tim Leclair, Jay Marden, Bob Todd, LLS, James Denesevich, Burr Tupper, Ken Lombard, Peter Moloney, Nathan Chamberlin, P.E.
Brian Pratt, P.E., stated that at the last meeting a few outstanding issues remained: changes that needed to be made following the engineering review, revisions from the traffic study, and review of legal documents. He noted that information regarding off site improvements was needed from the Road Agent. He explained that the changes that needed to be made from the engineering review were minor. He stated that the shoulder for the guardrail was widened and pointed out its location on the plan. He noted that a swale was deepened from 1.8’ to 2’. He pointed out that ISWMPs had been completed for 5 of the lots. He explained that lots 1 and 2 had been combined to make lot 1. Tim LeClair added that the lots needed to be combined because there would not be any frontage for
lot 2 until the construction of the new road was completed. Brian Pratt, P.E., noted that lot 1 would be subdivided at a future time. He pointed out the location of a temporary driveway on the plan.
Douglas Hill asked Brian Pratt, P.E., to point out the location of the detention pond on the plan. Brian Pratt, P.E., indicated the location of the detention pond on the plan and stated that the pond had been expanded to meet the standards for a fifty year storm.
Brian Pratt, P.E., noted that with regard to the traffic study, CLD Engineering had come up with their information of a 30% and 70% split from a previously completed traffic study for the surrounding subdivisions. He explained that after taking a closer look at the information it appeared that the subdivision was closer to the intersection of Bedford Road and Wilson Hill Road creating a 50% spilt. He stated that an addendum was submitted that contained the updated traffic study information.
Brian Pratt, P.E., advised that the legal documents had been revised to reflect the merger of lots 1 and 2. He explained that Town Counsel had made a few minor changes that he subsequently added to the documents and emailed to the Coordinator. He noted that because he had emailed the revisions on February 22, 2010, he was unsure if Town Counsel had received the documents for final review.
Brian Pratt, P.E., stated that he had prepared a waiver request for the road length. He explained the reason for the request was due to a discrepancy with the interpretation of the road length. He continued that he had interpreted the start of the road length at the right-of-way and the Town interpreted the start of the road length at the centerline. He noted that using his interpretation the road length was designed to be 999’. He pointed out that using the Town’s interpretation added 24’ to the road, creating the need to request a waiver for the additional length. He stated that reasons the Board should consider approving the waiver were that fire protection facilities existed, and the subdivision was under the maximum distance of 2,200’ from an existing cistern to
the end of the cul-de-sac. He explained that the proposed location of the cul-de-sac fit in better with the terrain than an alternative of shifting the cul-de-sac back. He explained that the area of the proposed cul-de-sac flattened out whereas shifting the location back would require further excavation as it was a steeper area. He added that shortening the cul-de-sac would require the road being redesigned and revision of the lots and easements. Douglas Hill asked if the regulations clearly stated where the cul-de-sac should be started. Brian Pratt, P.E., advised that the regulations state, “from the intersection”. Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator to make a note of this issue. Brian Pratt, P.E., commented that the regulations did clearly state that the road ends at “the throat of the cul-de-sac”. Douglas Hill asked if intersection was defined in the regulations. The Coordinator answered no and
continued that the intersection was always interpreted as centerline of the road coming on.
Brian Pratt, P.E., stated that he was awaiting information from the Road Agent with regard to the fair share amount of the offsite improvement fees. Douglas Hill advised that the Board had been provided with the offsite improvement information and would discuss same before the close of the hearing.
Brian Pratt, P.E., asked the Board for a conditional approval as the deadline for the 65 day for Planning Board decision was nearing. Douglas Hill asked if there were any outstanding issues that would prohibit a conditional approval. The Coordinator informed the Board that they did not have the final review of the road plans and bond amount. Brian Pratt, P.E., stated that he had received an email from Kevin Leonard, P.E., this afternoon with regard to the road plans in which Kevin Leonard, P.E., indicated that he would not have the second review of the road plans completed for the meeting, however, he did have a chance to glance over the latest submission material and that many of the comments identified in the letter had been addressed. Douglas Hill pointed out that should the applicant receive
conditional approval without the bond estimate amount included they might not be happy when the amount was finalized. Brian Pratt, P.E., asked if the bond could be negotiated following the conditional approval. It was Douglas Hill’s opinion that the applicant should not request a conditional approval without the bond estimate. The Coordinator asked what form the bond would be, i.e., letter of credit, bond, or cash. Tim LeClair answered that the bond would most likely be in the form of a letter of credit. The Coordinator noted that if the letter or credit was supplied from a bank or company that the Planning Office was not familiar with or has language that has not been seen before legal review could be required.
Douglas Hill gave Brian Pratt, P.E., a copy of the Road Agent’s offsite improvement information.
Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, of 47 River Road stated that the Conservation Commission had received a phone call from a resident in the area of the subdivision with regard to a potential problem with the erosion control measures that were being exercised. He stated that he had spoken with Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, who had told him that he was unsure if there were any issues. He continued that if there were potential issues he would like to make sure that there were proper erosion control measures in place. Douglas Hill stated that for 5 of the questionable lots ISWMP were created with erosion control and sediment plans. Tim LeClair noted that lot 1 and 2 do have erosion control sediment plans.
Douglas Hill asked Mark Suennen for his opinion on the waiver of the cul-de-sac length. Mark Suennen commented that the applicant provided an adequate reason to waive the additional 24’ and he would be willing to accept the waiver. Dean Mehlhorn stated that he would be willing to accept the waiver. Christine Quirk stated that she would like to see the road measurement starting point clarified for future subdivisions. She stated that she would accept the waiver.
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the waiver of the 1,000’ maximum cul-de-sac road length to allow for 1,024’ in the case of Fieldstone Drive based on the reasons to support the waiver listed in the letter of March 16, 2010. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator if the updated traffic information, i.e., 50% split for the traffic leaving the subdivision to the north and south, caused changes to the offsite road improvement information. The Coordinator referred the Board to the tax maps for the remaining developable land on Wilson Hill Road. She stated that assumptions had been made as to whether or not subdivisions were likely to take place on open lots. She noted that the Highland Hills subdivision reflected a 50% split. She continued that the 70% and 30% split information came from the Hutchinson Road subdivision but this was when Hutchinson Road was going to be a through road to Inkberry and it made sense that traffic at the bottom of the hill would be more likely to use River Road. When Hutchinson Lane was made
into a cul-de-sac the traffic study was not updated and the 70% / 30% split remained. She noted that all traffic now came to the Byam Road/Wilson Hill Road intersection and a 50/50 split was probably more likely. She stated that there were three identified improvement projects: the Wilson Hill/Bedford Road sight distance improvement; the improvement by John Gingrich’s house; and, shim coating Byam Road. The Coordinator noted that the offsite road improvement formula calculated this applicant’s fair share of the improvements to be 7%. She stated that she had given the Board information on what 7% of each of the improvement projects would be, but noted that discussion could take place based on traffic distribution as to whether one or other of the projects was more heavily weighted for this subdivision.
Tim LeClair thought that the most traffic would use Bedford Road but the highest dollar amount was for shimming Byam Road. He said he would not argue the issue. Douglas Hill asked if inflation was factored in to the formula. The Coordinator replied that it was not. Mark Suennen noted that the subdivision had 8 lots now but the trip numbers were based on 9 lots. He noted that the Board could not go back when lot 1 is subdivided and ask for more offsite improvements. This was acknowledged.
Dean Mehlhorn MOVED to accept the offsite road improvements amount as indicated in the formula calculation presented to the Board. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dean Mehlhorn MOVED to extend the deadline for Board action on the application, Victor & Lise S. Lemay, Location: Wilson Hill Road, Tax/Map Lot # 9/21-5, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, and adjourn the application to April 13, 2010, at 7:30 p.m. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
TWIN BRIDGE LAND MANAGEMENT, LLC
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/26 Lots
Location: Twin Bridge Rd & West Lull Place
Tax Map/Lot #2/62-12 & 3/5
MHP w/R-1 allowance & “R-A” District
Douglas Hill read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, Charlie Cleary, Esq., Jay Marden, Bob Todd, LLS, James Denesevich, Burr Tupper, Ken Lombard, Joel Bedard, Donna Mombourquette and Peter Moloney.
Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., of Meridian Land Services introduced himself to the Board. He indicated that Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, and Charlie Cleary, Esquire were present also.He stated that he was present to discuss the above-referenced subdivision. He continued that the subdivision would be Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the Twin Bridge Estates subdivision. He explained that Phase 2 involved two parcels, Tax/Map Lot #2/62-12 (28 acres) and Tax Map/Lot #3/5. He pointed out that Tax Map/Lot #2/62-12 was zoned for manufactured housing and/or the R-1 District and that Tax Map/Lot #3/5 was zoned R-A. He stated that the applicant was proposing the development of Tax/Map Lot #2/62-12 as a standard 1.5 acre lot subdivision. He identified an access road as well as a 700’ cul-de-sac that would be
constructed for the subdivision. He stated that the applicant proposed to make Tax/Map Lot #3/5 an open space subdivision.
Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., commented that during the conceptual process of the subdivision the applicant had received opposition from local environmental groups with regard to the proposed road placement. He explained that through working closely with the environmental groups the plan that was before the Board was created. He stated that a cluster subdivision was utilized and moved the lots away from the Piscataquog River in turn preserving a large esker along the river; he indicated the location of the subdivision on the plan. He noted that the subdivision required four wetland crossings for which he had obtained state permits. He further noted that he had also obtained the required AOT permits. He stated that he had been working closely with the Russell Foundation who had requested creating
a larger wetlands setback for the lots along the river; 100’ rear setbacks were created. He stated that the applicant intended to continue developing entry level homes as was done for Phase 1.
Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., informed the Board that he had been working closely with DES and NH Fish & Game with regard to the dredge and fill permits, wetland crossings, and AOT permits. He explained that per request of the aforementioned agencies oversized culverts with natural bottoms would be used for the wetland crossings to accommodate aquatic species as well as to facilitate water flow. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated that grading plans and ISWMPs had been submitted for the entire project. He pointed out the location of two eskers on the plan and explained that excavation would take place through those eskers at the same time to stabilize the area.
Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated that the applicant intended to phase the proposed subdivision. He noted that a cistern would be installed for the subdivision approximately 1,800’ away from an existing cistern.
Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., explained that several retention basins were proposed for purposes of mitigating storm water away from the development. He added that the retention basin proposal was created under the new rules for the state. Douglas Hill asked how many retention basins were being proposed. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., answered nine separate basins were being proposed and added that it was advantageous to construct several smaller basins rather than one large basin. He explained that swales would be constructed on each side of the road near wetlands to prevent discharge into the wetlands; he indicated the locations of the proposed retention basins on the plan.
Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., indicated that the applicant was seeking a waiver for the road road length. He explained that initially Tax/Map Lot #3/5 was proposed as a standard subdivision with a through road and was met with opposition from the environmental groups, DES, and abutters. Douglas Hill asked if DES had denied the permit for the wetland crossing. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., clarified that the wetland crossing had been permitted by DES but that DES preferred not to have it. He stated that if the road length waiver was denied it would be necessary for the applicant to submit new AOT and subdivision permits and a through road would be constructed. He also pointed out that the applicant was forfeiting marketability of hislots by creating 1 acre lots as opposed to 2 acre lots to accommodate the
alternative road plan. He also pointed out that by attempting to work with the environmental groups and DES the creation of the proposed road would cause the applicant to lose the development of 4 lots. He continued that 36 acres of the 55 acres would be placed into open space to preserve the adjacent wildlife corridor. It was Nathan Chamberlin’s opinion that by granting the waiver the Town benefited by gaining open space.
Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated that it was the applicant’s goal to have the plan approved this evening and schedule a site walk. He indicated that all the required items had been submitted.
Nathan Chamberlin, P.E, informed the Board that the applicant was requesting awaiver for the Environmental Impact Study. He explained that Tax/Map Lot #3/5 had been subject to significant review from environmental groups. He continued that all the environmental concerns had been identified and addressed and further study was not necessary.
Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated that a Fiscal Impact Study was submitted that showed minor negative tax impact. He stated that a Traffic Impact Study was also completed and revealed that the subdivision would not drop the level of service of the nearby intersections.
Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., invited questions from the Board. Mark Suennen asked if the Fire Department had approved the cistern placement and the 3,000’ cul-de-sac. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., answered that the Fire Department would not support the waiver for additional road length. He continued that it was his understanding that the Fire Department would raise any objections to the cistern through the Town’s review of the subdivision. Douglas Hill asked for clarification that the proposed subdivision would not be proposing sprinkler systems. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E, confirmed that sprinkler systems were not being proposed.
Dorothy Gagnon of 283 Twin Bridge Road asked how many lots were being proposed for Phase 2 and Phase 3. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., answered that Phase 2 would consist of 10 lots and Phase 3 would consist of 16 lots.
James Denesevich of 42 West Lull Place asked what approval had been given with regard the access road. Douglas Hill answered that approval had not yet been granted. He explained that if the plan was approved there would only be one point of access. He continued that should the Board not approve the proposed plan with the cul-de-sac the applicant has indicated that permits had been obtained to create the less desired through road. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated that the applicant had obtained a dredge and fill permit for a wetland crossing. James Denesevich stated that he had reviewed the proposed plan and was unclear about Note #7 and asked for an explanation. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated that Note #7 referenced a driveway easement that existed on Tax/Map Lot #3/5 for the benefit
of the Martel’s lot. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., read Note #7 of the plan aloud. Jason Martel of 41 West Lull Place stated that he purchased his property 5 ½ years ago with an agreement that the easement would be part of lot 1 with a driveway. He continued that he wanted to settle the easement space to finish creating his yard. It was Jason Martel’s opinion that the proposed plan was the best plan he has seen for this subdivision. He added that the plan appeared to cover all interested parties’ needs. He asked, should the plan be approved, what would happen with respect to the easement on his property. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., answered that he had not read the easements but believed the easement land in question would become part of the open space.
Joel Bedard, Conservation Commission, of Greenfield Road was concerned about the Environmental Impact Study being waived because the permits will most likely require baseline information for comparison purposes. He stated that it was not his intention to create a financial hardship for the applicant but was concerned if an issue arose with the ecological integrity of the property there would not be a reference point to refer to without an Environmental Impact Study. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated that he believed an Environmental Impact Study had been completed for Tax/Map Lot #3/5 and represented that a study could be created. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, stated that Gordon Russell and Ian McSweeney had substantial baseline data on the property and should an Environmental Impact Study be
required the applicant would look to the Russell Foundation to do so.
Douglas Hill asked for any further questions or comments from the audience. Jay Marden of Gregg Mill Road commented that the proposed plan was an excellent solution to a long term problem. He continued that the plan appeared to meet all interested parties’ needs. He pointed out the location of two eskers from an aerial photograph of the property and labeled them A and B. He was concerned with the proposed grade cuts for the lots and wanted to know how much material would be removed from the eskers and where the material would be placed. He added that it appeared that 6 lots would require substantial cuts in the most important part of the esker. He asked if there was an agreement to create 100’ setbacks for the proposed lots in the area in question. Nathan Chamberlin,
P.E., confirmed that the lots along the river would have 100’ setbacks; he pointed out the location on the plan. Douglas Hill asked what the elevation would between the back yard and the top of the esker. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., answered 20’ of cut and 16’ of fill on the downhill side. He stated that the goal was to balance the site and this had been accomplished to the greatest extent possible. He advised that the applicant would offer the excess material to the Town. Douglas Hill did not think that offering the material to the Town was an option. He asked if the left side of the esker was for fill. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., confirmed that the left side of the esker was for a fill section. He added that it was 3:1 going towards the river. Jay Marden asked for clarification that the area of the esker he believed was a cut was actually a fill. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., confirmed that the area of the esker
that caused Jay Marden concern was indeed a fill area not a cut. Jay Marden stated that he had misinterpreted the plan as he thought the proposed plan required that the esker be cut.
Dorothy Gagnon asked if Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., anticipated removing a significant amount of material to complete the project. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated that he did not anticipate removing a lot of material and that most of the material would be moved around on the property.
Dorothy Gagnon asked how long the project would last. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., answered that the project would last possibly one or two years.
A resident of 283 Twin Bridge Road asked how far the proposed road would start from the existing cistern. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., answered that distance from the proposed road to the existing cistern was about 75’.
Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, commented that he would like to see an Environmental Impact Study completed. He stated that he would like see some type of planting on the eskers at the completion of the grading to minimize the runoff. He stated that he believed the permit the applicant had for the wetland crossing on West Lull Place was only for the crossing and not for a road. He believed that based on the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act and the Town of New Boston’s Wetland Ordinance it would be difficult to have a road approved out to West Lull Place. He also commented that the proposed plan was the best plan he had seen with regard to environmental impact. He added that the proposed wetland crossings were good for the property.
Donna Mombourquette of 42 West Lull Place stated that she had concern with the most southern and eastern eskers as they were the last barriers to noise and dust related to the project. She referenced a court opinion from the Hillsborough County Superior Court with regard to the ZBA’s denial of a gravel operation on the property. She noted that the opinion supported her concern for the degradation of the southern esker. Donna Mombourquette commented that she was pleased there would not be any work done on the eastern esker. She asked the Board not to approve the plan, citing potential damage to the southern esker. She was also concerned that the property could be used as a gravel operation should gravel be taken from the property and not be used appropriately. She noted that a
request to operate a gravel pit had been denied. She stated that a permit for the wetland crossing had not been granted by DES. She explained that DES had
clearly stated that a road could not be constructed with the exception for emergency access. She also noted her concern that PRLAC had not received the proposed plan for review. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., clarified that PRLAC had been sent the plans for review. Donna Mombourqette argued that Dick Ludders had not received Phase 2 of the plan. She added that because PRLAC had not received the plan they had not been able to comment on it. She continued that in accordance with RSA 483:12-A, PRLAC needed to be allowed review of the plan for comment. It was Nathan Chamberlin, P.E.’s, understanding that PRLAC had received the proposed plan. Donna Mombourquette stated that she had spoken with Dick Ludders this evening and he had advised that the meeting minutes of January 21, 2010, reflected that
only Phase 1 of the plan had been received and not Phase 2. Douglas Hill asked for Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., to follow-up with this issue. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., agreed to follow-up and stated that PRLAC had received the proposed road plan. He noted that the applicant was not required to submit the master grading plan to PRLAC for review.
Ian McSweeney of the Russell Foundation commented that the Foundation was in strong support of the open space of the proposed plan. He pointed out that under the proposed plan there would not be access to an area of the river that was deemed natural and that the open space was contiguous. He wanted the Board to take into consideration the following advantages of approving the plan; increased rear setbacks, sight line toward the esker, and open space being held in deed by the Town or third party. He with regard to PRLAC reviewing the plans, he was present at the meeting referenced by Donna Mombourquette and he noted that PRLAC was in strong support of the open space as well as the layout of the lots.
Douglas Hill asked the Board for further comments or questions. Mark Suennen stated that the Board had in the past required Environmental Impact Studies for locations that were less environmentally sensitive than this subdivision. He believed it was ridiculous to waive an Environmental Study for this subdivision. Dean Mehlhorn, Christine Quirk and Stu Lewin agreed with Mark Suennen’s statement.
Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator if the application was complete. The Coordinator advised that a waiver request had been submitted for the Environmental Impact Study and a motion to deny the request was necessary. She continued that because the study was not completed the application would not be complete. She stated that the application could be accepted with a condition that the Environmental Impact study be completed.
Mark Suennen MOVED to deny the waiver for avoiding an Environmental Impact Study and require an Environmental Impact Study to be submitted with the application. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Mark Suennen MOVED to accept the application as complete contingent upon the receipt of the Environmental Impact Study. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
A site walk was scheduled for Saturday, April 17, 2010, at 8:30 a.m. Nathan
Chamberlin, P.E., asked the Board Members to meet him at the cistern for the site walk. Douglas Hill stated that any person(s) interested in attending the site walk needed to receive permission from the applicant. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., gave permission for interested parties to attend the site walk.
Stu Lewin asked for clarification on when the Environmental Impact Study needed to be submitted. Douglas Hill answered that the study needed to be submitted one week prior to the next hearing, April 27, 2010.
Mark Suennen MOVED to adjourn Twin Bridge Land Management, LLC, Location: Twin Bridge Road & West Lull Place, Tax Map/Lot #2/62-12 & 3/5, MHP w/R-1 allowance & “R-A” District, to April 27, 2010, at 7:30 p.m. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
5. Letter received March 18, 2010, from Reggie Houle, to the New Boston Planning Department, re: letter for credit for Daylily Lane Subdivision for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator advised that no bond existed for the above-referenced subdivision. She explained that during the process of reviewing the bond to be renewed it expired and was not renewed. She stated that the subdivision was stabilized and the only work remaining was a topcoat of pavement and shoulder work. She advised that she had spoken with Reggie Houle and he had been unable to secure financing for the project.
The Board agreed that a letter should be mailed to Reggie Houle advising that he should continue to maintain the road and when he was ready for the road to be accepted, schedule a hearing with the Board.
Stu Lewin asked if this was the first time a bond had expired prior to renewal. The Coordinator answered yes, this was the first instance in which a bond had expired. Stu Lewin asked if procedures had been put in place to avoid this issue in the future. The Coordinator stated that at one point the Planning Office was in contact with TD Bank with acknowledgements that the bond needed to be renewed. She stated that she was unsure what transpired to cause the expiration of the bond prior to renewal.
11. Construction Services Report from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: Karen M. Morin Rev. Trust, Daylily Ln. & Greenfield Rd. project, for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that she had inquired if there was a way to reduce the amount of the bond that was being held in the above-referenced matter to make it easier for the applicant to receive financing; she noted that it was not possible to reduce the bond. Mark Suennen asked if there was enough money in escrow to pay for Northpoint’s services with regard to this matter. The Coordinator advised that money remained in an account to pay for inspections. Christine Quirk asked if there was enough money in the account to complete the road. The Coordinator answered that there was not enough money to complete the road.
16. Discussion, re: Earth Removal Regulations. (continued from January 26, 2010, meeting)
The Board agreed to discuss the above-referenced matter at the following meeting.
17. Memorandum dated March 22, 2010, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Stuart Lewin, Chairman, and Planning Board Members, re: Cul-de-sacs, with attachments.
The Coordinator determined through research that since the Town had a cul-de-sac length requirement 30 cul-de-sacs had been approved and 24 cul-de-sacs had been approved with waivers to allow longer lengths. She stated that prior to 2004 the length of the allowed cul-de-sacs was 600’ and after 2004 to the present day the allowed length was 1,000’. She explained that the issue of cul-de-sac length would continue to be brought up and as such she had looked to other towns for innovative ideas in resolving this issue. She stated that she had found other ideas that could potentially help the Town when faced with making decisions with regard to access to property. She suggested that the Board review the above-referenced material for further discussion.
21. Election of Officers Discussion.
Douglas Hill asked the Board for any interest in officer positions on the Board. Stu Lewin was interested in continuing to act as Chairman. The Coordinator stated that the position of Secretary should be filled. She explained that the Secretary along with the Chairman signs the plans and documents. Mark Suennen declined the position of Secretary as his signature on plans could be interpreted as a P.E. stamp. It was determined that Dean Mehlhorn could not be Secretary as he was an alternate. The Coordinator suggested electing Peter Hogan as Secretary. She noted that the Vice Chairman could continue to sign plans and documents until a Secretary was determined.
Dean Mehlhorn MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Valerie Diaz, Recording Clerk
Minutes Approved: 04/13/10
| 
