The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members Mark Suennen and Dean Mehlhorn and Ex-officio Dwight Lovejoy. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, and Planning Assistant Shannon Silver.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Ed Hunter, Building Inspector and Code Enforcement Official, Mark Brown, Conservation Commission Member, Bob Leclair, Ken Lombard, Tom Carr, CWS, Dave Elliott, Kevin Anderson, EIT, Brandy Mitroff, Ian McSweeney, Jason and Jennifer Martel, Charles Cleary, Esq., Kenneth Kozyra, and Dana Lorden.
Discussion, re: Proposed Zoning Amendments.
The Chairman opened the discussion and noted that he would begin with the Sign Ordinance since Ed Hunter was in the audience. He noted that this was Amendment #4 in the Board's packet. He once again told Ed Hunter that the proposal looked good and he had just a couple of comments and questions. Mark Suennen stated that he had given his comments to Ed Hunter at the last meeting. Ed Hunter said that many of Mark Suennen's comments had been incorporated into the version of the document that the Board was looking at this evening. The Chairman asked the Coordinator what had been changed since the last draft the Board had seen. The Coordinator noted that anything in bold, underlined italics was different from the previous draft.
The Chairman suggested in the Purpose section that the word "and" in the last sentence be changed to "while", so the sentence would read: "This ordinance is intended to provide uniform regulations...maintaining...traditional character of New Boston while preserving and maintaining a rural quality of life.". The Board agreed.
The Chairman next suggested in the definition of Seasonal sign adding the word "only" so the definition would read: "A sign displayed only during the typical selling season of the item or service provided.". The Board agreed.
Ed Hunter noted that the definitions of Permanent, Seasonal and Temporary Signs had been added at Mark Suennen's suggestion.
Dean Mehlhorn arrived at the meeting at this time and the Chairman took a moment to mention Miscellaneous Business item #3:
3. Memorandum dated November 15, 2010, from Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, to Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Planning Board Appointment Recommendation, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman noted that Dean Mehlhorn was now a full member of the Planning Board.
The Chairman returned to the proposed Sign Ordinance, noting that Section 318.3, B, 2, was missing some numbers. The Coordinator said that she had spoken with Ed Hunter that day to determine that the numbers to add were 30 days for approval and 12 months for installation.
The Chairman next suggested that the word "properly" be deleted from the last sentence in Section 318.3, E, noting that it did not add anything to the section: "Illumination shall be properly focused upon the sign itself.". Ed Hunter stated that this language was from the existing ordinance and it was fine with him if the word properly was deleted. The Board agreed.
The Chairman next suggested changing the wording in the last sentence of Section 318.3, G, from: "The Building Inspector may require a design professional review of any permanent sign for structural stability." to read: "The Building Inspector may require a review by a design professional of any permanent sign for structural stability.". He thought the sentence flowed better. The Board and Ed Hunter agreed.
In Section 318.3, H, the Chairman suggested adding language regarding maintaining the sign in good condition to match the language in other sections: "...The sign may be no larger than 12 square feet per face and shall be constructed of durable materials and shall be maintained in good condition and repair at all times.". The Board and Ed Hunter agreed.
The Chairman suggested that Section 318.3, I, should be changed to say in the last sentence: "The sign shall be displayed for not more than 30 days." rather than the proposed language: "The sign shall not be displayed for more than 30 days.". Mark Suennen, however, argued that changing the placement of the word "not" changed the intent of the sentence and suggested that the wording stay as proposed. Upon consideration, the Chairman agreed.
The next section that the Chairman commented on was Section 318.5, A, 2, which seemed to suggest that once 70 s.f. of signage was used for a free standing sign, the applicant had to use 30 s.f. for wall signs. He asked if the applicant only used 50 s.f. for a free standing sign would they be able to use 50 s.f. for wall signs. Ed Hunter stated that the Committee's intent had been to limit the size of the freestanding sign to 70 s.f. and to limit the size of wall signs to 30 s.f., and not to allow larger wall signs if less than the maximum for freestanding signs was used. The Chairman suggested rewording #2 to read: "A maximum of 30 square feet may be used for all wall signs and/or portable "A" frame signs.", rather than allowing the "remaining" 30 s.f. to be used. Ed Hunter agreed with the proposed change.
Ed Hunter noted that one other thing that had not been added but that he had mentioned at the last meeting on the ordinance was to allow three or more businesses to have an additional 30 s.f. of wall signage. The Coordinator noted that she had added suggested language to take care of this: "Lots with three or more legally established businesses thereon may utilize an additional 30 square feet for wall signs." Ed Hunter and the Board agreed with the proposed language.
The Chairman noted that Section 318.5, F, had the word "Readerboard" added in a couple of places. The Coordinator noted that this word was an industry term that Fred Pineault had used a couple of times and that the Barlo Signs rep. who reviewed the ordinance had suggested adding. The Board agreed.
Ed Hunter went back to Section 318.4, C, noting that in thinking about the location of signs in relation to setbacks in Residential Districts he had become concerned that requiring a 15' setback from the front property line would put the sign too far from the road when you consider that most of the time a property line is at least 25' from the center of the road to start with. His suggestion was to require the sign to be outside the right-of-way, thereby allowing the sign to be 25' from the center of the road in most cases. The setback for signs for side and rear property lines remained at 15' from those lines. Mark Suennen asked about State rights-of-way and Ed Hunter pointed out that the language regarding those rights-of-way was included in the next sentence of Section 318.4, C.
The Chairman asked if there were any other comments regarding the Sign Ordinance. There being none, he asked Ed Hunter to pass on his compliments to the committee for a great job.
The Chairman went on to proposed Amendment #5 which proposed amending the definitions of Structure and Sign to match the proposals in the Sign Ordinance itself.
The next amendment was #3 which took the parking requirements from the Zoning Ordinance with the intention that they would be moved to the Non-Residential Site Plan Review Regulations.
The Chairman next mentioned proposed Amendment #2 which was a housekeeping item to delete Accessory Dwelling Units from the list of Special Exception uses in the R-A District and to add the use to the list of Permitted Uses in that district.
Proposed Amendment #1 was discussed next which attempted to fix the problem identified by Town Counsel with regard to agricultural and residential uses on the same lot. The Coordinator noted that in speaking with Bill Drescher, Esq., that day, he had agreed with her to add the word "commercial" before "agricultural uses" so as to differentiate between agriculture as a business and agriculture as an accessory use. She went on to say that Peter Hogan had sent an email expressing his preference for the Planning Board to deal with the matter via a Conditional Use Permit rather than the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) with a Special Exception.
Mark Suennen thought that as a commercial use on a residential lot he would be in favor of the ZBA dealing with the matter as a Special Exception, as it was a zoning issue. Dean Mehlhorn agreed, as did Dwight Lovejoy, who noted that as a business it should be regulated. The Coordinator asked the Board to look at Section 206 of the Zoning Ordinance in which the Special Exception requirements were listed. The Chairman asked how often the ZBA require things under the additional criteria listed in Section 206. The Coordinator could recall one application (for rock removal on Joe English) that had a lot of additional conditions attached to the approval. She noted that ordinarily the ZBA looked at the three main criteria and required a site plan review as part of the approval.
The Chairman noted that the Board would go with the current consensus, although he was sure Peter Hogan would express his opinion when he was at the next meeting. The amendment would be proposed for the public hearing with the Special Exception requirement. The Coordinator noted that she had prepared Conditional Use Permit language just in case and the Board may want to take a look at that as well.
There being no further discussion on the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments, the Board moved on to Miscellaneous Business.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 14, 2010
1. Approval of minutes of October 26, 2010, distributed by email.
Mark Suennen MOVED to approve the minutes of October 26, 2010, as written. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Approval of minutes of November 9, 2010, distributed by email.
Dean Mehlhorn MOVED to approve the minutes of November 9, 2010, as written. Dwight Lovejoy seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
6. A Union Leader Article, dated December 7, 2010, titled: Voters may repeal town’s zoning laws, was distributed for the Board’s information.
7a. Letter copy dated December 7, 2010, from Kevin M. Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Mr. Arthur Davis, Thibeault Corporation of New England, re: Indian Falls/Susan Road Connection- Bussiere, for the Board’s information.
7b. Letter copy from Arthur W. Davis, Thibeault Corporation of New England, to Kevin M. Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: Kevin Leonard’s letter of December 7, 2010, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman noted that the letters indicated that some things had been done to confirm stabilization of the property and some things remained to be completed. He wondered if the site had been inspected following the recent rain.
8.Letter received December 9, 2010, from Russ Boland, New Boston Fire Inspector, to Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Residential Sprinkler Systems, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Board noted that they would like to receive some more information providing the Fire Wards' rationale behind the request to require sprinkler systems in all new homes in subdivisions. The Coordinator noted that the Fire Wards had been informed that Miscellaneous Business would not begin until 9:15 p.m. +/- and there may be someone present later in the meeting.
4. Email received November 15, 2010, from Kevin Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator and Tom Miller, Road Committee, re: Draft of New Boston Inspection Procedures, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman noted that he had quite a few comments but some of them were wordsmithing type issues that he would be happy to give to the Coordinator to pass on to Kevin Leonard, PE. He asked if the Board had any structural, procedural or general comments on the proposed inspection procedures. Mark Suennen asked about Stormwater Protection Plans and who was responsible for inspecting and maintaining erosion controls. He had assumed that the Town Engineer would handle the inspections following major rain events. Both Dean Mehlhorn and the Coordinator indicated that an SWPP filed with the EPA would be required to be posted onsite and someone from the contractor's company would be responsible for inspections.
The Chairman pointed out a discrepancy in the document with regard to punchlist creation as to when a site walk would be done by the Board and suggested that it be changed to include the correct procedure whereby the Board would conduct a compliance site walk followed by a compliance hearing at a regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting. The Chairman also suggested that the document be read for consistency of the use of "shall" and "should".
The Coordinator suggested that it might be a good idea to get everyone together at a Planning Board meeting to discuss the document, noting that Tom Miller, Road Committee Chairman, had included a lot more in the way of inspections and soils testing and the Board should probably know what impact that would have in terms of increased costs. The Chairman agreed that meeting with Kevin Leonard, PE, and Tom Miller was a good idea and suggested that a handout be prepared that detailed the additions to the old policy for inspections and any deletions. He also asked that some kind of cost comparison be included. The Chairman's last point was that the document began as a protocol for inspections and towards the end began to include many technical specifications that may be better off added to the regulations
as opposed to being included in the inspection procedures.
The Board agreed that a meeting in January with the involved parties was a good idea.
5. Letter copy dated December 3, 2010, from Edward DiPietro, to New Boston Board of Selectmen, re: Joint Meeting of Planning Board and Selectmen, November 22, 2010, re: Cul-de-sacs, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman suggested that the Board write back to Mr. DiPietro because his letter had had a fairly wide distribution and contained some errors regarding the adoption and updating of Subdivision Regulations. The Chairman noted that Mr. DiPietro referred to a town meeting vote to adopt the regulations and the Subdivision Regulations are, in fact, discussed and voted on by the Planning Board at a regular Planning Board meeting. The Chairman said on a side note that the discussion regarding cul-de-sacs was still not over and he was not sure what would happen in the end. The Board agreed that a letter should be drafted for the Chairman to sign addressing the inaccuracy regarding the process for adoption of Subdivision Regulations in Ed DiPietro's letter.
9. Conditional Release and Assignment received December 13, 2010, from Berkley Regional Insurance Company, re: Seff Enterprises and Holdings, LLC, Maintenance Bond, Foxberry Drive, for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator noted that this conditional release would allow the Town to receive the $750 for crack repair and release the bond which had not yet been formally released.
10. The minutes of November 23, 2010, were distributed by email, for approval at the meeting of December 28, 2010.
11. Daily Reports for SIB Trust, Indian Falls Road and Susan Road, received December 14th, were distributed for the Board's information.
12. Condex Site Plan for Locus Field, LLC, Kettle Lane, Tax Map/Lot #13/15-6, for endorsement by Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Coordinator asked if the Chairman would be willing to sign but not date this plan so that when the last of the administrative conditions was fulfilled, which she felt would be prior to the next Planning Board meeting, the plans would be ready to be recorded. The Chairman and Dean Mehlhorn (in Peter Hogan's absence) signed the above-noted Condex Site Plan.
Susana Leclair Revocable Trust Adjourned from 11/09/10
Compliance Hearing/CUP/(2) Wetland Crossings
Location: Wilson Hill and Bedford Roads
Tax Map/Lot #9/24
Residential/Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice for the record. Present in the audience was Bob Leclair.
The Chairman noted that the original subdivision had been approved in 2005 and various extensions had been granted to get the applicant to today. He further noted that a compliance site walk had been held and the wetlands permit had been extended. The Chairman said that he and Mark Suennen had met onsite with Bob Leclair and Allen Brown and determined that 200 square feet remained in need of stabilization. He noted that the stone had been placed and crushed material had been placed at the entrance of both lots, 9/24-12 and 9/24-13, to prevent tracking onto the road. The Chairman went on to say that the bond amount for the 200 square feet came to $90.00 which had been received and there were no outstanding fees. Mark Suennen suggested that the applicant be given a deadline in June of 2010 in
order to be certain that stabilization took place.
Mark Suennen MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the installation of two wetland crossings on Wilson Hill and Bedford Roads, Tax Map/Lot #9/24-12 & 13, by Susana Leclair Revocable Trust, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. $90 will be held until June 30, 2011, to confirm that the site is stabilized and any remaining silt fence can be removed. The confirmation of this condition shall be made administratively by the Planning Board and will not require an additional compliance hearing.
Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
TWIN BRIDGE LAND MANAGEMENT, LLC Adjourned from 11/23/10
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. Present in the audience were Tom Carr, CWS, Kevin Anderson, EIT, and Charles Cleary, Esq., representing the applicants. Also present were Brandy Mitroff, Ken Lombard, Ian McSweeney, Mark Brown, Dave Elliott, Jason and Jennifer Martel.
The Chairman gave a brief history of the project and noted that the recent plan submission came after the seven day deadline and that a funding issue on the applicant's part had slowed down Northpoint Engineering's review of the road plans and profiles. He noted that other issues still in need of discussion were the Special Exception for earth removal, a waiver request for the grade at the intersection of Twin Bridge Road and Wright Drive, legal documents were still needed to address Town Counsel's review comments on the first set of documents, Kevin Leonard, PE, had just finished the engineering review of the most recently revised plans, and there was an outstanding request from the Conservation Commission for a 100' setback from the river. The Chairman asked anyone wishing to speak to wait to be
acknowledged and to state their name and address for the record.
Tom Carr, CWS, noted that Kevin Anderson, EIT, the engineer on the project was present to answer any questions that may come up that he was not familiar with himself. He noted that there were a few items in the most recent Northpoint Engineering review letter that presented a hurdle to get over. The Chairman pointed out to Tom Carr, CWS, that the hearing was scheduled for 45 minutes and he could use that time to discuss whichever things he thought were the most important.
Tom Carr, CWS, noted that at the last Planning Board meeting six weeks prior, the Groundwater Resource Conservation District Conditional Use Permit had been granted. He noted that since that time they had removed the short cul-de-sac from the plans and reconfigured the subdivision in this location to achieve five front lots; this eliminated the need for the waiver request for the cul-de-sac length.
Tom Carr, CWS, next noted that the only outstanding waiver request was relative to Northpoint Engineering's latest letter, comment #19 in the August 23, 2010, letter, regarding the grade of the intersection of Wright Drive and Twin Bridge Road. Tom Carr, CWS, noted that they had engineered the plan with a -2% grade off the road and then started back up. He also noted that they had maintained the 50 year storm event to stay within the detention basin's design capabilities. He further noted that a -3% grade would allow the 50 year storm to flow across the road, which was, obviously, not permitted. The Chairman asked if the waiver was just for the grade or if it was for the distance too. Tom Carr, CWS, responded that the waiver was for the distance too. He read the waiver request: "...The applicant is requesting a waiver from the Town's required -3% grade within 75 ft. of the intersection of Wright Drive and Twin Bridge Road. Twin Bridge Road is a pre-existing road that was
recently reconstructed with the addition of a cistern near the entrance of proposed Wright Drive. The proposed design of this road, -2% for 20 feet, is dictated by existing on-site and off-site grades. Detention Basin #1, adjacent to this section of road on the west side, is designed to fill up to the edge of pavement at the 50 year storm event. Complying with this standard would create a low point in the road which would reduce the capacity of the detention basin adversely affecting the abutting property to the east. As the road is currently designed, Twin Bride Road and/or the abutting property will not be adversely affected. Essentially, this design balances the best possible solution to access the property from Twin Bridge Road in consideration of surrounding existing conditions...". Tom Carr, CWS, went on to say that Northpoint Engineering's recent December 12, 2010, letter in comment #18 supported the basis of the waiver request: "We have reviewed the roadway
intersection waiver request that has been submitted by the applicant. The existing grades at the proposed entrance of Wright Avenue in conjunction with the need to mitigate and treat post-development storm water runoff makes the design of the vertical alignment at this location challenging. We agree with the designer that they have attempted to balance the design requirements. However, we would suggest that they enlarge Detention Basin #1 for two reasons. This would lower the 50-year flood elevation of DB1, which as currently designed floods to the roadway pavement. Furthermore, as designed this basin is submerged within the reported SHWT. Additional storage will help account for potential groundwater.". The Chairman noted that he read that as a suggestion to enlarge detention basin #1, not as support for the waiver. Tom Carr, CWS, noted that they had not received Kevin Leonard, PE's letter until Monday and Kevin Anderson, EIT,
could address this issue. The Chairman agreed that Kevin Leonard, PE, had said that the design attempted to balance the requirements, but that did not constitute supporting the waiver request. He went on to say that previous requests for waivers of intersection grades on other projects had been sent to the Road Committee for their review and discussion.
Kevin Anderson, EIT, noted that there was an error on the review and that he had revised and addressed a note that had been covering up the contour. He noted that basin bottom was at the SHWT not below and said that the plans were easier to read now. He further noted that the detention basin could not be enlarged because of its impact on the front yard of the lot upon which it was located. The Chairman stated that his preference was to send this issue to the Road Committee. Kevin Anderson, EIT, asked if all the other design issues should go to the committee for review as well. The Chairman stated that Kevin Leonard, PE, would address the other issues. Mark Suennen asked if the 75' distance was carried at -3%, what the elevation of the road would be. Kevin Anderson,
EIT, did not have that information. Mark Suennen asked how big the detention pond would have to be to maintain the 50 year storm without reaching the road. Tom Carr, CWS, stated that the intent was to balance the detention area and containing the 50 year storm with the engineering required for the road. He noted that the engineer who started this plan was no longer with the company and he was trying to understand all the ideas that the
first engineer had had for the design of the road. Mark Suennen commented that if the detention pond had to get bigger and the whole lot had to be used for the pond so that no house could be built there, so be it. The Chairman asked that the Road Committee be asked to comment on the waiver request. The Coordinator asked Tom Carr, CWS, to submit everything to the Planning Department who would forward it on to the Road Committee.
Tom Carr, CWS, next noted items #28 & 35 from Kevin Leonard, PE's, December 12, 2010, letter: "#28. The vertical curve at station 11+00 is designed with a K value of 46.43. "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" published by AASHTO states that a sag curve shall have a K value of 49 when applying a design speed of 35 MPH. The designer would need to lengthen this vertical curve to meet this criterion. The designer reported that he designed the road using a 30 MPH design speed. Section IX-B 2(r) of the Subdivision regulations requires a 35 MPH design speed." "#35. The vertical curve at station 22+25 is designed with a K value of 40. "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" published by AASHTO states
that a sag curve shall have a K value of 49 when applying a design speed of 35 MPH. The designer would need to lengthen this vertical curve to meet this criterion." Tom Carr, CWS, stated that when the first engineer designed the road he had assumed a design speed of 30 mph as it was a residential cul-de-sac. He stated that he would ask to post the road at 30 mph. He further stated that Page Lane was not posted at all and he could not imagine anyone driving on Page Lane at 35 mph. The Coordinator stated that the town wide speed limit was 35 mph unless otherwise posted and any different speed limit had to be approved by the Board of Selectmen. Mark Suennen pointed out that design speed did not define posting speed and vice versa. He also noted that posted speed had to be less than or equal to design speed and that designers should be designing for higher speeds than the expected posted speed of the road. He went on to say
that even if the applicant wished the road to be posted 30 mph it should meet a design speed of 35 mph in his opinion.
Dave Elliott stated that he could not imagine anyone driving around a cul-de-sac at 35 mph. The Chairman and Mark Suennen stated that they were not thinking about driving the turnaround but the potentially long straight road leading up to the turnaround upon which speeds of 35 mph or greater could be reached. Mark Suennen stated that the discussion of K values and superelevation was to make sure that nothing could tangentially be taken off the road because it was traveling at higher than the posted speed limit. Dean Mehlhorn said that if the regulations call for a 35 mph design speed then the road should be designed at 35 mph. Dwight Lovejoy agreed, stating that the road should be designed by the code and if the Board started bending, it would not work.
Tom Carr, CWS, asked if that was the Board's consensus. The Chairman confirmed that the Board's consensus was that the road should be designed for 35 mph.
Tom Carr, CWS, moved on to #38 in Kevin Leonard, PE's, 12/12/10 letter, which was a lengthy comment and which suggested that the Planning Board specify the limits of work that would be considered part of roadway construction, especially since the AoT permit specified no more than five acres could be open at any one time; that any arrangement for the town to take excess material off the site should be defined; and, that the work to be included in the bond for the project should be determined. Tom Carr, CWS, noted that the AoT permit did indeed specify that no more than five acres should be exposed. He noted that the road and the house sites on Lot #3/5 would put the project over that five acre limit and that section would have to be phased somehow. He noted that temporary stabilization could be achieved
on the house sites because they would be re-disturbed at the time of home construction but they would be stabilized to the point of no erosion. The Chairman asked Tom Carr, CWS, to propose to the Board a plan that he thought would work for the phasing of the construction.
Tom Carr, CWS, stated that the applicants were offering the excess sand onsite to the Town for as long as it was available but the Town would have to come to the site and get it themselves. It was noted that this was a long term offer since the project would not get started until 2011, and Dwight Lovejoy said that he would ask the other Selectmen and Road Committee for their thoughts on that. Dave Elliott said that test pits would confirm what was there but he thought that the material was better than the sand on the Sherburne lot. He also noted that the Town would only be limited to what they were interested in taking and it was worth serious consideration. The Chairman asked Dwight Lovejoy to have an answer by the next time this applicant was before the Board.
Tom Carr, CWS, next noted that the bond for the project included the road and associated drainage infrastructure and not anything to do with the house lots. The Chairman noted that when the plan for phasing was known and when the Board of Selectmen had decided what to do about the material it would be a better time to discuss the issue of what to bond for.
Tom Carr, CWS, moved on to Kevin Leonard, PE's, comment #44: "Portions of the proposed lot grading within the open space development infringe upon the 100-foot vegetated buffer. We understand that the vast majority of this tract was clear cut several years ago. However, we suspect that the forest has started to recover by generating an understory. The Planning Board should consider whether they are agreeable to the proposed disturbances within the 100-foot buffer." Tom Carr, CWS, noted that any grading in the 100' buffer would be to the back of the proposed lots. He pointed out the existing tree line on the plans and asked if Ian McSweeney had any comments on this. He noted that slopes would be created, loamed, seeded and replanted and allowed to return to natural
growth. The Chairman clarified that what would be disturbed in the 100' buffer was not inside the existing tree line and if any disturbance did cross the line it would be vegetated and stabilized. Kevin Anderson, EIT, pointed out that there would be a slope grading easement in place on this land that would prevent the area from ever being changed, developed or altered by the future property owners. The Chairman noted that the Board needed to consider this request, stating that it made sense to him. Mark Suennen said that he would like an opinion from the Russell Foundation based on how this part of the property has started to grow back and how the proposed grading may disturb this growth.
Ian McSweeney, Russell Foundation, noted that the re-growth in this location was mainly brambles and shrubs. He said that given the protection and buffers on the other lots he felt that this proposal balanced out the lots and the building envelopes. He further noted that he much preferred this type of grading to be on this side of the development as opposed to the side closer to the river.
The Board determined that the proposed grading on the lots that infringed in some locations in the 100 foot vegetated buffer around the subdivision, as shown on the plans, was acceptable.
Tom Carr, CWS, stated that they would be reviewing the cistern design comments again and noted that the design would be to the newer standards even though those had not yet been adopted by the Board. The Chairman noted that the Board was working on making the Subdivision Regulations match the Fire Wards' design and to meet those standards would be best.
Tom Carr, CWS, said that the Narrative Report relative to the Open Space Subdivision had just been submitted and various deeds with restrictions regarding the conservation land had also recently been submitted. He noted that Ian McSweeney had worked diligently to prepare an easement deed which was supported by the Conservation Commission who were willing to take the easement. Mark Suennen clarified that the State of NH would own the fee and the New Boston Conservation Commission would hold the conservation easement. Tom Carr, CWS, confirmed this to be the case. Ian McSweeney said that the conservation easement had been approved and was pending final review. He noted that a description of the open space lot still needed to be included, which may change if the lots had to change to take into
account the redesign of the road layout and he hoped the deed could be a condition of approval. Mark Suennen asked which agency was taking the land to which Ian McSweeney replied, the Department of Resources and Economic Development (DRED). The Coordinator asked about the easement deed, noting that at the beginning of this process Gordon Russell had spoken a few times about keeping the back of the esker towards the river free from human use and had wanted even the homeowners in the subdivision to have no access to that land. She noted that in her reading of the easement, various rights were established, including hiking, skiing and horseback riding and she just wanted to make sure that everyone was OK with all of those uses bearing in mind Gordon Russell's previous statements. Ian McSweeney stated that everyone was OK with the uses proposed in the easement deed. The Chairman asked if the documents were ready to go to Town Counsel for review. Ian
McSweeney said that until the legal description was finalized he thought it too early to have the document reviewed and thought it should be a condition of approval.
Tom Carr, CWS, noted that he was out of time for this evening's hearing and still wanted to get to the Conditional Use Permit for the wetland crossings for the road but noted that the road bond was not finalized yet and the crossing amounts had to be included in the bond estimate. The Chairman stated that Tom Carr, CWS, would need to take care of Kevin Leonard, PE's comments. Tom Carr, CWS, stated that the biggest issue was the speed limit and they would have to redesign the road. He thought that adjourning for a month would be appropriate. The Chairman noted that other items that remained outstanding were the Board of Selectmen's decision on the material from the site, the information on the waiver request for the grade at the intersection that the Road Committee were to review, the Conservation
Commission's request for a 100' setback from the river and the issue of well radii still needed to be addressed because it had been discussed but no conclusions had been reached. Tom Carr, CWS, said that they had received State Subdivision Approval. He noted that the lot layouts were conceptual at the moment and when the real house design and septic designs were done the well radii would not be in the locations currently proposed on the plans. He stated that easements could not be prepared ahead of the drilling of the well because they would be easements for nothing, but that well release forms could be used.
Mark Suennen noted that since the applicants had to talk to the Road Committee anyway he thought they should look at #66 of Kevin Leonard, PE's, December 12, 2010, letter regarding the traffic report: "The traffic report states that the stop sign at Twin Bridge Road should be supplemented with an 18-inch white stop line. In the past the Highway Department has not been in favor of stop bars on residential streets. The report also suggests that a short section of double yellow centerline be installed to separate ingress and egress vehicles at the intersection. The report goes on to say this is optional given the low traffic volumes expected. The roadway plans currently depict both of these improvements. The designer reported that the plans were revised to specify these improvements
as optional, but we do not see any indication of this revision on the plans.". The Chairman asked for this to be included in the request for feedback from the Road Committee. Mark Suennen thought that given the time of year and the two holidays coming up it might be prudent to adjourn for six weeks. Tom Carr, CWS, agreed.
Mark Suennen MOVED to adjourn the hearing and extend the deadline for Board action for 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, to January 25, 2011, at 7:30 p.m. for 45 minutes. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
THOMAS LORDEN (OWNER)
ANDERSON & KREIGER, LLP, for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T)
(APPLICANT)
Compliance Hearing/Major Site Plan/Personal Wireless Service Facility
Location: Old Coach Road
Tax Map/Lot #8/132
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Kenneth Kozyra from KJK Wireless.
The Chairman gave a brief history of the application, noting that the application and plans for the above were approved with conditions on June 9, 2009, and the deadline for compliance with the conditions subsequent was December 8, 2011. He noted that a site walk was held on November 6, 2010, and that Mark Suennen indicated that shrubs needed to be planted and as-builts prepared. The Chairman stated that the shrubs had been planted but the as-built plans had not yet been received.
Kenneth Kozyra introduced himself and noted that the site had transferred from AT&T to Skyway Towers and he had just received the as-builts this evening. He submitted them to the Board. Mr. Kozyra stated that AT&T was now a tenant on the tower which was owned by a build-to-suit company. He said that changes had occurred due to construction and they were minor in nature. He said that the shelter and generator had switched places to comply with AT&T's new design for the compounds. He further noted that the transformer and telecommunications had been moved for plowing and bollards installed. Mark Suennen asked if the town engineer would look at the as-builts. The Coordinator replied that he would not.
Kenneth Kozyra said that one issue in the as-builts on Sheet A1 was that the dimension from the center of the tower to the nearest property line was 98' which was 21" too close to the line and which was out of compliance with the fall zone requirement from the Zoning Ordinance. He noted, however, that the Town's Zoning Ordinance included in the section on fall zones, the sentence: "The Planning Board, at its discretion, may reduce or eliminate the fall zone.". He also noted that the land on the other side of the property line in question was owned by the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests (SPNHF). Mark Suennen noted that the Zoning Ordinance also said: " The fall zone may cross property lines, so long as the applicant secures a fall zone easement from
the affected property owner(s).". Kenneth Kozyra stated that he had never had this happen before. The Chairman noted that when the balloon test took place he had noted that it was not in the right place but it was off by more than 21". He asked how the applicant would be affected if the Board waited until the next meeting to make a decision. Kenneth Kozyra said it would mean that AT&T would not be able to turn the tower on and it was scheduled to be online before January 1, 2011. The Coordinator noted, in response to a question from the Chairman, that this had come up once before during the approval process, not during the compliance process, and the Board had determined that because the same property owner owned both lots in question the fall zone could go onto the neighboring lot.
The Chairman said that there were two choices available: the Board could either say the tower did not meet the ordinance and it needed to be moved; or, deal with the issue now and say it was done. He suggested waiting until the next meeting to receive a letter from the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests saying that they did not care if the tower fell on the trees on their land. He noted that the tower would fall within the setback on the SPNHF land anyway and he did not necessarily have a problem with that. Dwight Lovejoy noted that there would never be a building in the area the tower could fall onto. Dean Mehlhorn said that he was fine with it because it was only 21". Mark Suennen noted that the Board was in a strange position on this issue. Dwight
Lovejoy noted that everything else had been checked by the Board on the site walk and was in compliance and the Board should use common sense rather than hold to the approved plan. The Chairman noted once again that the SPNHF land was basically in conservation and unlikely to be built on and if the tower fell it would be within the building setback on the SPNHF land anyway.
Dean Mehlhorn MOVED to note that the as-built plans show the tower on the Lorden property on Old Coach Road does not meet the approved site plan by 21" but the Planning Board is willing to accept the as-builts for the reasons mentioned previously: the land on which the tower could possibly fall is owned by a conservation based organization; the land is unlikely to be built on; and, the area in which the tower may possibly fall is within the building setback on the neighboring land.
Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Coordinator pointed out that the removal bond for the tower was in the name of AT&T and would need to be replaced by a removal bond in the name of the current owner. Kenneth Kozyra stated he would take care of this matter.
Mark Suennen MOVED to confirm that Thomas Lorden (Owner), Anderson & Kreiger, LLP, and Skyway Towers, LLC, for New Cingular Wireless, PCS, LLC, (AT&T) (Applicant), have complied with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan to install and operate a personal wireless service facility from Thomas Lorden's property on Old Coach Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/132, and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/ Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of completed as-built plans, signed, sealed and stamped by the engineer with changes detailed.
2. Submission of a replacement bond for removal of the pole by the new owner.The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be January 30, 2011, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
Kenneth Kozrya asked the procedure for receiving compliance on the other cell tower on Thompson Lane (formerly Wilson Hill Road). The Chairman stated that a letter should be sent requesting a compliance site walk after which a compliance hearing like the one just held would be scheduled.
Frederick K. Lorden Revocable Trust (owner)
Harvey J. Dupuis Family Trust (owner) Adjourned from 11/23/10
S & R Holdings, LLC (applicant)
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/42 Lots
Location: McCurdy & Susan Roads
Tax Map/Lot #12/19, 96 & 93-34
Residential/Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Morgan Hollis, Esq., representing the applicant, Dana Lorden, Brandy Mitroff, Ken Lombard, Mark Brown, and Ian McSweeney.
The Chairman briefly recapped the status of the application and noted that the engineering plans were just being reviewed by the town engineer. Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated that he was present to resolve one issue this evening, the ownership of the open space and the conservation restrictions. He noted that the Planning Board had asked the applicant to go to the Board of Selectmen to find out if the Town was interested in owning the open space land. Attorney Hollis noted that the Town did not want to take the land. He noted that the Piscataquog Land Conservancy (PLC) had been interested in holding a conservation easement on the land if the Town owned it. Since the Board of Selectmen's meeting, Attorney Hollis noted, the PLC had indicated their interest in owning the land if the Planning
Board OK'd it. He noted that the Conservation Commission could hold an easement over the area with the few exceptions as discussed at the last meeting carved out, including, well radii, septic reserve areas, and so on. He noted that there were a few language items to work out but the open space lots would be owned by the PLC and the majority of the open space lots would be under conservation restrictions which would be imposed first with the Town having the ability to enforce if they wanted to and the PLC would own the land and have their own ability to enforce. Mark Suennen confirmed that this would not be a conservation easement but restrictions placed on the land prior to title being transferred to the PLC.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., said that he would speak with Town Counsel to see what the best way was for the PLC to receive the deed but stated that it would be better to get the restrictions on the land first to give the town some rights, then deed the land. He noted that he would like to get the Planning Board to agree to this proposal because the ordinance required that the applicant propose how they would like to have the open space dealt with and the Planning Board has to decide whether or not to accept that proposal. He said he would then write up the documents and get them to Town Counsel for review, then sit with the PLC and then the Town to make sure everyone was in agreement.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., next noted other outstanding issues with the application, asking if there was any news on the offsite road improvements. The Coordinator said that she had checked again with the Town Administrator but had not received any numbers. Morgan Hollis, Esq., next noted the studies that had been submitted as part of the application and had not yet been discussed by the Board. He also noted that the pending waiver would be withdrawn and the Board needed still to act on the waiver regarding drainage because they were still waiting to hear from the Town Engineer. The Chairman asked the Coordinator about the offsite road improvements. The Coordinator stated that the Town Administrator had called the Chairman of the Road Committee that day to see if they had discussed the matter at
their last meeting. The Chairman asked that the Road Committee be asked to discuss this matter as soon as possible. He noted that he did not foresee any surprises coming from discussion of the various studies. He asked if the Board had any questions, noting that the Town Engineer did not. He asked if the applicant wanted to be adjourned to the 28th or needed more time. Morgan Hollis, Esq., asked if the Board would require a letter from the PLC and/or Town Counsel with regard to the legal documents prior to final approval or if the documents could be a condition of approval. The Chairman noted that the plans were with the Town Engineer for review and probably would not be ready to finalize in two weeks. Morgan Hollis, Esq., noted that the Engineer had had the plans for a week and was just getting into them. The Coordinator explained that was due to a funding issue with the applicant. She further noted that the Board
usually needed the legal documents to be very close to being finalized prior to plan approval. The Chairman noted the seven day submission deadline for the Board's January 11th meeting would be January 4th. He stated that the Board would let the applicant know by the 4th if there were any questions or concerns with regard to the studies so that they would know whether or not someone should be present to discuss them.
Mark Suennen stated that he would reserve judgment on the environmental impact study until the Stormwater Management Plans had been reviewed and the drainage issues addressed. He noted that he had only minor editorial comments on the traffic study and had no question or comment on the end result and accepted the conclusions to do with mitigation and sight line clearing at the intersection of McCurdy and Bedford Roads.
The Chairman agreed with Mark Suennen's assessment and again noted that if the applicant did not hear from the office by January 4th they should assume the Board to be OK with the traffic and fiscal impact studies. He recapped the open space issue, noting that the Planning Board needed to agree with the approach outlined by Attorney Hollis, that the PLC would own the land and there would be restrictions on the property enforceable by the Town if appropriate. Morgan Hollis, Esq., read from the Zoning Ordinance: "Section 401.6. Open Space Ownership and Management, Open Space Ownership - The type of ownership of land dedicated for open space purposes shall be selected by the owner, developer, or subdivider, subject to the approval of the Planning Board. Type of
ownership may include, but is not necessarily limited to, the following:
1.Public jurisdictions or agencies, subject to their acceptance;
2.Quasi-public organizations (such as the Piscataquog River Watershed Association and the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests), subject to their acceptance;
3.Homeowner or cooperative associations or organizations;
4.Shared, undivided interest by all property owners in the subdivision.".
Attorney Hollis noted that the applicant proposed the ownership listed in 2) above and that he would get a letter from the PLC regarding their acceptance. He said the PLC had told him that he was able to represent to the Board the things he had said this evening. He also noted that Jed Callen, Esq., would review the documents for the PLC. Mark Suennen asked if it would be clarified now what the restrictions would be on the open space property. He asked, for example, if recreational use would be permitted and what the adjacent residents would and would not be able to do in the open space. Morgan Hollis, Esq., noted that the open space would have to meet the NH DES requirements for conservation restrictions. He noted that passive recreation would be permitted but as far as public or
non-public access was concerned it was up to the Board to decide. He said the PLC would like to have public access to the land but he did not know if that related to trails or all the land in question. Morgan Hollis, Esq., pointed out that the trend among Planning Boards was to tighten up access to lands such as this to prevent encroachment close to the houses in the subdivision. He did not think the PLC would want to get into situations of enforcement due to recreational uses taken too far. Mark Suennen stated that he was happy with the applicant's proposal. Brandy Mitroff asked if the public access issue had been decided. Morgan Hollis, Esq., said the PLC wanted to allow public access and his client was OK with that. He thought they would try to have a dedicated trail system to avoid carte blanche access by the public to areas that could become problematic to enforce. Mark Suennen stated that it was in the PLC's best interests to
conserve the land in a responsible manner. Dwight Lovejoy and Dean Mehlhorn agreed.
The Chairman suggested an adjournment to January 11, 2011. Morgan Hollis, Esq., agreed to extend the Board's deadline for action to that date.
Mark Suennen MOVED to adjourn the hearing and extend the deadline for Board action for Frederick K. Lorden Revocable Trust (Owner), Harvey J. Dupuis Family Trust (Owner), S&R Holdings, LLC (Applicant), Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/42 Lots, Location: McCurdy & Susan Roads, Tax Map/Lot #12/19, 96 & 93-34, Residential/ Agricultural “R-A” District, to January 11, 2011, at 7:30 p.m. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
8. Letter received December 9, 2010, from Russ Boland, New Boston Fire Inspector, to Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Residential Sprinkler Systems, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman returned to this item and noted that no one from the Fire Wards was present. He asked that the Fire Wards be asked to provide their rationale behind this request either in writing or in person. The Coordinator said she was sure this would be no problem and there had been a scheduling snafu regarding anyone being able to attend this evening's meeting.
Mark Suennen MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Dwight Lovejoy seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
| 
