The meeting was called to order at 6:38 p.m. by Chairman Douglas Stu Lewin. Present were regular members Mark Suennen, Douglas Hill and Peter Hogan, 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 Jay Marden, Kevin Leonard, P.E., Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, Tris Gordon, Jason Martel, James Denesevich, Donna Mombourquette, Brandi Mitroff, Willard Dodge, Tom Miller, Ken Lombard, David Elliot, and Ian McSweeney.
Discussion, re: Earth Removal Regulations (continued from April 13, 2010, meeting)
The Coordinator stated that there should not be too much in depth discussion as she was just going to go through the changes that she had incorporated from the previous meeting.
The Coordinator referred the Board to page seven of the Earth Removal Regulations and noted that after speaking with Bill Drescher, Esq., he had advised her to copy the language that was contained in Section B on page eight to Section A on page seven.
The Coordinator referred the Board to page fifteen of the Earth Removal Regulations item #2. She explained that language regarding native species was added, however, she had yet to speak with Lyn Lombard to this regard. She added that she would double check with Lyn Lombard prior to the scheduling of a public hearing. She explained that the question was whether warm season grasses could be considered non-native species.
The Coordinator referred the Board to page sixteen of the Earth Removal Regulations. She noted that the waiver section had been moved to the end of the document. She also noted that a paragraph had been added to address gravel pits located in the Groundwater Conservation District and advised owners to review the Zoning Ordinance and follow procedures as listed.
The Coordinator referred the Board to page seventeen of the Earth Removal Regulations. She stated that item #5 had been added that addressed regional impact.
The Coordinator referred the Board to page eighteen of the Earth Removal Regulations. She advised that “notifying the nearest upstream dam owners” had been added to the Notice Requirements. The Chairman asked if the notice was only given to the first, nearest dam owner. The Coordinator answered yes and stated that Shannon Silver had found a fact sheet that DES had posted on their website. She indicated that the Planning Department would be posting the fact sheet on the Town website for surveyors to refer to with regard to notification questions.
The Coordinator referred the Board to page nineteen of the Earth Removal Regulations and advised that dam owners would be added to the list under item #2.
The Coordinator referred the Board to page twenty of the Earth Removal Regulations. She indicated that she would be splitting out the two items that were not required for a completed application into the section that contained requirements for final approval. She advised that a Bill was currently making its way through the House that would prohibit Towns from requiring any permits or approvals from any other government agencies for a completed application.
The Coordinator referred the Board to page twenty-one of the Earth Removal Regulations. She informed the Board that she had blended item #14 with item #4.
The Coordinator referred the Board to page twenty-two of the Earth Removal Regulations. She noted that she had added the language regarding invasive species to item #27. She also added item #30 that addressed stump dump locations. She noted that she had spoken to Bill Drescher, Esq., about the section regarding access roads. She explained that the requirement stated that access roads should be taken out unless the Regulator asks them to be retained. She indicated that she had asked Bill Drescher, Esq., why the Board would require an applicant to keep an access road open. She advised that Bill Drescher, Esq., had answered that the Board could require an access road be kept open for reasons of code compliance, i.e., reclamation, or other appropriate functions. She further advised that Bill
Drescher, Esq., believed it was a good thing to have listed.
The Coordinator referred the Board to page twenty-three of the Earth Removal Regulations. She noted that a shutdown time of 5:00 p.m. had been added to the material processing section. She also added a reference to the Zoning Ordinance for the Groundwater Resources Protection District. She pointed out that the maximum excavation limit was 4’ which matched the Groundwater Resources Conservation District.
The Coordinator referred the Board to page twenty-four of the Earth Removal Regulations. She noted that the language, “and shall be shown on the plan”, was added with regard to stump dumps. She also noted that there was a cross-reference to another section that was added.
The Coordinator referred the Board to page twenty-five of the Earth Removal Regulations. She noted that the stopping of removal operations had been changed to one year.
The Coordinator referred the Board to page twenty-six of the Earth Removal Regulations. She noted that “native trees and no invasive species” was added under reclamation.
The Coordinator referred the Board to page twenty-seven of the Earth Removal Regulations. She stated that it was a three year permit with a thirty month automatic withdrawal. She further stated that the waiver section had been changed to include the language “hardships” and “specific circumstances” that matched the Subdivision Regulations.
The Chairman asked for comments or questions. Mark Suennen commented that he was pleased with the changes. The Coordinator advised that she would now review the document for typographical errors, get it into a final format, and send off to the gravel pit owners and invite them to a public information session. The Board scheduled the public information session for June 22, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.
The Chairman addressed an unrelated matter of scheduling Planning Board meetings during July and August. He asked the Coordinator if the Board would be meeting once in July and once in August. The Coordinator advised that the Board could discuss the matter and decide. Douglas Hill commented that he preferred meeting only once in July and August. Peter Hogan also preferred having one meeting in July and August. The Chairman wanted to ensure that enough notice was given to the public and asked the Coordinator to schedule the discussion under Miscellaneous Business at the next meeting.
MISCELLANOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2010.
1. Discussion with Kevin Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, re: ConstructionAdministration Line, Construction Monitoring Estimates. (Kevin will be present)
8. Letter dated April 23, 2010, from Kevin Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, toNicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Classification of Construction Monitoring Billing Practices, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman addressed number 1 and 8 together as they were related. Kevin Leonard, P.E., was present.
The Coordinator stated that at the previous meeting an applicant of a pending subdivision raised the question of what the 20% construction administration line was on the monitoring estimate. She added that the Board thought it was a good idea to speak with Kevin Leonard, P.E., to address this issue.
Kevin Leonard, P.E., stated that he was present to revisit the construction administration line item on the escrow estimate. He indicated that the 20% administration line was intended to cover administrative type things that are involved in a project, i.e., pre-construction meeting, site meetings, collaboration with staff, bond administration, periodic written correspondence, design/ field changes, technical review of shop drawings, coordination with utility providers or NHDOT, abutter complaints, and scheduling and coordination between contractors and soil consultants.
Kevin Leonard, P.E., asked the Board for any specific questions. The Chairman noted that the contract bid that Kevin Leonard, P.E., submitted for services provided by Northpoint Engineering contained an hourly rate as well as an administration fee. He asked how the tasks that Kevin Leonard, P.E., previously listed were different from tasks that would be accounted for in the hourly rate. Kevin Leonard, P.E., answered that the tasks were not different and they were not billed to the Town on an hourly basis. He explained that every job, contractor, and superintendent require a different amount of work and as such it was difficult to quantify in hours what that amount of work was going to require. He continued that 20% administration fee was the method used by the previous consultant for the Town and was
presented to Northpoint Engineering when they began their work for the Town. He added that all bills were billed out at an hourly rate. He stated that when he conducted a bond reduction, it was necessary to review plans and interact with developers and engineers. He explained that he generated a report that reflected the work that he did and submitted it with an invoice.
The Chairman asked if Kevin Leonard, P.E.’s, estimates included an estimated number of hours to cover the project. Kevin Leonard, P.E., answered that he estimated hours for certain construction milestones. He explained that the Town wanted him to be present for certain steps along the progress of construction such as laying pipe, putting in gravel, and erosion control. He continued that he provided a manual breakdown for all those types of items. He went on to say that he reviewed a project and made an estimate on what he believed would be the work he would invest in monitoring those milestones to the satisfaction of the Town. The Chairman asked for clarification that Kevin Leonard, P.E., created his estimates from a list of predetermined construction milestones. Kevin Leonard, P.E., confirmed
the Chairman’s statement. The Chairman asked if the 20% administration fee covered all other things that were not listed as specific line items in the estimate. Kevin Leonard, P.E., answered yes and added that the 20% covered administrative type things that vared from one job to the next. He continued that the 20% administrative fee would be billed to the Town or directly to the developer on an hourly basis with back up reports explaining itemizing work completed.
Peter Hogan stated that the Town should have invoices that reduce the 20% cost estimate by line item. Kevin Leonard, P.E., advised that all the submitted invoices reflected hours worked at a specific rate in addition to reimbursable expenses, i.e., mileage, postage, and soil consulting that was subcontracted through Northpoint Engineering. He stated that there were no mark-ups or 20% add-ons. He explained that the invoice listed the person working and number of hours worked. He added that the report that was submitted with the invoice advised of what work had been completed for every hour worked.
The Chairman clarified that the 20% was Kevin Leonard, PE's best estimate of an amount to cover administration and for larger projects it was a larger number because it was based on the lint item breakdown of construction milestones. Kevin Leonard, P.E., answered that larger projects required more administration. He stated that the number was just intended to establish what the escrow would be but the actual billing of those hours was based on worked performed. The Chairman asked if at the end of a project only 16% was spent then the 4% would be returned. Kevin Leonard, P.E., answered yes. Kevin Leonard, P.E., stated that the 20% administration fee amount came from the Town’s previous consultant and he just carried it on through his contract.
Douglas Hill asked how many linear feet were contained in the road length of the Bussiere project. Kevin Leonard, P.E., answered that he did not know off the top of his head. He added that the bond value was $1.5 million +/-. Douglas Hill commented that the estimated escrow of $88,000.00 was the highest in Town. He stated that he was curious how the bond estimate matched compared to the linear feet of the project. Kevin Leonard, P.E., noted that he could provide the linear feet information.
The Chairman asked how long Kevin Leonard, P.E., had worked for the Town. Kevin Leonard, P.E., answered that he was in his fourth year working for the Town. The Chairman asked if over the past four years Kevin Leonard, P.E., had had the opportunity to review the actuals to compare how close they come to the 20%. Kevin Leonard, P.E., answered that he did not track what work was construction administration. He stated that he did track the construction monitoring and money spent. He pointed out that all the projects that had been accepted by the Town had come in under the estimated escrow. The Chairman offered that a calculation could be performed comparing actuals to the estimate before the 20% was added. He indicated that after the calculations if the numbers were consistently coming in at 20%
then the estimate would be okay but if the estimate was consistently at 10% then the estimate was too high. Kevin Leonard, P.E., stated that in some cases the man hour estimates were high. He continued that he was given direction to create an escrow that would cover all the work. He noted that there were many variables that contributed to the determination of what work was required. He stated that with regard to the Twin Bridge Estates subdivision it was possible that the man hours estimated was half of what had been estimated and that it was possible that the construction administration was 40%. He added that it depended on how the project progressed and what circumstances he would react to on daily basis during the construction process.
Douglas Hill asked if Kevin Leonard, P.E., put his subcontractors out to bid. Kevin Leonard, P.E., answered that he had not bid out his subcontractors. Douglas Hill believed that it was a reasonable request to ask Kevin Leonard, P.E., to put his subcontractors out to bid. Kevin Leonard, P.E., stated that he would entertain the request and continued that he has had a relationship with a firm that has done a good job.
The Chairman suggested that Kevin Leonard, P.E., add the 20% construction administration fee cost to the line items in the estimate. Kevin Leonard, P.E., stated that he billed everything hourly. He pointed out that the contract stated that he hired the soils consultant and that the cost is marked up 15%.
The Chairman reiterated that Kevin Leonard, P.E., should put out a bid for subcontractors to validate the amount. Kevin Leonard, P.E., stated that he had no problem putting a bid out for subcontractors.
Mark Suennen asked which subcontractor Northpoint Engineering used. Kevin Leonard, P.E., answered Terracon, formerly JGI Eastern. He added that he had worked with them for a long time with good results.
The Chairman asked for any questions or comments. Peter Hogan believed that the 20% administrative line looked pretty rich. He stated that there may be nothing that can be done to change the amount, however, he believed from the contractor’s point of view the amount of money spent to have Kevin Leonard, P.E., babysit a fire cistern installation was shocking. He asked if it had been decided to hire Michie Corp. to install fire cisterns. The Chairman pointed out that fire cisterns were not included in the 20% construction administration line item. Peter Hogan said 20% of the cost was. He asked again if a decision had been made to hire Michie Corp. to install fire cisterns. The Coordinator answered that using Michie Corp. products was an option for the Town. Peter Hogan asked in cases
where a developer used Michie Corp., the builder and warranty provider for the fire cistern, would Kevin Leonard, P.E., plan on supervising the installation and if so what would be the point. Kevin Leonard, P.E., clarified that Michie Corp. did not build the fire cistern in its entirety. He explained that Michie Corp. installed the tanks and hardware at the site after the contractor had prepared it to the specifications. He continued that after the cistern was in place Michie Corp. would provide the contractor with specifications for back fill and final treatment and then he would leave the contractor to complete the project. Peter Hogan commented that the Town would still be in the same position because if the contractor backfilled the project incorrectly and the system failed the tank manufacturer would blame the contractor. He noted that the only difference was that now the Town would have a system with twice as many parts as a fiberglass tank.
Kevin Leonard, P.E., disagreed with Peter Hogan’s statement and went on to say that he believed the Michie cistern was a good product and had less potential for failure than the fiberglass product. He stated that he had been involved in discussions with the Fire Wards relative to the cistern regulations because the current cistern regulations did not mention the Michie cisterns. He pointed out that there were also a lot of conflicting regulations and preferences of the Fire Ward’s that were not reflected in the regulations. He stated that he was working on drafting a revised copy of the cistern regulations. Kevin Leonard, PE, noted that discussion had occurred that it did not make sense to require a blanket inspection fee as systems varied. He added that the Michie cistern required less inspection time compared to the cast in place cisterns. Peter Hogan stated that it was now his understanding that Michie Corp. would not be
installing the cisterns. He noted that Dan MacDonald had represented to the Board that Michie Corp. would be conducting the installations of the cisterns. He continued that it was a good idea to have the manufacturer be the installer because the blame could only be placed on Michie Corp. for any failures. Kevin Leonard, P.E., stated that Michie Corp. would be responsible for all of the complicated work. Peter Hogan stated that what sold him on the Michie system was that Michie Corp. would be the only one involved and there would be no doubt that they were responsible for any warranty issues. He noted that this issue should weigh heavily during Kevin Leonard, P.E.’s, revisions of the cistern regulations. Dean Mehlhorn believed that Michie Corp. would put the cistern together on site but may not be digging the hole. Peter Hogan stated that if Michie Corp. did not dig the hole and a situation occurred that the cistern settled causing
failure the Town would then be responsible for the repairs.
Peter Hogan commented that the line item of 20% for the overall project for administrative fee looked suspiciously like Northpoint Engineering was billing to bill. Kevin Leonard, P.E., promised the Board that he was not billing to bill. Peter Hogan stated that he would like to have a memo attached to invoices that would show exactly what was being billed for this such as pre-construction meetings. Kevin Leonard, P.E., noted that itemized work could be found in the reports.
The Chairman asked if Kevin Leonard, P.E.’s, proposal only indicated 20% for administrative fees and if so he suggested that language be added that listed exactly what could be included in the fee, as explained to the Board at the beginning of the meeting. Kevin Leonard, P.E., stated that the Chairman’s suggestion was a very good idea that he would be happy to do.
The Chairman asked for any further comments or questions from the Board; there were no further comments or questions.
The Chairman restated that the Board would like to see Kevin Leonard, P.E., put out bids for his subcontractors this year and consider enumerating on the estimates to make it clear to the developer exactly what the administration line item covered. Kevin Leonard, P.E., commented that the Board had made good suggestions. Mark Suennen stated that the Board could encourage developers to build quickly and efficiently because the longer a project took the more often Kevin Leonard, P.E., would need to visit the site in turn drawing down the escrow.
2. Discussion, re: Outcome of special cul-de-sac meeting.
The Chairman stated that the Board had a meeting with the Fire Department, Police
Department, Conservation Commission, School, and Highway Department. He indicated that a polling at the end of the meeting produced a consensus in the opinion of those other agencies that there was not a reasonable alternative or any mitigating circumstances that would allow a cul-de-sac length greater than 1,000’. He continued that their recommendation was to follow the current regulation that permitted cul-de-sac lengths up to 1,000’ that they had established five years ago.
The Chairman asked the Board if they should have a discussion on this matter or if the Board should continue to review the cul-de-sac length issue on a case by case basis.
Mark Suennen referred the Board to bullet five of the cul-de-sac meeting memorandum that stated the following, “It is a kick in the teeth when the Planning Board ignores the advice of the experts on the Technical Review Committee.” He stated that the Technical Review Committee felt that what they did in their meetings were directions to the Planning Board and if the Board did not see it that way the Committee would be unhappy. He commented that it appeared that the Technical Review Committee viewed their purpose as not for advice but rather direction. Peter Hogan commented that the Board could go home then because the Committee was doing the Board’s job for them. He continued the Committee was not a Board that was designed to compromise and that was the role of the Planning Board. The
Chairman did not disagree with Peter Hogan’s statement and added that he had addressed this issue at the meeting by informing the Committee that there were a multitude of stakeholders involved in the process and the Planning Board was responsible for dealing with all those stakeholders.
The Chairman again asked the Board if any discussion should take place on how the cul-de-sac lengths were addressed based on input from the meeting or if the Board should continue evaluating the issue on a case by case basis. Douglas Hill believed that the issue should be reviewed on a case by case basis. Peter Hogan also believed that the issue should be reviewed on a case by case basis and further commented that there were situations where a longer cul-de-sac compared to a through road was more desirable.
Peter Hogan believed that bullet six of the cul-de-sac meeting memorandum was a flat out fabrication. He explained that never in his history with the Board had the building density been considered in the granting of a cul-de-sac length waiver. He stated that usually the developers gave up density in lieu of a loop road. He noted that the Planning Board tried to get the best subdivision for the Town and that did not always involve a road that loops through.
Peter Hogan stated that the Board made sure that the majority of the concerns set forth by the experts was addressed and he did not believe that their advice was ignored.
The Chairman stated that one issue that was hard to address that was brought up at the meeting was a scenario where some incident occurred at the start of a cul-de-sac that prevented access to people in the cul-de-sac. Peter Hogan asked for clarification of the scenario as he did not understand why there would not be access to the people in the cul-de-sac. The Chairman clarified that road was blocked by something preventing access such as a fire truck. Peter Hogan stated that the Board could not plan for every possibility. He pointed out that many people intentionally chose to live on cul-de-sacs and accept the risks. He added that there was a risk that sprinklers may not work if power was lost in the home.
The Chairman asked for any further comments or questions from the Board. Mark Suennen stated that after the meeting he felt that the Board better have good cause for waiving outside of the Committee’s recommendations.
Peter Hogan stated that he had asked the Committee for specific examples of when they wanted fire cisterns in addition to sprinkler systems. He added that now the Committee wanted to require cisterns in areas of Town that did not have one. Jay Marden added that when this issue was originally addressed they had to choose between the fire cistern or the sprinkler system but they could not have both. Peter Hogan clarified both could be required in extreme conditions. He agreed that both were helpful but it was not what the Committee had agreed to.
The Chairman asked Christine Quirk for her thoughts on the cul-de-sac matter. Christine Quirk believed that the Board should continue to review the cul-de-sac lengths on a case by case basis; she noted that she was not speaking for the other Selectmen. Dean Mehlhorn also believed the cul-de-sac lengths needed to be reviewed on a case by case basis.
Peter Hogan stated that an example of where a cul-de-sac should not be allowed was if there was any concern of flooding at the entrance of a cul-de-sac. He stated that the Committee needed to keep in mind that the days of stopping a subdivision due to the length of a cul-de-sac were non-existent. He continued that by not allowing certain cul-de-sacs that subdivision would most likely have increased density.
The Chairman asked for additional questions or comments; there were none.
TWIN BRIDGE LAND MANAGEMENT, LLC
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/26 Lots
Location: Twin Bridge Road & West Lull Place
Tax Map/Lot #2/62-12 & 3/5
MHP w/R-1 allowance & “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Nathan Chamberlin P.E., Jay Marden, James Denesevich, Ken Lombard, Willard Dodge, Tom Miller, Dave Elliott, Jason Martel, Ian McSweeney, Donna Mombourquette, and Brandy Mitroff.
The Chairman stated that the application was accepted as complete with a caveat that an Environmental Impact Study was required. He noted that the Board had received the Environmental Impact Study at the March 23, 2010, meeting, making the deadline for Board action May 27, 2010, without any exceptions. He pointed out that no revised plans had been submitted because of comments from the Technical Review Committee that would be addressed in the meeting. He stated that a written waiver for the length of cul-de-sac had been reviewed. He stated that a site walk had taken place the previous Saturday and invited any comments from members of the Board that attended; there were no comments. He invited Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., to address the Board.
Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated that an Environmental Impact Study had been submitted and a site walk had taken place since the last meeting of March 23, 2010. He indicated that he would like to have the cul-de-sac length waiver addressed this evening.
Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., pointed to the plan and noted that a section of the property had been cleared and a road would climb over the esker and into the valley. He stated that the initial subdivision proposed over a year ago included 16 two acre lots. He noted that the proposal met with a lot of opposition from environmental groups as well as the abutters on West Lull Place. He explained that because of the opposition the applicants regrouped and worked with the environmental groups to come up with the plan they were presenting to the Board this evening.
Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated that the lots on Tax Map/Lot #3/5 would be clustered. He indicated that the parcel was 55 acres and 35 of the total acreage would be placed into permanent open space. He noted that there would be sixteen, one acre lots.
Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., noted that he had met with the Technical Review Committee. He explained that the Committee had not changed their position about being in favor of denying the cul-de-sac length waiver as they believed there were safety concerns with cul-de-sacs greater than 1,000’. He believed this project was a good instance where a cul-de-sac length waiver would benefit the project. He pointed out that 1,000’ feet of road would not even reach the site. He stated that the only two options he was left with were obtaining a waiver for the cul-de-sac length or punching a road through the property. He indicated that the Committee had suggested an alternative location for the road and pointed out the location on the plan. He stated that it would be necessary to over come a no further
subdivision stipulation for the lot to be able to move forward with the Committee’s suggestion. He also noted that there would be several thousand square feet of wetland impact. He stated that wetland impact did not mean the road was not doable but he noted it was not preferred. He commented that the Conservation Commission and PRLAC were not in favor of the additional wetland impact.
Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated that the proposed cul-de-sac would be 2,900’ which was shorter than other cul-de-sacs that had been approved in the past and he hoped that the Board would see the worth in granting this waiver. He stated that one of the concerns with the cul-de-sac was the possibility that a tree could fall and block the road. He pointed out that a substantial amount of clearing would be done along the drainage system for the corridor. He also pointed out the location of a large recharge basin.
Douglas Hill asked for a smaller overview of the plan to be displayed as he was unable to identify the location that Nathan Chamberlain, P.E., was referring to. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., clarified the location of the area he was referring to. Peter Hogan asked Nathan Chamberlin,P.E., to point out the location of the 1,000’ mark; Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., pointed out the location of the 1,000’ mark as well as a 1,500’ cul-de-sac. The Chairman asked how long the road would be if it connected to Page Lane. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., answered that the resulting cul-de-sac off the loop would be 1,400’.
Peter Hogan asked where the location of the alternative through road would come out. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., indicated that the state Dredge and Fill and Shoreland Protection permits had been applied for and approved. He stated that the AOT permit or the state subdivision permits had not been obtained for a through road but noted should they need to construct the through road they would update their permits. He indicated that the amendments that would be made were additional stormwater treatments.
Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated that the initial proposal was a standard grid subdivision with two acre lots. He noted that the lots were located along the river, on the second esker, and on a peninsula. He noted that after taking a second look at the plan with a through road they were able to create a plan that was an open space development. He stated that the lots would be one to one and quarter acre lots. Douglas Hill asked for the density. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated there would be a total of 30 lots; an additional four lots compared to the plan with the long cul-de-sac. He also noted that there would be approximately thirteen acres less to be put into open space. He pointed out that the open space would be fragmented with part of the land in one location and the other part along the
river. He pointed to the location of the wildlife corridor that would be greatly impacted with the construction of a through road.
Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated that he understood the Board was interested in knowing what the Town would be gaining in return for a granted cul-de-sac length waiver. He continued that the Town would benefit from four less lots and the impact that the through road posed.
Douglas Hill asked for the length of the dead end road, West Lull Place. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., answered that he did not know the length of West Lull Place. Jay Marden commented that West Lull Place was several thousand feet long. Douglas Hill stated that West Lull Place was essentially a cul-de-sac on a dead end road. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated that West Lull Place was about 1,200’ to 1,500’ long.
The Chairman asked whether the state permits that had been obtained for the through road were for a road versus an emergency access road. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., advised the Board that Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, had obtained the permits and was present to discuss. Tom Carr indicated that the permits they had obtained were for a fully built, up to specifications, Class 5 road that would span from Twin Bridge Road to West Lull Place. He added that the wetlands permit did state that the road would be used for emergency access. He explained that he had spoken with Kristen Pulkinnen at the state who handled the permitting and she understood that the developer did not want the through road to be constructed. He continued that he needed to ensure access for the through road because the waiver for the cul-de-sac
length had not been approved yet. He stated that he explained to Kristen Pulkinnen that the through road may need to be pushed through for safety reasons. He noted that the road would meet the safety requirements of the Fire Department and would be gated with a remote control lock. He continued that the road would provide safety access to West Lull Place but would not become a through road for general traffic. Peter Hogan asked if the road would be paved. Tom Carr answered that the road would be paved. The Chairman asked for clarification that the applicant referring to the road as “emergency access” had nothing to do with regard to the State approval and that the road was in fact a full blown road. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., answered that the road was designed as a typical section of a full width road. Tom Carr stated that they would back off the permits for the through road if the cul-de-sac length waiver was approved. He explained that the Shoreland Permit and Wetlands
Permit would be amended to state that the impacts no longer existed and have them removed from the permit. He stated that should the waiver not be approved a new application process would begin as well as a new review process. He indicated that to avoid having to start the application process over again they had applied for the through road in the event that the cul-de-sac length waiver was not approved. He advised that the AOT Permit and Subdivision Permit would need to be revised to move forward with the through road. Douglas Hill asked what would be entailed with revising the AOT and Subdivision Permits. Tom Carr answered that the changes to the Subdivision Permit would be removing the cul-de-sac and reapplying for four additional lots. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated that with regard to the AOT Permit runoff would need to be collected and some type of mitigation created. He added that the soils were conducive to his proposal and he
believed there would not be any problems meeting the requirements.
Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., indicated that he had stated many times that nobody wanted to create the through road and would prefer to have the cul-de-sac. Douglas Hill pointed out that every Town agency was in favor of the through road. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., agreed that the Town agencies wanted to keep the cul-de-sacs at 1,000’. The Chairman asked what the issues were regarding the idea of linking the new road to existing Page Lane. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., noted that there was a no further subdivision stipulation for the parcel of land in question and there would be 8,000 square feet of wetlands impact. He stated that he was unsure how the Conservation Commission would feel about the additional wetlands impact. He added that he was aware that the State would not be happy with the additional
wetlands impact. Tom Carr stated that Gordon Russell had pointed out on the site walk that the potential wetland crossing would cross a poorly drained red maple swamp with a blueberry understory. He explained that the area was a high quality forested wetland and was ranked very highly because it provided a high connectivity of the remaining wetlands around the developed area. He added that the Russell Foundation, PRLAC, and the Conservation Commission were not in favor of impacting the wetland. He stated that the environmental groups had spent eight to ten months creating the compromise that was presented this evening. He stated that Gordon Russell had presented a large amount of data to the Conservation Commission with regard to the wildlife corridors contained in the project. He specifically noted that animals crossed the river and traveled up the west of the subject property. He continued that the habitat he was referring to had been
taken away and should be left alone as much as possible to recuperate.
Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., pointed out the location of a cistern that would be installed on the plan per the Town’s requirements.
Douglas Hill asked Tom Carr to clarify if he had approval for a fully functioning road without a gate. Tom Carr answered that he would most likely need Kristen Pulkinnen to reissue the permit because currently the road needed to be gated. Douglas Hill asked if the proposed gated road would be two feet narrower. Tom Carr replied that if the through road needed to be constructed they would seek to downgrade the road in that section. He continued that the entire road was permitted to be 24’ wide.
The Chairman summarized that option number one for the applicant was the plan as presented this evening. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., added that the presented plan was the preferred option and that all the engineering had been completed. The Chairman noted that the second option for the applicant was to remove the road off the first cul-de-sac and run it out to connect to Page Lane. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., commented that the second option was not the preferred and that he would need relief of the no further subdivision stipulation. The Chairman stated that the third option for the applicant was to blow the emergency access road from the end of the cul-de-sac out to West Lull Place. He noted that the fourth option was to use the plan that was similar to the original plan and additional lots. Tom Carr
pointed out that they did not have a concept yet for option number three. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., commented that he believed option number three was doable.
The Chairman stated that the Technical Review Committee had questioned whether West Lull Place was suitable to provide access. He also noted that the Technical Review Committee was reluctant to have a gated access road.
The Chairman asked the Board for any questions or comments; there were no questions or comments.
The Chairman asked the audience for any questions or comments regarding the cul-de-sac length.
Jason Martel of 41 West Lull Place stated that he was very much in favor of the elongated cul-de-sac. He noted that after speaking with his attorneys he was advised that constructing a through road to West Lull Place would create a situation where the through road would cross over his property. He continued that the through road could not legally be turned into a public road because in essence the Planning Board would be giving his property away for a private endeavor. Douglas Hill commented that the applicant had been approved for the construction of the road. Jason Martel stated that the applicant could get an approval for the construction of the road but could not get approval for the location of the road as it went over his property. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., pointed out that when Jason Martel’s
property was subdivided a corridor of about 100’ was created for the purpose of constructing a road. He added that the road would not cross through Jason Martel’s property. Jason Martel stated that there was not a 100’ corridor but instead 62’. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated that the road had cleared Jason Martel’s property. Jason Martel stated that this issue only strengthened approval for the applicant’s preferred plan. The Chairman asked Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., if he was unsure whether the through road would cross Jason Martel’s property. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., answered that he was sure the through road did not cross Jason Martel’s property as there was a 50’ right-of-way. Jason Martel pointed out that the 50’ right-of-way did not exist once the road became a Town road. Peter Hogan asked if a detailed survey was available. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., answered yes. Peter Hogan commented that whether or not a through road could be constructed made a dramatic difference.
Tom Carr stated that the design that had been given to the Wetland Bureau/Shoreland Division had the through road fully designed and graded. He noted that it would have been impossible to obtain the permits if they did not have easements. He added that he would be willing to speak with Jason Martel’s attorneys directly regarding this issue.
Brandy Mitroff of Thornton Road stated that six years ago most wondered if it was really a big deal to have longer cul-de-sacs. She continued that subsequently two floods occurred, an ice storm and minor wind storms making the risk factor of creating longer cul-de-sacs a reality. She stated that there may not be trees along cul-de-sac presently but that was not to say that large trees would not line the road in the future. She believed that the Town needed to become more realistic about what could happen in the future. She added that she did not like the idea of West Lull Place being upgraded. She commented that for many decades the Planning Board believed that every piece of property could not be developed to its maximum and she did not believe that it was the Planning Board’s job to try and figure
out how to best help the developer. She continued that it was the job of the developer to work with the Town’s regulations. She was not sure if meeting environmental standards was a good enough reason to approve the cul-de-sac length waiver. She added that the developers had alternative options and those options may be costly. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., commented with regard to economics the applicant would be giving up four lots should the cul-de-sac length waiver be approved. He explained that they were attempting to create a common ground where the Town benefited from receiving thirty-five acres of open space and the developer benefited from not incurring the additional costs of constructing a through road. He added that if they had to move forward with the through road then additional lots would be created to offset the additional costs. He stated that they were not trying to maximize the property. Brandy Mitroff commented
that the developer was maximizing their profits. She stated that it was not just the money to extend the road that was an issue but the cost that would be required by the developer for offsite road improvements. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated that Brandy Mitroff had made a valid point.
James Denesevich of 42 West Lull Place challenged the existence of the permit from DES for the fully blown paved road onto West Lull Place. He asked that a copy of the permit be given to the Board for review. Tom Carr indicated that the Board had a copy of the permit. He continued that he had spoken with Kristen Pulkinnen last week and she concurred that the proposed through road was a fully up to specifications for a Class V road. He continued that Kristen Pulkinnen would be willing to talk with anyone about this matter and could be reached at (603) 271-2147. James Denesevich indicated that he had emails from Kristen Pulkinnen that were the opposite of what Tom Carr was representing. Tom Carr pointed out that the top of the permit described all of the wetland crossings including crossing number four
that would create 1,100 square feet of wetland impact at West Lull Place. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated that they would not represent that they had a permit if they did not have the permit. James Denesevich argued that it was the interpretation of the permit that was in question. Douglas Hill stated that the applicant had made it clear that the road was not a 100% through road that it was an emergency access road. James Denesevich stated that if the Board approved the extension of the cul-de-sac DES would then approve the road as emergency access if the Town was in favor of the road.
Willard Dodge of Tucker Mill Road stated that as a person who had lived in New Boston for his entire life what he had listened to earlier by the Board was one of the saddest things he had heard in this Town. He continued that it was apparent that the Board could not care less what every department head in this Town said collectively and that Board was going to do what they wanted. He added that it was a sad day for the Town.
Jay Marden of Gregg Mill Road stated that he had been present for all of the hearings on this subdivision and if Ian McSweeney, Gordon Russell or Burr Tupper were present they would agree that they were happy with the plan presented to the Board. He indicated that the reasons they were in favor of the plan were the amount of land being placed in open space and the preservation of the wildlife corridors. He noted that the plan was the best he had seen. He stated that the problem with the plan was the long cul-de-sac. He disagreed with the applicant’s representation that a through road could be constructed all the way through. He believed that a lot of people would go ballistic should the through road be proposed. Peter Hogan inquired how Jay Marden would address the department heads that are
against any extension of a cul-de-sac. Jay Marden stated that it was a question of how the input is addressed and whether there were tradeoffs. He commented that it would be ideal to pull the cul-de-sac back half of its length but he was unsure if that was a viable solution. He added that going through West Lull Place was not going to happen. He stated that he had no doubt that Ian McSweeney and Gordon Russell would not be in favor about a through road being constructed. Peter Hogan pointed out that the Board had received a letter from the Conservation Commission that stated the Commission was against cul-de-sacs longer than 1,000’.
Ian McSweeney, Russell Foundation, stated that a Conservation Commission member had spoken earlier in the evening with the Chairman on this matter. The Chairman pointed out that person was not present at the public hearing to comment. Ian McSweeney stated that the Russell Foundation and other conservation groups that they worked with were in support of the longer cul-de-sac.
Douglas Hill stated that he wanted to comment on Willard Dodge’s earlier statement. He continued that two of the oldest people who were very involved in the Town seemed to be on opposite sides of the cul-de-sac length issue therefore placing the Board squarely in the middle of the situation. He asked Willard Dodge how he would deal with this situation or what he would consider the perfect scenario. Willard Dodge answered that he was not sure there was a perfect scenario. He continued that what bothered him tremendously was that unanimously the department heads had recommended 1,000’ maximum cul-de-sac length. He was concerned that 1,000’ to 2,900’ was a big difference and he wanted to know at what point the Board would decide not to approve a cul-de-sac length waiver. He added
that he relied on the recommendations of the department heads. Douglas Hill pointed out that the department heads were not willing to accept any exceptions to approve a cul-de-sac greater than 1,000’. Willard Dodge stated that he was aware of the waiver process, however, he believed that approving a waiver for 2,900’ was equivalent to kicking all the department heads in the teeth and saying that the Board did not care what the department heads thought. Douglas Hill explained that it was difficult situation and he was not sure where to draw the line. Willard Dodge agreed with Douglas Hill and also wanted to know where the Board would draw the line. He added that not one of the Board members would deal with the end result of this approval when something happened. He stated that something would happen and he hoped that none of the Board members were inside of the house at the end of the cul-de-sac when something happened. Peter
Hogan asked what was going to happen. Willard Dodge answered that he did not know what was going to happen but noted that all kinds of things happen in this Town. The Chairman pointed out that he lived on a road that was not a cul-de-sac and during the previous flooding and ice storm had the same issues. He stated that the cul-de-sac was not the fundamental problem because the same issues could arise on roads that were not cul-de-sacs. Willard Dodge commented that the farther away the house was the harder it was to get to. He stated that he was disappointed that the Board believed it was so easy to go from 1,000’ cul-de-sacs to 2,900’ cul-de-sacs. The Chairman stated that no one believed the decision was easy and that was the reason for the cul-de-sac meeting. Jay Marden stated that he was not opposite from Willard Dodge. He continued that he liked the handling of the property with regard to minimizing the lot size and the
amount of green space but he was not happy with a 2,900’ cul-de-sac. Douglas Hill stated that Board had to choose either the longer cul-de-sac or a through road. Jay Marden pointed out that there was another alternative that would require the applicant to drop the cul-de-sac back, eliminate some lots, shorten the road and develop the land in a different way. He stated that he did not believe the through road would be approved and noted that the Conservation Commission was not in favor of the through road. Peter Hogan commented that the Conservation Commission was also not in favor of the cul-de-sac. Douglas Hill stated that the Board had to decide what was best for the Town. He continued that he did not know if it was better to have the through road for all the agencies that provided services or to act in the best interest of the land. Jay Marden quoted Bo Strong and stated that not every piece of land in New Boston should be
developed. The Chairman stated that Jay Marden’s statement was not necessarily the case in this situation because the property was zoned R-A and regulations were met it was not clear that the Planning Board could say no. Brandy Mitroff pointed out that the applicant was not meeting the regulations because they were asking for waivers. The Chairman clarified that if the applicant took out the cul-de-sac and ran the road all the way through and regulations were met there would be nothing that the Planning Board could do to stop the development.
Peter Hogan stated that the applicant needed to prove to the Board that the through road was permitted to be constructed as a Class V road. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated that he was unsure of what more proof the Board needed since he had already submitted the permit. Douglas Hill suggested having the Town Engineer review the permit. Tom Carr also suggested that the Town Engineer be put in contact with Kristen Pulkinnen. Douglas Hill commented that the Fire Department was not in favor of having a gated road and as such if the road was built it would need to be an active working road. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., added that the road would be constructed along a flood plain. Peter Hogan indicated that the road would not be approved if it was along a flood plain. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E, commented that
he built in flood plains all the time. Peter Hogan stated that a road that would be constructed would need to meet the regulations for the Town of New Boston and as such could not flood and be an acceptable waiver. He also stated that for the purposes of the cul-de-sac waiver the applicant needed to prove to the Board that a Class V road could be built through the proposed area that would not flood. He continued that if the applicant could not construct the proposed road then the Board had no need to approve a waiver. Douglas Hill stated that the last two subdivisions where cul-de-sac waivers were approved the applicants had proved the through road could be constructed. Tom Carr stated that a new road had been built in New Boston off Route 136 that was as long as the proposed cul-de-sac but it was a dead end. Douglas Hill stated that the road could have easily been looped back out to Route 136.
David Elliot of Tucker Mill Road stated that he was a road contractor. He indicated that he would choose to live on a cul-de-sac road if he was given the choice. He advised that he had built cul-de-sac roads in Weare that were well over one mile long. He stated that the benefits of a cul-de-sac road with regard to safety were as strong as the disadvantages. He continued that cul-de-sac roads were great for raising families and created good neighborhood atmosphere. Dave Elliott stated from his experience cul-de-sacs were always the most preferred roads for people to live on because of the safety aspects of not having through traffic. He believed that if a cul-de-sac was 1,000’ long and a problem occurred at the beginning of the road or if a cul-de-sac was 6,000’ long and a problem occurred
at the beginning of the road the end result would be the same in that the problem would need to be dealt with. Peter Hogan asked how long David Elliot had lived in New Boston. David Elliot answered that he had live in New Boston his entire life, 56 years. Peter Hogan asked what David Elliot would say to the department heads that were steadfastly against cul-de-sacs longer than 1,000’. David Elliot answered that he disagreed with the department heads because the safety aspects at the very least balanced the safety concerns.
Brandy Mitroff asked if the applicant could seriously investigate the ability to link to Page Lane. She added that she believed that waivers were meant to deal with hundreds of feet not thousands of feet. She stated that the Page Lane alternative would create a shorter cul-de-sac with the exact same configuration that addressed all of the environmental concerns.
Ian McSweeney stated assuming the applicant had DES approvals for the through road, which he believed they did, was the Board willing to support a road that would undoubtedly flood during the next 100 year flood. He pointed out that the Page Lane alternative was laced with wetlands and also posed threats of flooding.
Jason Martel stated that the plan presented this evening appeared to be the best plan presented to date. He stated that the only part of the through road that would be vulnerable to flooding was the area where the extension was proposed; he added that it had flooded three times in the last six years. He also pointed out that he lived on a 2,500’ long dead end road that had flooded. He stated that it seemed foolish to deny a 2,900’ cul-de-sac road for a longer through road that would run through a flood plain.
Peter Hogan commented that he would not approve a road that had the potential for flooding seasonally. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated that the road design would need to be reviewed by the Town Engineer and State. Peter Hogan stated that the plan had a little more density than he would prefer to see on a cul-de-sac. He added that he would need to have proof that the road could be built through before he would entertain the approval of a cul-de-sac waiver. He stated once he had the proof he would be able to weigh the environmental impacts and the impact to the abutters on West Lull Place. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., asked how they could prove to the Board that they could indeed build the through road. He noted that the State permits had already been obtained and asked if the Board would like them to send
their design to the Town Engineer. Tom Carr added that the road was completely designed. Douglas Hill pointed out that earlier statements were made that the through road was only for emergency access. Tom Carr stated that the through road was intended to satisfy emergency concerns. He noted that he would like to obtain a copy of this meeting's minutes and forward to Kristen Pulkinnen to have her rewrite the permit. He indicated that the Shoreland Permit did not stipulate to emergency access.
Mark Suennen stated that he wanted to make sure that everyone in the room understood what the submitted permits stated. He explained that the Board had a received a Wetlands and Non-Site Specific permit that stated there had been an approval for a subdivision of twenty-three lots including two open space lots that totaled thirty-four acres. He continued that item number seven of the permit specified that the approval was granted based on Concept D and that item six noted that the approval of emergency access did not guarantee approval for subdivision access. He went to state that item number five clarified that portions of the access road that abutted proposed open space shall be used for emergency access only. He advised that the Board had also received a Shoreland permit that was for 94,439 square feet for the
purpose of constructing a road for a subdivision and a bio-retention area and that the permit was only for Tax Map/Lot #2/62-12 and did not include Tax Map/Lot #3/5, the location of the proposed wetlands crossing. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., indicated that the Tax Map/Lot information was erroneous and that they had submitted both ends when the permits were filed.
Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., asked if the Board wanted the plan to be reviewed by the Town’s Engineer. Brandy Mitroff asked how the Town would verify that the road could withstand flooding if the Town Engineer did not review the design. Douglas Hill stated that if DES stated a road could be engineered to go through the area in question then it was most likely that the road could be constructed. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated that it would not take much for the Town Engineer to review that portion of the road. James Denesevich stated that the extension of the road all the way to West Lull Place would also need to be reviewed. Peter Hogan asked how much of West Lull Place was prone to flooding. James Denesevich advised that only the bottom area of West Lull Place flooded but stated that the width
would need to be wider to make it a Class V road. Peter Hogan did not believe the Board could require the applicant to upgrade an existing road to a Class V road. Douglas Hill added that upgrading would be an issue of offsite improvement. Brandy Mitroff questioned whether or not it was financially feasible to upgrade West Lull Place.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if the calculations for upgrades to West Lull Place would be included in an offsite improvement amount. The Coordinator answered that the applicant would be responsible for the upgrade to West Lull Place but an offsite fair share calculation may not be required as the applicant most likely would be required to significantly upgrade the road under scattered and premature statutes. The Chairman asked how the Board would determine if the upgrades would fall under the scattered and premature statutes. The Coordinator answered that it would be a consideration to discuss if the through road moved forward. Mark Suennen pointed out that the issue before the Board at this time was not consideration of the through road but the waiver of the cul-de-sac length. Peter Hogan stated that
it was worth knowing how much it would cost the applicant to upgrade West Lull Place because it may result in fewer lots and a shortened cul-de-sac would be more beneficial.
Peter Hogan stated that the Board would not approve a 2,900’ cul-de-sac unless more supporting evidence was provided. The Chairman asked what the supporting evidence needed to be. Peter Hogan stated that he would need to know that a road could be installed and what would be involved in upgrading West Lull Place to make it a through road. The Chairman asked what information needed to be provided to prove that West Lull Place could be built. Peter Hogan answered an engineered plan. Douglas Hill added that a permit from DES would also provide proof that the road could be constructed. The Chairman stated that the permit needed to be straightened out. Douglas Hill commented that it should not be a big deal to obtain the permit. Tom Carr explained that he would need to represent to Kristen
Pulkinnen that they were being pushed in the direction to move forward with the through road and twenty-three lots. Douglas Hill asked why the permit was only approved for twenty-three lots. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., stated that the twenty-three lots as indicated on the permit was an error and that it should indicate twenty-six lots.
The Chairman asked if the plan needed to be reviewed by the Town Engineer. Peter Hogan stated that he would like the Town Engineer to review the plan and verify whether the road would be on anyone’s property and that it would not be prone to flooding in at least a 50 year storm.
Donna Mombourquette of 42 West Lull Place stated that consideration should be given to the potential flooding of her property should the road be changed. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., advised that any design would need to meet State specifications. Peter Hogan also pointed out that the applicant would not be permitted to divert water on to someone else’s property.
Mark Suennen stated that with regard to the cul-de-sac waiver request two conditions needed to met; demonstrate a hardship to the applicant and that the waiver would not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulations. He continued that he believed the requested waiver would be contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulations.
Mark Suennen MOVED to deny the waiver for the 2,900’ cul-de-sac. Peter Hogan seconded the motion. Discussion: Douglas Hill asked whether the Board wanted to deny the waiver as he believed the Board was not going to make a decision at this point. Mark Suennen stated that the member should do what they want but he was moving to deny the waiver. Douglas Hill stated that he was unsure if he was in favor of the 2,900’ cul-de-sac waiver and he would not be able to make a decision until the other information that was previously discussed was provided. The Chairman asked if this motion was denied could a similar motion be made in the future for approval. The Coordinator answered that the Board could reconsideration the motion in the future if new information was
submitted. Mark Suennen - AYE; Christine Quirk, Peter Hogan, Douglas Hill – NAY. The motion did not pass.
The Chairman asked Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., if he was clear on what information the
Board would like provided at a subsequent meeting. Nathan Chamberlin, P.E., answered yes.
The Chairman advised that the Board had received a letter from the Road Committee dated 3/29/10 that stated the proposed length of the cul-de-sac posed a threat to public safety and would be problematic in terms of road maintenance. He requested further clarification from the Road Committee that specifically addressed why road maintenance would be problematic.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the application of Twin Bridge Land Management, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #2/62-12 & 3/5, Twin Bridge Road and West Lull Place, to May 25, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MARRINAN, WILLIAM & DONNA
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/CUP/to install one wetland crossing
Location: Wilson Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/38
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Rick Kohler of Robert Todd's office.
The Chairman asked a plan was included in the package. The Coordinator answered that no 11" x 17" copies were required for a Conditional Use Permit. Rick Kohler stated that he had a couple of extra copies of the plan that he would lay out for the Board.
Rick Kohler, [ ], indicated that the property was located off Wilson Hill Road off River Road. He indicated that the proposal was for the applicants to be able to access their property. He pointed out on the plan that the property was fragmented at a southerly location near Wilson Hill Road by a small perennial stream. He noted that the stream was a collection point for the entire watershed with the pocket off Wilson Hill Road. He continued that the stream ran down in a westerly direction into two 2’ culverts that crossed underneath the highway and discharged into the Piscataquog River. He stated that the Town of New Boston owned a small sliver of land between the applicant’s property and the highway that was about 250’ wide. He informed the Board that the presented plan was the
second iteration of the crossing design as it had gone through wetlands review and PRLAC review and there had been some concern about ponding in extreme storms. He stated that in lieu of the ponding concerns the culvert had been designed to handle 100 year storms. He added that the culvert was 5’ tall and 12’ wide and open bottomed to be able to facilitate the establishment of fish migration from the Piscataquog River.
Rick Kohler stated that the culvert had been reviewed by the Conservation Commission. He indicated that Burr Tupper, Betsey Dodge, and himself had observed that the culverts under the highway were extremely inadequate and were disrupting the brown trout migration. He noted that Burr Tupper would be contacting the DOT about upgrading the culverts.
Mark Suennen stated that on the driveway centerline profile it appeared that at the culvert location the grade changed from a 4% grade to a 10% grade. Rick Kohler stated that there seemed to be an error with the grading schematic because the driveway was no more than 8% grade. He stated that he would need to fix the grading on the schematic.
The Chairman asked for confirmation that the culvert was 5’ high, 12’ wide, and 20’ long. Rick Kohler confirmed the Chairman’s statement and added that the culvert was similar to the culvert installed on the Albert LaChance property.
Mark Suennen asked if the culvert was large enough to be classified as a bridge thatwould require monitoring and maintenance. Rick Kohler stated that the culvert was not considered a prefabricated bridge but a multi-plate culvert structure. He added that the culvert was bridging the brook.
The Chairman advised that there was a question of whether the applicant was purchasing both the culvert and the footing and if so the bond estimate would need to be raised. The Coordinator pointed out the bond information to Rick Kohler on the bond estimate worksheet. Rick Kohler stated that he would review the information.
The Board scheduled a site walk for April 30, 2010, at 6:30 p.m.
The Coordinator advised that she had received an email from PRLAC stating that they had had a meeting on April 19, 2010, regarding concerns with the culvert. She commented that
PRLAC may have reviewed the wrong plan. Rick Kohler stated that the email was relative to the first design.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the hearing for William Marrinan, Tax Map/Lot #6/38, Wilson Hill Road, to May 11, 2010, at 7:30 p.m. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Mark Suennen commented that the Board should have apologized to Rick Kohler, [ ], for starting his hearing an hour later than it was scheduled. The Chairman agreed.
MISCELLANOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2010, Cont.
3. Email copies received April 20, 2010, from Joseph A. Foistner, Esquire, to Deborah Schade, Berkley Surety Group, LLC, re: Maintenance Bond, Foxberry Road, for the Board’s review and discussion.
Peter Hogan asked if the above-referenced matter was only for the Board’s information. The Coordinator indicated that the Board should find out the status of the above-referenced matter as a maintenance bond was still required for Foxberry Road. Shannon Silver stated that she had spoke with the attorney who had issued the bond from Berkley Surety Group, LLC, earlier in the day. She stated that the attorney had no intention of cancelling the maintenance bond at this time, however, the bond would expire in August of this year. She continued that any potential damage to the road needed to be addressed. She added that the decision of whether or not the bond was viable would be made at the time the Town contacted Berkley Surety Group, LLC, regarding a claim.
Peter Hogan commented that the damage to the road was not caused by a building defect. Shannon Silver stated that she was unsure if Peter Hogan’s statement was accurate. Peter Hogan stated that he had reviewed photographs of the damage and it appeared that a trailer or a truck scraped the road.
The Coordinator stated that the Town had accepted the road and there was a maintenancebond on it. She explained that the issue was who would be responsible to repair the damage tothe road if it was not a defect covered under the maintenance bond. Peter Hogan stated that whoever had created the damage would be responsible for the repairs.
The Chairman asked if Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, would review the damage. The Coordinator answered yes and added that John Riendeau, Road Agent, would most likely review the damage as well.
Mark Suennen pointed out that the photographs of the damage were dated February 10, 2010; he asked why this matter was being discussed now. Shannon Silver answered that the matter was being addressed presently because the previous owner, Mr. Foistner, wanted the bond cancelled and he believed the bond would cover the damage.
The Chairman stated that the Board would decide what action to take after Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, and John Riendeau, Road Agent, investigated the damage.
4. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing form the City of Nashua, Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment, re: installation of a wireless telecommunication facility.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion
occurred.
5. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing from the Town of Bedford, re: installation of a wireless telecommunication facility.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
6. Read File: Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting, April 27, 2010, Rebuilding Southern New Hampshire Through Brownfield’s Investment.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
10. Copies of House Bill 1382 – As introduced and House Bill 1395 - As Amended By The House, re: Workforce Housing, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator to give a brief synopsis of the above-referenced matter. The Coordinator advised that the two bills that were introduced to the House did not seem to make much of a difference to the Town.
11.Read File: Notice of Public Hearing from the Town of Litchfield, re: installation of a wireless telecommunication facility.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
7.Letter received April 22, 2010, from Michael J. Boyle, President, Michael J. Boyle Corporation, to Planning Board, re: complaint to Building Inspector/Home Shop Business, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator stated that Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officerhad met with Michael J. Boyle for the purposes of investigating a complaint submitted by Mr.Boyle’s neighbor. She explained that Mr. Boyle operated what could be considered a home shopbecause he was a contractor and kept his business equipment at his home. She stated that the issue was whether or not Mr. Boyle was operating a home shop and if so was a site plan required.
Peter Hogan asked if typically someone would be required to obtain a site plan under these circumstances. The Coordinator stated that the situation was similar to that of a plumber in that your equipment was stored at your home but the actual business was conducted elsewhere. She added that a site plan protected a homeowner from neighbor’s complaints.
Douglas Hill believed the Planning Board should not be involved in the dispute between the neighbors.
Mark Suennen asked what Mr. Boyle was hoping the Board would decide. The Coordinator thought that Mr. Boyle was probably hoping the Board would advise that it was not necessary to obtain a site plan for a home shop. Shannon Silver believed that because of the fighting with the neighbor Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, had suggested that Mr. Boyle write a letter to the Board explaining what he does on his property for the purposes of letting the Board make a determination of whether or not he was operating a home shop.
The Chairman read the definition of a home shop. He noted that the definition included outside storage and questioned whether Mr. Boyle had outside storage. Peter Hogan commented that someone would argue that Mr. Boyle’s work vehicles being parked outside could beconsidered outside storage.
It was Mark Suennen’s opinion was that Non-Residential Site Plan Review was required after reading the definition of a home shop. The Chairman asked if a Non-ResidentialSite Plan was a hand drawn plan. The Coordinator answered yes and added that abutters would be notified and that all regulations would need to met.
Peter Hogan stated that prior to a meeting being scheduled, outside storage needed to be clearly defined. Mark Suennen pointed out that an excavator was considered outside storage. Dean Mehlhorn did not believe Mr. Boyle had a lot of equipment on his property. Christine Quirk stated that the letter indicated that he stored two dump trucks in Merrimack for the winter months.
Shannon Silver informed the Board that Mr. Boyle had a lot attached to his home lot that was in current use. She explained that Mr. Boyle had been stockpiling materials on the lot as well as constructing a loading ramp. She stated that the neighbor submitted a complaint because their view had been compromised by the stockpiling. She advised that Ed Hunter, BuildingInspector/Code Enforcement Officer, had determined that the stockpile needed to be removed and the loading ramp needed to be dissembled as it affected the current use regulations. Douglas Hill stated that the situation seemed to be taken care of.
Peter Hogan believed that the Board needed to issue a statement that indicated if Mr. Boyle intended to continue his contractor's business then he would be required to go through Non-Residential Site Plan Review. Douglas Hill added that it should also state that Mr. Boyle would need to abide by the recommendations of the Code Enforcement Officer.
Christine Quirk pointed out that because Mr. Boyle had removed the materials from the current use lot the Board now needed to decide whether or a home shop was being operated on the lot Mr. Boyle resides on. Peter Hogan stated that the decision of the Board should be that if Mr. Boyle wanted to continue to operate his business out of his home he would be required to go through Non-Residential Site Plan Review.
Mark Suennen asked if the Board agreed that Mr. Boyle was operating a home shop as opposed to a home based occupation. Douglas Hill stated that he was unsure. Peter Hogan,Christine Quirk, Mark Suennen and the Chairman answered that they believed it was a home shop. Douglas Hill asked for clarification that any equipment kept on someone’s property that was not used for the home could be considered a home shop. The Chairman pointed out that the definition specifically cited that excavators fall under the category of a home shop and Mr. Boyle had represented that he had an excavator on his property.
The Board agreed that Mr. Boyle met the definition of a home shop and as such if he wished to continue operating a home shop from his property he needed to go through the Non-Residential Site Plan Review process.
9. 2nd Review letter dated April 26, 2010, from Kevin Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Indian Falls, Susan Road Connection-Bussiere, for the Board’s review and discussion.
Douglas Hill asked when Northpoint Engineering’s contract expired. Christine Quirk believed the contract expired in either September or October of 2010. Douglas Hill stated that he would like to get some price comparisons for consulting engineers as an $88,000.00 construction monitoring estimate seemed high. He advised that the Town of Windham’s engineer conducted the same work but at half the price. It was his opinion that the Town should bid out the contract.
The Chairman asked if the two things that affect the total price were the hourly rate and the numbers of hours worked how the Town would gather information to compare. He asked if a typical subdivision could be given to the potential engineer for an estimate. Douglas Hill answered that he would get construction estimates. The Chairman believed that it would be difficult to obtain accurate estimates to compare. Douglas Hill disagreed with the Chairman.
Christine Quirk asked how the Town had hired Northpoint Engineering. The Coordinator informed the Board that an advertisement was run requesting proposals from engineers interested in becoming the Town of New Boston's Consulting Engineer. She stated that about twenty-five packets were received and the Board had reviewed and compared items such as hourly rate, past employment, and experience. She noted that nothing to do with individual sites or subdivisions was reviewed. She continued that the Board met with two or three of the companies and then made a determination. She stated that the problem with requiring all the potential applicants to review and compare subdivisions was that specific information regarding inspections would not be provided. Douglas Hill asked who decided what the engineer was
responsible for covering. The Coordinator answered that the Town made the determination of what the engineer should cover. She explained that if the Board wanted to review the inspection requirements then a meeting with the Selectmen, Road Agent and the Road Committee would need to be scheduled. She noted that the list of inspection requirements had not been reviewed in a long time.
Douglas Hill stated that it was healthy for Northpoint Engineering to bid out their subcontractors. Mark Suennen disagreed with Douglas Hill because it was his experience that he preferred working with specific subcontractors. He continued that the quality of work and ease of working with some subcontractors was worth the extra cost. Douglas Hill pointed out that the applicant would be responsible for paying the higher cost and that Mark Suennen could make that choice when he was spending his own money. Mark Suennen stated that the applicant had the option of obtaining an independent soil analysis. Douglas Hill corrected Mark Suennen’s statement and advised that the applicant was not permitted to conduct an independent soil analysis. The Coordinator agreed with Douglas Hill and added that the
soil tests were conducted by the subcontractor that the Town Engineer chose.
The Coordinator stated that it was not a bad idea to get the Board, Selectmen, Road Agent, and Road Committee together to review the inspection requirements. She did not think that providing potential engineering applicants with a subdivision and asking for an estimate would be feasible.
The Chairman asked the Board if they wanted to review the inspection requirements. Peter Hogan stated that he would like to review the information.
12.Distribution of Meeting Minutes of April 13, 2010. (Distributed by email)
The Coordinator advised that the minutes of April 13, 2010, were emailed today for approval at the next meeting.
13.Third review letter from Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Lemay Subdivision, Tax Map/Lot #9/21-5, Wilson Hill Road.
The Coordinator advised that she had just received the third review for the above-referenced matter.
14. Bussiere – Letter of Credit
The Coordinator stated that Emile Bussiere, Jr., had contacted the Planning Office in an effort to obtain standard letter of credit language. She stated that the Planning Office did not have standard letter of credit language because that the language comes from banks and each bank had its own way of writing the letter of credit. She continued that the draft letter of credit that Emile Bussiere, Jr., had submitted stated that should the Town attempt to call the letter of credit it would be required that the Town indicate that the applicant had failed to comply the terms and conditions of the contract. She explained that usually the bank would reference the subdivision plan and the conditions not just a contract. The Coordinator also noted that there were dates listed for automatic deductions. She noted that
there was not an automatic deduction schedule for this matter. She pointed out that a reference to a “Publication 590” had been made and she had only seen references in the past to “Publication 500” and she was unsure of the accuracy. She stated that she was unsure if a reference to the International Practices Book was the same as the typical reference to the Uniform Customs Practices. She added that the laws for the State of New York were referred to as opposed to New Hampshire.
The Coordinator stated that there were, therefore, five separate issues with this draft that she had not seen from other banks. She advised the Board that Emile Bussiere, Jr., indicated that he did not wish to have this matter reviewed by Counsel and as an alternative could he simply make the appropriate changes. Douglas Hill asked if it was typical to have letter of credits reviewed by Town Counsel. The Coordinator answered yes.
The Board decided that the letter of credit needed to be reviewed by Town Counsel.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Valerie Diaz, Recording Clerk
Minutes Approved: 05/25/10
| 
