The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members Douglas Hill and Mark Suennen, alternate Dean Mehlhorn, and Ex-officio Dwight Lovejoy, standing in for 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 Willard Dodge, Tom Miller, Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, Bill Dodge, Steve Young, and Robert Waller.
Discussion, re: Road Construction Monitoring Inspections
Present in the audience were Willard Dodge, Tom Miller, and Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer. The Chairman stated that the Board had previous discussions regarding road construction monitoring inspections that specifically addressed whether the estimates for inspections were too high. He continued that the Coordinator had supplied the Board with inspection requirements documentation from the Town that had been given to the Northpoint Engineering upon hire. He noted that Douglas Hill had been absent from the previous discussion and the Board was interested in his input as well as the Road Committee’s input.
Tom Miller referred the Board to the inspection requirements document that had been given to Northpoint Engineering by the Town and stated that there were issues within the document. He noted that the Road Committee had observed that the Town’s development roads were not lasting and it was the opinion of the Committee that part of the cause was relative to the current inspection requirements.
Tom Miller referred the Board to the inspection requirements for cuts and fills. He explained that one compaction test and one proctor was not sufficient during the construction of a road because as the clay content changed the compaction numbers would change. He recommended adding a three point proctor in the field to the inspection requirements.
Tom Miller recommended that the section of the inspection requirements that pertained to drainage include an inspection of the under-drain.
Tom Miller referred the Board to the gravel section of the inspection requirements. He stated that two things should be included under crushed gravel: 1) a wear test; and 2) ensuring the material had fractured faces. He explained that a wear test was conducted by spinning stone and ball bearings together in a machine. He stated that the result of the test yielded the rate at which the stone broke down. He explained that fractured faces wear better than round rock. The Chairman asked if the wear test and the determination of fractured faces would be conducted by the Town Engineer. Tom Miller answered that Northpoint Engineering would hire a contractor to conduct the tests.
Tom Miller referred the Board to a subsection of the gravel section that was relative to sub-grade. He stated that tolerances existed for sub-grade at +/- 1”. He continued that contractors would most likely be at + 1”. He stated that crushed gravel also had a tolerance for +/- 1” and that was also the most expensive product. Tom Miller explained that if the contractor was an inch high on the bank run and low on crush the Town could end up with 4 ½” crush instead of the required 6”. He recommended that random cross strings be conducted between 50’ stations of the roadway. He suggested adding language that would always require the better material to be produced if there was to be any deviation at all. He stated that if the sub-grade and/or gravel was off it
needed to be so by being low. He added that finished grade should be right on; there was no need for the ½” tolerance currently allowed.
Douglas Hill asked who had originally created the inspection requirements document. The Coordinator answered that the inspection requirements were established when Dufrense Henry was hired as the Town Engineer in the late 80’s. She indicated that input from the Road Agent, Road Committee and Selectmen at that time was also included.
Tom Miller stated that currently Super pave was the product that was being utilized by most towns and the state. Douglas Hill stated that the regulations had been updated recently to reflect the use of Super pave. Tom Miller stated that the key to Super pave was compaction and that it included all fractured faces. He added that a core test should also be conducted to determine the real depth. He stated that “yield” should be removed from the inspections because it did not apply.
Willard Dodge asked if the Road Committee was missing information as Douglas Hill had mentioned that items had been updated. Douglas Hill explained that all the Town road requirements had been upgraded within the last year. Mark Suennen clarified that Douglas Hill was referring to the standards for subdivision roads and the Road Committee was referring to inspection requirements of the standards.
Tom Miller recommended that asphalt should be tested for voids. He explained that voids were important because it would indicate a lack of compaction that would in turn create “Swiss cheese”. He continued when the voids filled up with water during the winter months the asphalt would begin to break up due to the freeze/thaw cycle. He stated that the paving companies knew what it took to get 100% compaction on asphalt; however, he noted that if there was not a compaction test in place 100% compaction could not be guaranteed.
It was Tom Miller’s opinion that contrary to the inspection requirements, the resident inspector should be responsible for preparing the punch list.
Tom Miller referred the Board to the section of the inspection requirements that addressed soils and concrete testing. He suggested that the strength of the concrete, or the PSI, should be tested to avoid the presence of “junk concrete”.
Tom Miller provided the Board with a letter from the Road Committee to the Planning Board, dated 2004 with regard to updating the road standards. He also provided the Board with DOT’s minimum road design criteria as well as a copy of frequency of testing criteria. He explained that the frequency of testing criteria maintained that a road of a certain length warranted a certain number of tests. He added that the frequency of testing created performance tests for the duration of the road construction.
Tom Miller offered to speak with someone from Northpoint Engineering to speak further about his recommended changes to the inspection requirements.
The Chairman stated that Tom Miller should meet with Kevin Leonard, P.E., to create specific wording that would address the recommended changes. He added that after the wording was developed Tom Miller and Kevin Leonard, P.E., would meet with the Board to discuss the changes. He asked for comments from the Board relative to the aforementioned. Mark Suennen agreed that the Chairman’s suggestion made sense.
Mark Suennen asked Tom Miller if he believed that the installation of box culverts required full time inspections. Tom Miller answered yes and explained that the most important part of the installation of a box culvert was the back filling. He continued that to get maximum compaction an inspector would need to be present to ensure that the back filling was done correctly.
Mark Suennen asked Tom Miller if he believed that the construction of a modular wall required full time inspections. Tom Miller stated that it did and an inspector needed to be present to conduct the compaction tests at each lift. He said without compaction the construction would be relying on soil fiction to hold the wall in place and this was unacceptable.
The Chairman stated that the original discussion of the inspection requirements questioned whether there were too many requirements that in turn increased the amount of the construction monitoring costs. He continued that it appeared that recommendations were being made to require more testing which would further increase the cost of the construction monitoring. Tom Miller agreed with the Chairman.
Mark Suennen asked what level of skill should be required for the field inspector. Tom Miller stated that the field inspector should have construction experience and the testers should have passed a certification program.
Willard Dodge asked where he could obtain the updated road standards. The Chairman answered that the road standards were included in the Subdivision Regulations
Willard Dodge pointed out that Byam Road was going to cost the Town a substantial amount of money to repair because of improper road construction. Tom Miller added that he had contacted the State lab to set pins and shoot elevations. He noted that if the tests proved that a lot of the settlement was not out of the road it was going to cost quite a bit of money to fix the road because of the poor settlement. Douglas Hill asked if the road had been inspected during construction. Tom Miller believed that if the road was inspected at all the current inspection requirements were used.
The Chairman asked if Douglas Hill had any comments to add as he had been absent from the previous discussion. Douglas Hill stated that he did not have any issues with what Tom Miller had recommended and was interested in “getting the most bang for our buck”. He continued to believe that conducting all the recommended inspection requirements could be done at a lesser cost than what was currently being offered by Northpoint Engineering. He added that he had contacted a couple of independent companies for construction monitoring estimates and they were a lot less than Northpoint Engineering’s costs. The Chairman noted that Douglas Hill’s points could be discussed closer to November when bids for the Town Engineer would be conducted. Douglas Hill stated that he did not have a problem
with the construction of better roads as that meant lower taxes for the Town.
Willard Dodge asked for clarification that Douglas Hill felt the construction monitoring fees were too high even with the implementation of the recommendations. Douglas Hill answered yes.
The Chairman reiterated that Tom Miller would meet with Northpoint Engineering to create specific wording and then meet with the Board to make a final decision on the changes.
Mark Suennen asked Tom Miller to address what specific skills a field inspector should have while meeting with Northpoint Engineering to create the specific wording changes.
Tom Miller noted on a separate topic of cul-de-sac lengths, the State’s recommendations for road construction recommended a maximum length of 1,000’ for cul-de-sacs.
MISCELLANOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JUNE 22, 2010.
2. Letter dated June 9, 2010, received June 9, 2010, from Ed Hunter, N.B. Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, re: Meeting Regarding Signage, for the Board’s discussion. (Ed Hunter to be present)
Present in the audience was Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer. The Chairman invited Ed Hunter to address the Board.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that the signage section of the Zoning needed to be updated. He provided the Board with a packet of information that contained the zoning as it currently existed as well as an ordinance regarding signs on town owned property from the Board of Selectmen. He noted that it may be beneficial to create a sub-committee to review signage.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, pointed out that hismain issue with the signage was that all signs in zoning were treated the same, i.e., permanent signs, event signs, seasonal signs, illuminated or not illuminated.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, noted that the last two pages of his informational packet consisted of photographs of signs that were currently posted in New Boston. He noted that the photograph of the 4H Fairgrounds/Cider Press Concert was not permitted as no application for a permit had been completed. He then addressed a sign that was too large that was currently posted at the baseball fields on Old Coach Road. He referred to a photograph of the Town Common that had several signs. He made note that the PTA signs were permitted by permit, however, the Strawberry Festival sign was not permitted as a permit was not issued. He stated that in some instances the signs were posted and removed so quickly that he was unable to determine the parties responsible for the signs. He believed
that a change should be made to the zoning to address this issue so that he was not expending time and effort in vain. He referred the Board to the photograph of the real estate/development signs. He explained that the intent of the zoning was that signs were allowed to be posted until the sale of the home, however, the photograph shown depicts a development sign that had been posted for the last four years. He stated that he did not have a problem with the development signs being posted but suggested adding language to zoning that addressed time and size constraints. He noted that the marquee portion of the New Boston Video and Pizza sign, the Molly Stark Mercantile sign, and Damien’s restaurant sign were not permitted under current zoning. He explained that the signs for business only allowed for identification and location. He continued that he did not have any issues with allowing the use of the marquee for advertisement, however, a
provision in zoning would need to be created.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that he had alsoincluded applications for sign permits from the towns of Goffstown and Bedford. He noted that the Goffstown sign application permit differed from New Boston’s in that it specified what type of sign permit was being applied for; he believed New Boston should incorporate this into their sign application.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that current zoning required that all signs are made of durable material. He pointed out that signs had been posted in the past that were not made of durable material, i.e., poster board. He suggested that this issue be looked into.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, pointed out that Bedford treated special event signs and banners differently than other signs.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, referred the Board to the Selectmen’s Sign Document. He indicated that the document addressed signs on Town property and believed further consideration should be given to whether the document should be treated as a stand alone ordinance or if it should be incorporated into the zoning. The Chairman asked if the photograph depicting signs on the Town Common was an example of Town owned property. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, answered that the Town Common photograph was an example of Town owned property.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that the person in charge of the Fourth of July festivities in Town had recently applied for a sign permit to allow signs to be posted for a two week period before the event. He explained that current zoning only allowed for signs to be posted for one week prior to an event on Town owned property. He believed that the time constraints should be reviewed for possible changes.
The Chairman asked if the Bedford special event and banner ordinance as provided was part of Bedford’s zoning. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, answered that it was not part of zoning and was an ordinance.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that he was unsure of what a “bulletin board” referred to in New Boston’s Zoning Ordinance, Section He suspected that the “bulletin board” referred to the type of bulletin board that was hung at Dodge’s Store. He added that he was unsure if 318.3 belonged in the sign ordinance. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if the “bulletin board” referred to the type of bulletin board that was currently posted outside of the Town Hall. The Coordinator answered that the Chairman was correct and that the zoning/ordinance stated that the bulletin boards could be used at churches, schools, or public structures for items such as agendas.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, pointed out that 318.4, of the Zoning Ordinance was the only location that referred to the allowance of temporary signs.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, explained that the TD Bank in town had wanted to add a second or third sign to the building in order to advertise to those traveling into town from Routes 77 and 136. He continued that at the time the building already had more signs on the building than were allowed by zoning. He stated that that in an alternative the TD Bank stated that they would construct a huge sign by the road for which he had to issue a permit. A variance was issued for a sign on the building based on the threat of a free standing sign by the road. He used this example to show the necessity for a comprehensive review of the signage.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer could participate as a member of a sub-committee. The Coordinator answered yes.
The Chairman asked for comments or questions from the Board. Mark Suennen thanked Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, for this thorough analysis of the signs in Town. Dwight Lovejoy extended thanks from the Board of Selectmen.
The Board agreed to form a subcommittee to create proposed changes to signage
section of the zoning. The Coordinator advised that a member of the Planning Board would need to be a member of the subcommittee and an advertisement needed to be posted for further volunteers. Douglas Hill asked how many members were needed for the subcommittee. The Coordinator answered that five members typically sufficed for a subcommittee. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, volunteered to serve on the subcommittee. Douglas Hill suggested that the Signage Committee contact the [Commercial Committee] for their input. The Chairman stated that he would not mind volunteering for the subcommittee.
Mark Suennen asked if it was more common for people to complain when their sign was not approved or more common for residents to complain about the appearance of signs. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, answered that it was more common to hear complaints when a sign was not approved.
The Chairman asked for any further questions or comments; there were none.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer addressed the Board on an unrelated matter. He asked for clarification on whether the Board considered an above-ground swimming pool to be a non-foundation structure for purposes of allowing such a structure to built within the 50’ wetlands setback.
Douglas Hill commented that he believed an above-ground pool was a non-
foundation structure. He explained that the purpose for not allowing structures with foundations in the 50’ wetland setback was because digging for the foundation created a greater possibility that the wetland would be affected. Dean Mehlhorn and Dwight Lovejoy agreed with Douglas Hill that an above-ground pool was a non-foundation structure. Mark Suennen agreed that an above-ground pool did not have a foundation; however, he added that should a deck be constructed for pool that could be considered to be a structure with a foundation. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer agreed that a deck would be a structure with a foundation and advised the Board that a deck currently existed on the property and the homeowner intended to build the above-ground pool 9’ off the deck.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that he could use the Board’s determination as a general rule of thumb in the future making it unnecessary to review such issues on a case by case basis. Douglas Hill was of the opinion that the installation of decks with footings needed to be assessed on a case by case basis. Dwight Lovejoy pointed out that 90% of above-ground pools were placed on top of stone dust which would require some excavation. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, agreed that some excavation would need to be done. He went on to say that he was unsure if the intent of the 50’ wetland setback was to deal with this kind of situation. Douglas Hill clarified that the intent of the 50’ wetland setback was for impervious surfaces and agreed
that the ordinance did not mean to stop someone from installing an above-ground pool.
The Chairman believed since this was only the second time this issue had been brought before the Board in the last two years it would be best to assess on a case by case basis. He stated that should the frequency of this issue increase the Board could discuss an alternate way of handling the issue in the future.
The Chairman stated that the consensus of the Board was that the above-ground pool was a non-foundation structure and therefore allowable in the 50’ wetland setback.
13. Discuss the stockpiling of material at George Merrill’s storage facilities, located on 11 Whipplewill Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/63-13.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, informed the Board that through a complaint he had learned that earth materials were being stockpiled on site at George Merrill’s storage facilities and subsequently being transported offsite. He stated that he had questioned George Merrill about the earth material stockpiling. He continued that George Merrill had told him that he was bringing in extra excavation material from another site for use on his private property on Gorham Pond Road in Goffstown. He noted that the had informed George Merrill that his site plan did not allow for the sale of earth products; George Merrill indicated that he was aware and was not selling any materials. He went on to say that George Merrill had been granted extensions for the construction of two additional buildings
on his site and as such had been leveling the site over the last two years. He added that he had informed George Merrill that he may need to meet with the Board to review his site plan.
Douglas Hill asked for Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer’s opinion of the stockpiling of earth materials. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that because George Merrill was not selling or excavating on site he was operating within the site plan. He believed it would be difficult to determine what material was being removed for his personal use and what material was being used onsite. He added that George Merrill had a history of compliance.
Dean Mehlhorn commented that George Merrill had been working on the site for quite awhile. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, asked the Coordinator for the number of extensions that had been granted. The Coordinator believed that three or four extensions had been granted, dating back to 2003.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that one other complaint had been made about year ago from neighbors regarding the noise of trucks that were hauling material. He noted that George Merrill was sensitive to this issue and avoided working on Saturdays and Sundays.
The Chairman asked if anyone disagreed with Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer’s, assessment that George Merrill was currently in Compliance with his site plan. Dwight Lovejoy questioned the storage of telephone poles. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, indicated that a few telephone poles were being stored on site for the purpose of maintaining a wall for the fill.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, advised the Board that George Merrill held yard sales occasionally for items contained in defaulted storage units. He added that zoning was silent on the allowance of yard sales and questioned whether the practice was permittable. Dwight Lovejoy asked whether individual residents were required to obtain permits for yard sales. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, answered no. Mark Suennen believed a business that was accessible and had parking was a better to place to hold a yard sale than off the street.
The Chairman stated that the stockpiling of earth materials could continue. Mark Suennen agreed and stated that Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement, would continue to monitor the issue and would act if necessary.
The Chairman inquired as to what matter audience member Bill Dodge was present to hear. Bill Dodge indicated that he was present to make comments relative to the signage permits. Douglas Hill asked for Bill Dodge’s comments.
Bill Dodge stated that he was the Chairperson of the Fourth of July Association and noted that the application for sign permits that he needed to fill out did not appear to apply to his specific needs. The Chairman explained that the Board had decided to create a subcommittee to conduct a comprehensive review of the signage. He stated that he would write Bill Dodge’s name down as an expert witness for the Committee to contact for further input. Bill Dodge added that he would prefer a two week time period to post his signs rather than one week.
10. Discussion, re: Bilodeau Site Plan, Tax Map/Lot #14/44, Joe English Road.
Present in the audience were Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, and Bill Dodge.
The Chairman asked if Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement, had been to the property in the above-referenced matter within the last year. Ed Hunter, Builidng Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, indicated that the last time he had been to the property was the fall of 2009. He continued that he had met with Mr. Bilodeau to review the site plan. He explained that it had appeared that things had changed for the better but noted that it was the fall and that could have been the reason less product was present. He stated that Mr. Bilodeau had moved the location for the commercial wood to the upper side of the property. It was Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer’s, opinion that Mr. Bilodeau was in compliance with his site plan at that time.
The Chairman noted that the large stack of wood may not have been at the front of the property because the fall was a low season. He continued that Mr. Bilodeau received all his deliveries in the late fall and cut all winter. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that he could make regular trips to visit the property. The Chairman indicated that the Board needed to have further discussion to that regard and would keep Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, informed.
The discussion was suspended.
TWIN BRIDGE LAND MANAGEMENT, LLC
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
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He stated that the application had been accepted as complete on March 23, 2010, with a deadline for Board action of May 27, 2010. He continued that there had been one previous adjournment. He advised that the Board had received an email on June 16, 2010, from Tom Carr, CWS, CCS, Meridian Land Services, Inc., that indicated the Wetlands Bureau would be using their full seventy-five day statutory deadline to issue the Dredge and Fill Permit and had requested for adjournment to July 27, 2010, with the deadline for Board action on July 27, 2010.
Dean Mehlhorn was seated as a full voting member.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn Twin Bridge Land Management, LLC, Twin Bridge Rd & West Lull Place, Tax Map/Lot #2/62-12 & 3-5, MHP w/R-1 allowance “R-A” District, to July 27, 2010, at 8:00 p.m. and extend the deadline for Board action to July 27, 2010. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
1. Approval of minutes of May 25, 2010, distributed by email.
Mark Suennen MOVED to approve the meeting minutes of May 25, 2010, as written. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. Update, re: Indian Falls Road Construction, for the Board’s information. (No Copies)
The Coordinator advised that there was a wetlands violation in the above-referenced matter. She explained that DES would be going to the property to review. Douglas Hill asked what type of wetland violation had occurred. The Coordinator stated that the tree cutter had cut back too far into the wetlands.
The Chairman asked if the members of the Board could visit the property during construction. The Coordinator answered yes and alerted the Board to be aware of equipment. Douglas Hill added that the visits should be after five or six o’clock in the evening. Dean Mehlhorn commented that he frequently had visits from Board members while working projects and believed it was acceptable.
4.Letter dated June 10, 2010, received June 17, 2010, from Ellen M. Cavallaro, Surety Claims Attorney at Berkley Surety Group, LLC, re: Foxberry Drive, for the Board’s review and discussion, with attached copy of letter dated May 19, 2010, from Kevin Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, LCC.
The Chairman stated that he did not completely agree with Ellen M. Cavallaro’s assessment. The Coordinator believed that Ellen M. Cavallaro was interested in the inclusion of language that stated the reason for the cracks in the road were due to defective materials or poor workmanship as those things were covered by the bond, but wear and tear was not. She asked if the Board wanted Kevin Leonard, P.E., to review his original letter that was sent to Ellen M. Cavallaro to determine whether he could add the recommended language in addition to the estimated repair costs. The Chairman believed the Kevin Leonard, P.E., should review his original letter for the aforementioned changes and asked the Board members for their input. Douglas Hill and Dean Mehlhorn agreed to have Kevin Leonard, P.E., review his original
letter. Mark Suennen did not wish to comment on this matter. Dwight Lovejoy did not have an opinion on the matter.
7.Article from “New Hampshire Town and City”, June Edition, “Agricultural Commissions: Keeping Agriculture Viable in New Hampshire Communities”, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
Douglas Hill recused himself for the next miscellaneous item as he was an interested party.
8.Letter dated June 18, 2010, received June 18, 2010, from Earl J. Sandford, P.E., Sandford Surveying and Engineering Inc., re: Stormwater Management Plan Adherence Statement for Christian Hill Estates, Tax Map/Lot #5/16-10, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman stated that the letter asked for the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on this lot on the condition that the bond would not be released until the vegetation was established. The Coordinator added that the Subdivision Regulations did not offer any clause to deal with this type of situation. She continued that the Subdivision Regulations required that an adherence statement be obtained to receive a certificate of occupancy. She noted that the Board had dealt with this issue in the past involving grass not being able to grow during the winter months.
The Coordinator stated that the Board needed to decide how to handle this particular case and think about either adding language to the regulations or continue to review on a case by case basis.
The Chairman asked the Board members if they agreed with Earl Sandford’s recommendation. Mark Suennen pointed out that the seed would only take ten days to grow. He suggested issuing a temporary certificate of occupancy until the seed had grown and thereafter making the temporary certificate of occupancy permanent. Douglas Hill noted that the site was bonded. Mark Suennen asked if the bond would cover this. The Coordinator answered that the bond was in the amount of $2,144.00. Shannon Silver added that bond was in place for the SWMP.
Dwight Lovejoy asked for Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer’s position. Douglas Hill stated that Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, had viewed the property earlier in the day for final inspection.
Mark Suennen MOVED to allow the issuance of the CO with the condition that the bond would not be released until the vegetation was established. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED.
Douglas Hill was reseated as a full voting member.
The Coordinator advised that over the last four years out of seven of the certificate of occupancies that had been released only two had requested that money be held for grass growth issues. She asked the Board if they would like to write something into the regulations to deal with future certificate of occupancy issues or if they would prefer to deal with them on a case by case basis.
Douglas Hill’s only issue was making applicants wait to receive their certificate of occupancy based on the Board’s meeting schedule.
The Chairman asked if the Board pursued a change would the Coordinator draft language that would then be reviewed by the Board for adoption to the Subdivision Regulations. The Coordinator explained that the change would be similar to the Driveway Regulations wherein the Building Inspector could have the authority to make the decision to issue the certificate of occupancy under specific circumstances. Shannon Silver pointed out that SWMP issues would also have to be taken into consideration. The Coordinator stated that the only issue in question for adherence was that grass growth would need to be adequately and verifiably stabilized.
It was Mark Suennen’s opinion that this issue should continue to be reviewed on a case by case basis.
The Board determined to deal with this issue on a case by case basis.
Information Session with Robert Waller, 236 Meadow Road, Tax Map/Lot #14/80,
to discuss Non-Residential Site Plan for his business.
Present in the audience were Robert Waller, Bill Dodge and Steve Young.
The Chairman stated that this was an informational session and explained that discussion should be conceptual only. He noted that there had been substantial correspondence regarding this issue dating back to 2003. He explained that a change to zoning had taken effect in 1990 that required anyone operating a business to declare that business.
Robert Waller stated that he had been operating his business since 1984 and that he was not trying to hide anything. He went on to say that he had donated uniforms to the Town through his business. He indicated that the Coordinator had showed him the form he should have completed to be grandfathered as a business and noted that he did not have a copy of the form. He asked why in 2002 he was issued a building permit if his business was a problem.
It was Robert Waller’s position that anytime a permit was applied for there was an opportunity for it to be denied and he did not want to take that risk with his livelihood. The Chairman pointed out that he could be stopped from operating his business because he was in violation of the regulations.
Robert Waller stated that his property was zoned for a home business in 1984 and nothing had changed since that time.
The Coordinator suggested that Robert Waller look back through his files to prove that his business had been operating since 1984. Robert Waller stated that he had posted numerous advertisements over the years and had built and donated picnic tables to the Town of New Boston under his company, Waller Construction Group. He went on to say that he had not been hiding anything and all he wanted to do was restore cars and keep his property neat. He was confused as to why 25 years later he needed to prove his business. The Chairman said that if Robert Waller had the information in question he should submit it. Robert Waller said it was absurd to be asked to do so. He said the Board could look in old New Boston phone books where he advertised. He further stated that he had had this business for 26
years and it looked a lot better than the junk yards that were on the major roads into town.
The Coordinator asked when Robert Waller had started his business. He stated that he had been in business at his house since he moved in in 1984 with a construction business and the car restoration was a hobby which changed to be a full time endeavor in roughly 1993. Doug Hill asked if Mr. Waller had information to prove his business had been operating since 1993. Robert Waller again characterized this request as absurd. The Chairman noted that the Planning Board's letter of 2007 had asked him to submit written evidence of the business being operated prior to 1990, such evidence as business receipts, statements, LLC filings, bills, advertising, tax records and so on. Robert Waller stated that it would take him some time to find these things.
The Coordinator noted that once these documents were submitted the Town had something to prove to anyone questioning the business that it was, indeed, considered grandfathered and legally non-conforming.
Robert Waller offered that the sign by the mailbox was small and for safety purposes so people could find him easily. He said he could take the banner type sign off the front of the barn. He noted that he did not know he needed any kind of approval for the containers which were being used to keep unsightly parts or cars from view. Robert Waller reiterated that if he produced documents showing his business the Town would then have the right to turn him down and he did not want to get into that situation. Doug Hill disagreed, noting that production of proof of the business gave the Planning Board something to use to help Mr. Waller. Robert Waller asked what would happen if the Board decided he was not grandfathered. The Chairman stated that he wanted to deal with getting the proof before thinking about
that. Robert Waller said he did not think he had any records from that time period. He also noted that he never saw the form that was supposed to be filled out back in 1990.
Dean Mehlhorn suggested that Mr. Waller give an old client a call. Robert Waller said that he purged things after 10 years on advice of his accountant.
The Board once again asked Mr. Waller to do his best in providing documents as noted above that would prove that his business had in fact been operating since prior to 1990.
5. For discussion, the construction of a retaining wall at the rear of New Boston Hardware, located at 1 Central Square, Tax Map/Lot # 18/11. (Stephen Young to be present.)
Present in the audience were Steve Young and Bill Dodge.
The Chairman asked Steve Young to explain his proposed retaining wall construction to the Board. Steve Young stated that he wanted to build a wall between the river and his business. The Chairman asked what type of wall Steve Young was intending on building. Steve Young answered a concrete wall. Mark Suennen asked for the dimensions of the wall. Douglas Hill asked if any engineering had been done yet. Steve Young answered no.
Steve Young pointed out the location of the proposed retaining wall on a map that he provided to the Board. Douglas Hill asked how the retaining wall would affect the river and DES. Steve Young answered that going through DES would be a long and expensive process. Dwight Lovejoy pointed out that any construction done within 250’ of a river required DES approval. Douglas Hill asked how far from the river the wall would be located. Steve Young answered that the wall would be 20’, at most, away from the river. Douglas Hill stated that he was unsure if the Board had any jurisdiction over this matter.
The Coordinator suggested that Steve Young contact Jay Aube at Shoreland Protection to have a discussion about the construction of the retaining wall. The Chairman stated that should Steve Young gain approval from DES for the construction of the retaining wall the Board would be interested in amending his site plan.
11. Distribution of the June 8, 2010, meeting minutes via email for approval at the meeting of July 27, 2010.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
12.Letter received June 18, 2010, from David R. Crane, Arborist, PSNH, to New Boston Planning Board, re: request for a public hearing to remove trees on scenic roads, for the Board’s review and discussion. (Board should discuss viewing the trees.)
The Coordinator stated that the hearing for this matter would be scheduled for July
27th. She noted that in the past the Board had scheduled a site walk to view the trees proposed to be cut if they were on one road but these were on five or six different roads. The Board decided a site walk would not be necessary and they would view the trees, which were marked with orange flagging, individually.
The Chairman asked if it was necessary to hold a public hearing for the above-referenced matter. The Coordinator answered that it was necessary to hold a public hearing because it would give property owners an opportunity to fight for certain trees.
The Board decided to view all the trees marked for removal prior to the July 27, 2010, meeting.
14.Discussion, re: Earth Removal Regulations
The Chairman suggested that all of the comments that had been made at the previous meeting be incorporated into the Earth Removal Regulations. He also suggested changing the order of the document to list the items that the Town was currently doing at the beginning of the document and locate the information from Town Counsel at the back of the document. He added that he wanted the document to be less scary for people to read.
The Chairman asked for any other comments. Douglas Hill commented that he agreed with the suggested changes. Mark Suennen believed that the exception portion of the document should not be included. The Coordinator explained that the law provided the list of exceptions and the information in the regulations was designed to assist a gravel pit owner in proving those exceptions to the Town. Mark Suennen suggested moving the exceptions section to an appendix of the document.
Mark Suennen inquired about the 5,000 yard threshold that Dave Elliott had provided at the previous hearing regarding amounts of material that did not require permits. The Coordinator stated that she had researched the threshold and found that the Town’s old ordinance did not require permits for material amounting to 10,000 yards or less. She noted that as far as incidental to construction was concerned the law did not differentiate between removing 5,000 cubic yards or 1 million cubic yards of material and the Board should consider all the same things - traffic routes, number of trucks, hours of operation, etc. - as they would for a gravel pit.
The Chairman suggested either condensing the language of the exception section or as Mark Suennen had suggested putting them separately in an Appendix. The Board agreed.
It was noted that the regulations' use of the word “silvicultural” had created a stir. The Coordinator explained that the regulations had to serve many audiences and had to be used for many purposes. She noted that directly reflecting the statutory language made it easier for a judge to deal with the regulations should it come to such a point. She noted that adding the word “forestry” in brackets might be a good idea. The Board agreed.
6.For discussion, cul-de-sacs, re: letter dated June 7, 2010, received from New Boston Department Heads, to the New Boston Planning Board, copied at last meeting.
The Chairman stated that the issue of cul-de-sac length needed to be discussed for the upcoming Twin Bridge Management, LLC, subdivision and for future subdivisions.
9. Discussion, re: frontage, driveways and wetlands.
The Chairman noted that this issue related to the regulations and past history with proving buildability of lots. He noted that the recent Nadeau application raised this issue and a site walk was held at which discussion took place that no approved wetlands permit or driveway application would be required. He noted that this might need to be discussed in more detail.
10.Discussion re: Bilodeau Site Plan, Tax Map/Lot# 14/44, Joe English Road.
The Chairman noted that another abatement for property in the area of this cordwood business had been filed and approved by the assessor. He noted that the Planning Board needed to close on this issue. He pointed out that a confidential letter had been distributed from Counsel which offered the Board three choices for moving ahead: bring the applicant in and give specific modifications to the plan; kick the matter to the Board of Selectmen to cease and desist the applicant because the plan should not have been approved in the first place; and, follow Counsel's suggested resolution with regard to storage amounts versus stockpiling.
The Chairman stated that of these three items the Bilodeau discussion was perhaps the least time sensitive and could be rescheduled for the next meeting. He noted that the cul-de-sac discussion both short-term for a pending application and long-term in general should be accomplished prior to the next meeting.
Doug Hill wanted to discuss the issue of frontage to a lot, re: Miscellaneous Business #9, first.
The Chairman noted that the regulations require that an applicant prove that there is access to a lot before a shared driveway can be approved. He went on to say that at the site walk the wetlands looked a lot less difficult than the plan might suggest and that the driveway was not in the location of flooding that Peter Hogan had been concerned about at the previous meeting. The Chairman stated that those on the site walk had thought that it would be OK for the applicant to provide a plan showing the possibility of separate driveways but not have to provide a Dredge and Fill Permit nor a Driveway Permit. He noted that it seemed unlikely that NH DOT would issue driveway permits for driveways so close together. The Chairman's question was should the Board stick with consistency and, as in past situations, require
the applicant to go through the State's processes or short circuit that approach and only require a plan to be submitted and assume that the Dredge and Fill and Driveway Permits could be achieved.
Doug Hill asked what the consensus at the site walk had been. The Chairman noted that himself, Peter Hogan and Christine Quirk were the only ones present at the site walk. Peter Hogan had suggested only supplying a plan. Doug Hill stated that if Peter Hogan was willing to accept that he would go along with it. The Chairman noted that according to the information distributed by the Coordinator the regulations had clearly been changed for a reason and he was concerned with changing the Board's precedent. He said that he could understand the issue with the State's driveway permit because it would be difficult to get separate permits which was the reason for applying for a shared driveway in the first place. He noted, however, that other applicants had been made to obtain a Dredge and Fill Permit and he
thought in order to be consistent the Board should consider this for this applicant too.
Doug Hill noted that the cell tower lot on Wilson Hill Road had not been required to obtain a Dredge and Fill Permit for the remainder lot. The Chairman noted that particular subdivision had been done solely to achieve the cell tower lot. Doug Hill noted that SHB Properties had to obtain a permit because the Board had not been sure whether or not the State would issue the permit. He thought the Board should require the permit only when they were not sure if it would be issued.
The Chairman suggested that the Nadeau's come in with a plan showing separate driveways, the Board could hold a second site walk so that more Planning Board members could be present to see if everyone thought it feasible that the applicant would be issued the permit by the State. Mark Suennen thought that construction of a short cul-de-sac to provide frontage for each lot was a solution that would not require three separate driveways off the State road. Doug Hill thought that this suggestion was not an easier solution and would require a lot of money and would create multiple problems.
The Board decided to individually go and look at the site prior to the meeting of July 27, 2010.
The Chairman noted that the Bilodeau discussion would be saved until the next meeting. He asked the Board to review the information distributed for this meeting and think about the options offered as possible solutions. Mark Suennen asked that Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer should be asked to visit the site periodically.
The Chairman stated that the last item to address was cul-de-sacs. He noted that there was a short term issue with the upcoming Twin Bridge subdivision and a long term issue regarding the subject in general. He noted that a recent meeting with the Department Heads it was determined that they did not want to extend the length of the cul-de-sacs longer than 1,000’. He believed at some point the Board would need to either stick with the 1,000' maximum or find a way to engage the Department Heads in further discussion or provide an acceptable alternative.
Mark Suennen stated that the Department Heads had said "1,000'" and he was not going to countermand that statement. Dwight Lovejoy thought that Planning Boards and Selectmen in the past had thought certain ways and suggested ways to manage growth of the community. He thought that if someone bought a 100 acre piece of land and could only get a 1,000' road to access it they should accept that fact. Doug Hill noted that most times the developers could have achieved significantly higher numbers of lots by building a loop or through road. He stated that these matters were dealt with on a case by case basis and longer cul-de-sacs were valuable in doing other things such as conserving important features and reducing environmental impact. Doug Hill went on to say that the decisions to grant longer
cul-de-sacs did not just happen, there was a lot of thought that went into them and having fewer homes was one of them.
Mark Suennen said that he understood all the side benefits of a longer cul-de-sac and frankly did not care. He said that if the town's employees said "1,000'" he would not countermand that even if there was a benefit to be gained by allowing a longer road.
The Coordinator pointed out that in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations if an applicant could prove that a through road could be constructed then the Planning Board is not supposed to approve a cul-de-sac of any length. Discussion took place regarding how this did not make sense in all cases. Doug Hill pointed out that the Open Space Subdivision language in the Zoning Ordinance allowed for creative design with roads and thought that in light of the discussion about not allowing roads longer than 1,000' this wording should be removed.
Mark Suennen pointed out that the Conservation Commission agreed with the 1,000' limit on cul-de-sacs. Dwight Lovejoy said again that his personal opinion was that if someone bought a piece of land knowing the allowable road length was only 1,000' that was the way it should stand. Doug Hill asked if an applicant owned 8,000 acres and would leave open space with a long cul-de-sac as opposed to a loop road with twice as many houses would Dwight Lovejoy still insist on a 1,000' road. Dwight Lovejoy said that safety issues could not be ignored. Doug Hill said that safety is one factor that the Planning Board has to think about. He noted that he wanted Dwight Lovejoy to understand that the Board did not just say OK to the longer cul-de-sacs but that a multitude of factors was considered and the issue was not
black and white. Doug Hill went on to say that wetland impact was a big concern. He continued that he could guarantee that developers would not stick with a 1,000' road and the town would have loop roads with more houses which he said he had no problem with. Mark Suennen pointed out that the Conservation Commission's representative had agreed with the 1,000' length and with a 100% consensus from the represented town departments he would not fight the issue. He pointed out that he was, of course, just one vote on the Board. Doug Hill stated he would stick with the 1,000' and live with the consequences.
The Chairman asked if Mark Suennen was willing to accept the end point of the Department Heads regardless of their reasons for getting there. Mark Suennen reiterated that they were in consensus. The Chairman said he was more interested in the individual reasons presented as reasons for sticking with 1,000' rather than the group vote. Mark Suennen said he thought the reasons were legitimate and each department presented an argument based on their role in the town that he would not disagree with. The Chairman wondered if the Department Heads' views would be supported if the townspeople were to be asked about the issue.
Mark Suennen offered that if the pending subdivision's cul-de-sac waiver was denied and the through road constructed there would be a lot of unhappy people, including the abutters and neighbors and the Russell Foundation, which would create a backlash against the 1,000' cul-de-sac. He noted that the town officials would have to deal with that if it happened. He also thought that the town's budgets could increase if services had to be provided for longer loop or through roads.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 9:47 p.m. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted, Minutes Approved:
Valerie Diaz, Recording Clerk 07/27/2010
| 
