The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members Mark Suennen and Peter Hogan and Ex-officio Dwight Lovejoy. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, and Planning Board Assistant Shannon Silver.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Brandy Mitroff, Susan Woodward, Ed Hunter, Building Inspector and Code Enforcement Officer, Mike DePetrillo, Conservation Commission Alernate, Russ Boland, Fire Inspector, Louise Robie, John Neville, Earl Sandford, PE, Charles Cleary, Esq., Mark Anderson, Jennifer Webber, Jed Callen, Esq., Riitta and Larry Nemon, and Eileen Mahoney.
Public Hearing on the Capital Improvements Program, Plan of 2011, as proposed by the C.I.P. Committee. SEE SEPARATE NOTICE
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present was CIP Committee Chair Brandy Mitroff. Also present in the audience were Susan Woodward, Ed Hunter, Building Inspector and Code Enforcement Officer, and Mike DePetrillo, Conservation Commission Alternate.
Brandy Mitroff presented Table II as proposed this year by the CIP Committee.
Bridges
Brandy Mitroff began with Bridges, noting that Tom Miller, Road Committee Chairman, and former NH DOT employee, had gone over the list and given the Town information on the bridges, how to schedule their repair or replacement and what condition they were in. She noted that all the bridges had now been inspected. She went on to say that the Gregg Mill Road bridge had been scheduled for a full replacement but it had been determined that it only needed $50K in repairs that would hold it until 2026. Brandy Mitroff noted that the bad news was that the Riverdale Road culvert was in need of replacement and would take the place in 2014 of the Gregg Mill Road bridge at $1m+. She noted that the State covered 80% of the project, but noted that the new DES stream crossing rules required larger culverts and
projects were, therefore, more expensive. Brandy Mitroff explained that Table II showed taking the money already collected for the Gregg Mill and Tucker Mill Road bridges and asking the voters to create a Capital Reserve Fund (CRF) for the Riverdale Road bridge that would then already have $134K in it. She stated that starting in 2011 the voters would be asked to put more money in that CRF with a target replacement date of 2014.
Brandy Mitroff next noted that the Dougherty Lane bridge had been fairly recently replaced but had been done incorrectly so that the material was pulling away and undermining the culvert. She noted that this was a fairly easy fix but needed to be done before the culvert was undermined so much that it split. She noted the cost for this project was $20 - 35K. She went on to say that the aforementioned Gregg Mill Road bridge repair was $50K and these two projects had been put further down Table II under the Road Improvements line which contained $85K per year for road improvement projects but which would be used in 2011 instead for these more critical bridge projects rather than continuing Old Coach Road repairs. Brandy Mitroff also noted that Tom Miller had worked with the Selectmen to come up with
a bridge maintenance line in the Highway Department budget.
Mark Suennen asked if the numbers in the out-years on the CIP Plan would have to be changed if the warrant article did not pass to relocate the funds from Gregg Mill to Riverdale Road bridge. Brandy Mitroff stated that they would have to be reviewed. She noted that publicity should be arranged so that the voters realized that if the funds were not reallocated to Riverdale and stayed in the Tucker Mill Road line that bridge was not scheduled for replacement until 2023. She noted that renaming warrant articles had been done before and it was not a money issue. She stated that it was important to get the $134K jump on the Riverdale Road bridge before it fell into the river.
The next bridge discussed was Hilldale Lane, the road to the 4H Fairgrounds. She noted that this was not a high priority as the abutments were fine and this would be a repair issue. She noted that the deck was what needed fixing and funding in 2012 and 2013 would give the bridge 50 - 75 years of new life.
Central School
Brandy Mitroff noted that the school bond was shown in the schedule starting in 2013 but noted that Rick Matthews, Principal, had told the CIP Committee that was a guess and it could very well start later. She noted that the New Boston Central School population had been holding steady and even increased slightly. She thought there would have to be classes in the white buildings or portable classrooms before the townspeople would support a warrant article for another addition. Brandy Mitroff said that Rick Matthews did not think that the addition would be required for 5 or 6 years. She said that it was in the plan to begin in 2013 but no one should be surprised if it moved out a few years.
The Chairman noted that if New Boston began to reflect state and national trends with lower elementary school age kids' population there may never be a need for the addition. Brandy Mitroff pointed out that there were a lot of subdivisions on the town's books that could impact the school's population when they started to get built out.
Fire Department
Brandy Mitroff noted that the Fire Wards provided an updated schedule for their equipment replacements and refurbishments with which everyone was now comfortable. She noted that the CRF numbers had been run last year that showed the money not being enough in 2016 to fund the schedule so either the schedule or the yearly amounts would have had to change. She noted that adjustments in the replacement/refurbishment schedule allowed the yearly funding to remain at $90K.
Highway Department
Brandy Mitroff noted that the Heavy Equipment CRF dropped by $5K a year. She noted that there was a discussion this year amongst those who knew about trucks regarding maintenance issues since some did not feel the Town was getting the life span out of the vehicles that could be gained. She noted that discussion also took place regarding buying 10-wheelers or sticking with 6-wheelers. Brandy Mitroff noted that whoever was hired as the new Road Agent would have to become familiar with this and determine whether the amounts, years of life of the vehicles, etc., were appropriate. She noted that the Truck CRF amount remained the same.
Recreation Department
Brandy Mitroff noted that the line for Recreation Facilities was left in CIP as a placeholder with no funding attached.
Road Improvements
Brandy Mitroff noted that the Road Improvements project for 2011 was the bridge repairs for Gregg Mill and Dougherty Lane as previously discussed.
Selectmen
Brandy Mitroff noted that the Town Hall Renovations were shown in the plan with $180K already collected in a CRF. She went on to say that local architect David Ely and his wife Ellen Kambol had done a lot of work with the Town Hall employees to come up with a plan for slight renovations to some offices and a plan for file storage. She noted that they were calculating the numbers for the floor plan renovation and the energy things that needed to be accomplished like filling the gaps in the basement foundation walls and so on and a warrant article would be proposed to take the money out of the existing CRF. Brandy Mitroff went on to say that the Selectmen would decide next year whether or not to collect money for any other energy projects.
Brandy Mitroff next noted that the $85K in the CRF for the town revaluation would be used to complete the current reval, so there would be a break for a year and then the CRF would start up again to get ready for the next one.
Brandy Mitroff stated that the total for CIP for 2011 was slightly less than last year. She then noted that she had forgotten to mention that the salt shed for the Highway Department had good numbers attached to it thanks to Willard and Glenn Dodge. She noted that this project had originally been on the schedule for 2011 but had been bumped by the Riverdale Road culvert replacement. The salt shed was in the schedule for $95K which she felt was a good number. Brandy Mitroff thanked Shannon Silver, Planning Board Assistant, for her help with CIP this year.
Mark Suennen noted that a land purchase was noted at the bottom of the sheet, outside of the table and asked Brandy Mitroff to explain this item. Brandy Mitroff stated that this item should be removed from the plan as it was for the Thibeault land purchase that may or may not happen. She noted that the Committee had referenced this last year to make sure that everyone had notice of what a large separate bond issue could do to the numbers.
Brandy Mitroff noted that the Fire Chief had come to CIP with a better plan for the proposed Fire Station. She also noted that they were going to be looking at different types of construction and what that might do to the numbers. Brandy Mitroff noted that $300K had been included in the bond for a land purchase but further noted that if suitable land was found the purchase would be dealt with outside the CIP process so that money would not be left in as a bond issue.
The Chairman thanked Brandy Mitroff for her explanation of the CIP Table II. He asked the Board if there were any questions. There were none. He asked if anyone in the audience had any questions. There were no questions. The Chairman noted that he was closing the public hearing so the Board could enter into deliberations. He stated that the plan looked good to him. Mark Suennen noted that deleting the land purchase line should be considered an amendment to the table at tonight's meeting. Dwight Lovejoy and Peter Hogan both noted that the plan was find with them.
Mark Suennen MOVED to submit the CIP Plan of 2011, as discussed and amended to the Board of Selectmen and Finance Committee as the CIP Committee's recommendations for 2011. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked Brandy Mitroff if the CIP Committee makeup had changed this year and, if so, how it worked out. Brandy Mitroff noted that the Committee worked out fabulously. She said that new members Matt Beaulieu and Fred Hayes were helpful. She pointed out that the Planning Board representative had only been able to attend one meeting and asked that next time someone with greater availability be the representative.
The Chairman noted that the Board would take a short break before the Zoning Ordinance amendment discussions to read a letter received that day from Town Counsel regarding the amendments.
Public Hearing on Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance proposed by the Planning Board.
SEE SEPARATE NOTICE
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Brandy Mitroff, Susan Woodward, Mike DePetrillo, Conservation Commission Alternate, Ed Hunter, Building Inspector and Code Enforcement Official, and Russ Boland, Fire Inspector.
The Chairman summarized the five proposed articles, noting that Article 1 appeared to not be needed based on Town Counsel's recent input; Article 2 was a housekeeping item; Articles 3 & 4 & 5 were to do with Parking, Signs and Definitions based on recommendation of the Small Scale Planned Commercial District Committee, with the Sign Ordinance proposed by the Sign Committee.
The Chairman began with Proposed Amendment #1, noting that Town Counsel's letter, received this evening, indicated that this amendment was not really needed as what the Board was trying to accomplish could already be done with the ordinance currently in place. Peter Hogan noted that this was not the same thing as saying there was no issue, simply that the article as written did not address the issue.
Peter Hogan MOVED not to propose Amendment #1 for ballot vote in March 2011. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman noted Proposed Amendment #2 was a housekeeping article to remove Accessory Dwelling Unit from the list of Special Exception uses in the RA District and add it to the list of Permitted Uses in that district. Peter Hogan assumed that Proposed Amendments #2, 3 & 4 had been discussed quite a few times at prior meetings. The Chairman noted that Ed Hunter had been present twice to go through the proposed Sign Ordinance. Peter Hogan asked if he could move Amendments #2, 3 & 4 at the same time. Since there were audience members present interested in the Sign Ordinance, Amendment #4, the Chairman suggested dealing with that separately.
Peter Hogan MOVED to propose amendments #2 and #3 as presented at this public hearing for a ballot vote in March 2011. Dwight Lovejoy seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman moved on to Proposed Amendment #4, the Sign Ordinance. Susan Woodward noted that she was confused as to what it all added up to and wanted to understand the effect the proposal would have on the Farmers' Market signs. She noted that the main sign was placed on the triangle of land by the bank and the Farmers' Market had always received permission from the Board of Selectmen to place their sign there. She further noted that the sign was put up on a Friday and taken down on a Sunday, but that the little signs elsewhere in town generally stayed up for the season. Susan Woodward wanted to make sure that the new ordinance would not have an adverse effect on the signage that people passing through town would see.
Peter Hogan thought the Farmers' Market signs would be considered Seasonal under the new ordinance. Ed Hunter stated that the signs would not require permits under the new ordinance but were regulated to the extent that they could only remain up for 30 days. Susan Woodward noted that the Farmers' Market had always asked the Board of Selectmen for permission to place the sign. The Chairman noted that the signs were up all summer and thought they could be Seasonal. Ed Hunter noted that this situation was not addressed in the ordinance. He did not think that a non-profit organization would abuse this use of signage, noting that their events were usually for a short duration and the intent was that the proposed ordinance would make putting up signs an easier process. The Coordinator
pointed out that the main signs for the Farmers' Market would still be governed by the Selectmen as they were placed on the triangle and the common which were both under the Selectmen's authority. She noted that the smaller signs that may be placed on property of others would require the permission of the Selectmen and the property owner in writing. Susan Woodward thought that the Farmers' Market was a weekly special event to which the Chairman responded that he thought it more appropriate to be considered seasonal or temporary in terms of which kind of sign would be needed. The Chairman noted that the Farmers' Markets basically ran for four months so either Seasonal or Temporary signs would be suitable as they would have to be taken down within 30 days of fulfilling their function. Ed Hunter noted that there were many situations that overlapped the various types of sign that could possibly be the right kind of sign. He noted, for example, the
Hillsborough County Fair that is a non-profit and a special event but was also temporary and agricultural. He noted that a lot of things would overlap this way and depended on the culture of the event.
Louise Robie, introduced herself as a resident on High Street and noted that she ran the Town-wide Yard Sale each year. She said that this event was a fundraiser for the town and wondered what she would need to do under the proposed ordinance to have signs for the event. The Chairman wondered if the words "Non-Profit Organizations" should be deleted from the title of proposed Section 318.6,E, Special Event Signs for Non-Profit Organizations. Ed Hunter did not think those words should be deleted, noting that this section was not intended to govern separate special events like monster truck rallies to raise money for something else. The Chairman asked what Ed Hunter would do if the ordinance passed in March in Louise Robie's case. Ed Hunter stated that he would treat the Town-wide
Yard Sale as a special event for a non-profit which would give 30 days for displaying the sign but which sign would not need a permit and which sign would not be regulated as to size. He noted that any signs not put on the applicant's own property would need written permission of the landowner. Louise Robie stated that, in her opinion, anyone wanting to put up a sign should have to come and get permission from the Town to do so or signs would be put up all over the place. She thought having an application form and needing a permit would give the Town records of who was putting up the signs or no one would know who to go back to if the signs were not taken down in the right amount of time. Ed Hunter stated that the Committee had discussed this aspect of signage. He noted that there had been instances where he had to track down the person responsible for a sign only to find out that the event had already taken place and the sign was gone. He noted
that he wanted to make the process easier for the non-profit organizations in town. He agreed that the downside of non-permitted signs was the potential for them to be put in the wrong place or left up too long.
The Chairman asked if the Board thought some kind of permitting process should be added back in for these non-profit signs. Peter Hogan said that the process of enforcement would cost more than the disposal of the signs would. He noted that the ordinance required removal of the signs within 30 days of the event and he thought it would be easy enough for a town employee, Highway Department or the Building Inspector, for example, to pick up signs that were left too long if that became a problem.
Ed Hunter stated that primarily the ordinance eliminated the permit and fee for non-profit organizations and for temporary, real estate, and seasonal signs. He noted that the problem with the current ordinance was that the people who wanted to do the right thing came in and got their permit and the people that did not want to get a permit or did not know that a permit was required just did not bother. He went on to say that someone may see the signs or he may find them himself but then he had to find the person responsible and let them know about the regulations. Ed Hunter explained that the proposed ordinance allowed these signs without requiring a permit and if the sign was not a problem and stayed within the regulations it would be fine. If a sign fell outside the parameters of the ordinance
it would become a problem and he would enforce the ordinance's requirements. He did not think the work required to enforce the proposed ordinance would exceed the work currently required to track people down anyway. The Chairman pointed out that if the ordinance did not work over the next year it could be proposed to be changed.
There being no further questions, the Chairman closed the public hearing and entered into deliberations. He noted that Town Counsel had commented regarding the definition changes proposed that the definition of Sign should simply refer to Section 318 of the ordinance instead of spelling out the definition again in Section 602. The Chairman stated that he agreed with this suggestion and also with the suggestion to make the definition amendments contingent upon passage of the Sign Ordinance amendment. The Board agreed.
Mark Suennen MOVED to propose Amendment #4 as presented for ballot vote in March 2011 and Amendment #5 as amended in the suggestion by Town Counsel and to make it contingent upon the passage of Proposed Amendment #4. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Board took a short break before continuing the meeting with Miscellaneous Business.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 28, 2010
2. 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. (Russ Boland to be present)
The Chairman reopened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. with Miscellaneous Business #2 as Russ Boland, Fire Inspector, was present in the audience. The Chairman noted that a letter had been received at the beginning of the month from Russ Boland regarding requiring sprinkler systems for 1 - 4 lots in new subdivisions and the Planning Board had asked for rationale to be provided as to why the change was being proposed. He noted that a detailed letter had been received in response.
Russ Boland, Fire Inspector, noted that the Fire Wards had submitted a suggested modification or addition to the Subdivision Regulations in their first letter that would require sprinkler systems to be installed in houses on lots in subdivisions of 1 - 4 lots and would include accessory dwelling units. He noted that homes within 2,200' of an existing cistern would be exempt from that requirement. He further noted for the Board that HB1486 that was made into law last year meant that a moratorium had been placed on anything to do with sprinkler systems until July 1, 2011, so the Board could not act on this suggestion sooner than that date. Russ Boland also noted that a State committee was looking into the whole concept of sprinkler systems but he did not think they would recommend sprinkler systems in
all new construction.
Peter Hogan asked what the controversy over sprinkler systems was. Russ Boland responded that contractors were anxious about the additional costs. He went on to say that installation in a home made a difference in terms of requirements for window sizes, allowing livable spaces on a third floor without balconies being required, and so on.
Russ Boland noted that there were three types of sprinkler systems: those under NFPA 13 for commercial systems whose goal was property saving; those under NFPA 13R which were for dormitories, for example, and which dictated storage capacity; and, those under NFPA 13D which were the residential systems seen in New Boston with 2 head calculations. He noted that a 300 gallon storage tank provided 10 minutes of 2 head flow but that 90% of fires were extinguished with one head.
Peter Hogan asked if any sprinkler systems in New Boston operated off the domestic water supply. Russ Boland stated that there was one sprinkler system in town that worked off the domestic water supply. He said that it was the contractor's/homeowner's choice whether to install a domestic system or a system with storage. Peter Hogan confirmed that a system operating off the domestic water supply was legal and allowable. Russ Boland said that was the case and there was one such system in New Boston. Peter Hogan said that was the system that was originally presented to the Planning Board but which had not been allowed in town. Russ Boland said that he did not know why the systems had not been permitted but now they were. He noted that the following week he would be writing to the
owners of the 119 sprinkler systems in town reminding them of the maintenance responsibilities that went along with the systems. He stated that he would prefer a system that hooked into the domestic water supply as he would be assured that it was working.
The Chairman asked about the Fire Wards wanting to require sprinkler systems in auxiliary dwellings, as noted in their letter. The Coordinator pointed out that the correct terminology was Accessory Dwelling Unit. The Chairman wondered if someone was turning space over a garage into a secondary dwelling it would not necessarily be new construction and asked if that space would have to be sprinklered. Russ Boland stated that his understanding was that the space would have to be sprinklered. He noted that another issue that had arisen was the numbering of Accessory Dwelling Units and the requirement that these units have their own address. He further noted that he had originally thought that numbering them and the principal dwelling on the lot as A & B would be appropriate but for
emergency services it was better to have two separate street numbers.
The Chairman noted that from a cost standpoint it could be expensive to install sprinklers in an already finished space that someone was converting into an Accessory Dwelling Unit. Russ Boland thought that the Planning Board could discuss a trigger that would require installation of sprinklers in this scenario, for example, if the renovation or creation of the Accessory Dwelling Unit was 50% or more of the cost of the home. The Chairman asked Russ Boland what he wanted the Planning Board to do with this information since no changes could be proposed to the regulations until July 2011. He went on to say that he would not be willing to do the work required now and then wait to see what happened in the legislature in July.
Dwight Lovejoy asked if there were insurance benefits to having a sprinkler system in your home. Russ Boland stated that some companies provided a discount on homeowners' insurance.
Mark Suennen pointed out a technicality in the Fire Wards' request that sprinklers be provided in lots subdivided into one to four lots because it was not possible to subdivide a lot and have only one lot. He noted that the modification in the Subdivision Regulations would be required to Section V-F and it should just say "two or more lots". He noted that a subdivision was valid in perpetuity and the lots may not be built on for a decade so the deeds would need reference to the requirement for a sprinkler system before a Certificate of Occupancy would be released. The regulations would have to refer to a fire fighting water supply system either in place at the time of subdivision or installed to current requirements at the time of construction. He further noted that the language for
this would have to be worked out and could not happen overnight.
Russ Boland stated that the Fire Wards' intent would be to get the concept to move forward so that from this point forward all residential structures in new subdivisions would be sprinklered. Peter Hogan clarified that new construction further than 2,200' of an existing cistern would need sprinklers. Russ Boland said that was the case or the applicant could choose to put in their own cistern.
The Chairman referred to Russ Boland's letter of December 22, 2010, noting that the second bullet gave statistics on how smoke alarms and sprinklers reduce the risk of death in a home fire by 82%. He wondered if there were any statistics available on just sprinkler systems. He also noted that the numbers provided by Russ Boland were based on national averages and asked if there were any figures available for New Boston, New Hampshire or New England. Russ Boland said he would be able to poll the companies that work in the community to find out.
The Chairman asked if Russ Boland would work on the wording to make the intent clearer. Russ Boland stated that the Fire Wards wanted the language the way they had submitted but agreed that perhaps changing the existing regulations to refer to two or more lots rather than five or more lots would achieve the same intent.
Neville, Denise M. & John E. Adjourned from 11/23/10
Work Session/Design Review/NRSPR
Development of lot to accommodate commercial building.
Location: Whipplewill Road
Tax Map/Lot #3/63-24
Commercial “Com” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were John Neville, Earl Sandford, PE, Charles Cleary, Esq., Mark Anderson, Jennifer Webber, Jed Callen, Esq., Riitta and Larry Nemon, and Eileen Mahoney. Other abutters, neighbors and interested parties were also present but did not identify themselves.
The Chairman gave the background to the application. He noted that since the Board's last meeting the applicant and abutters had had the chance to get together and discuss the proposal. He went on to say that there would be the opportunity for everyone to speak and asked that anyone who wished to do so should state their name and address for the record. The Chairman informed everyone that this was not a final hearing but a work session and at such time as a final application was filed public hearing notices would be posted and mailed.
Earl Sandford, PE, noted that the plan was the same as presented at the last work session and quickly recapped the details. He described John Neville's existing contractor's yard and the lot on Whipplewill Road that was the subject of this work session that had been rezoned Commercial. He added that John Neville wanted to be able to work from his existing site to prepare for the proposed 100' x 100' commercial building.
Earl Sandford, PE, stated that the applicant would like input from the Board on the elevation of the site that they would consider reasonable and approvable. He noted that the initial proposal had the new site up a 3% slope from the existing site which would be optimal for truck movement. The downside would be a large amount of material to remove. Earl Sandford, PE, presented some three dimensional models representing various options with regard to the grading of the proposed site. The first model showed the proposed building at the same level as the existing contractor's yard. He noted, however, that the site did not have to be that low and suggested that the building level could be 8 - 10' higher which was a little more difficult to access from the existing site and which would start to
make the building visible to the neighborhood. He went on to say that the amount of material to be removed would be reduced.
Earl Sandford, PE, noted that one of the key things was the requirement for a Special Exception for earth removal and a letter had been received from Town Counsel regarding this matter. He noted that the Town attorney advised the Board to determine whether the excavation of materials from the site was the "tail" or the "dog". Earl Sandford, PE, thought that in the initial design the excavation could be considered incidental. He noted that the houses in the area were up high with three commercial buildings down at a lower level. He said that good planning would keep the commercial low and preserve the high land for residential use. Earl Sandford, PE, thought in the long term this layout would be advantageous; while in the short term there would be a lot of noise
while removing the material. He noted that the triggers for the Special Exception would be up to the Board's interpretation.
Earl Sandford, PE, noted that John Neville was willing to make some concessions such as restricting blasting to October to April as it was more likely that people would have their windows closed so the noise would not be so much of an issue. Blasting would take place approximately once a month; he was not sure yet. Operating on this schedule would take three winters to get the site to the right level. Earl Sandford, PE, stated that the intent was to be somewhat sensitive to the neighbors. He noted that the crushing and hammering would be kept to late-morning to mid-afternoon, 8 am to 4 pm, for example.
Earl Sandford, PE, next noted that placing the building at the top of the hill would require access from the highest point of the road so traffic would have to go up the hill to the driveway. He noted that this was a factor to consider when thinking about removing less material. A further concession that John Neville was willing to make was providing a 50' buffer around the site as opposed to the required 30' buffer.
Earl Sandford, PE, asked that the Board weigh in on the design they favored, knowing that not everyone would be happy with the results, so that the applicant would know how to move forward. He asked the Board to define the limits of excavation that would be considered incidental. He noted that the Town's Commercial Design Guidelines encouraged connectivity between sites. The Chairman asked how important it was to have John Neville's two sites linked. Earl Sandford, PE, stated that it would be particularly important during construction. The Chairman asked about the situation during operation. Earl Sandford, PE, noted again that the Design Guidelines encourage fewer curb cuts and noted that access to Whipplewill Road from the proposed site could remain an emergency access with daily use
through the existing contractor's yard for as long as John Neville owned the property.
Peter Hogan suggested designing the site so that only approximately 12' of material was removed and the driveway would come in level off Whipplewill Road. He noted that this access would be closer to the residential area but he did not consider that a giant factor. He went on to say in response to the question of the "tail wagging the dog" that he had no real problem with the excavation but the part that bothered him was having a crusher onsite to process the material. Peter Hogan said he knew that blasting would not be continuous but crushing could be. He thought that as an abutter it would be the crushing that would drive him crazy more than anything else. He wondered, however, if over the years crushers had got any quieter. John Neville stated that jackhammers were louder
than crushers. Peter Hogan stated that he thought an applicant could sell product and not be considered a gravel operation, but if a processor was running continuously it was a little harder to determine where that line was. John Neville stated that material had to be made smaller before transportation in order to avoid damaging the dump bodies of the trucks and also noted that less material fit into a truck if it was still in boulder form rather than crushed. Peter Hogan stated that he was interested to find out if newer crushers were quieter than older ones, noting that sawmills, for example, had come a long way. John Neville stated crushers were fairly quiet and the hammers were louder. He stated that the hammers were used to break up larger pieces of rock hydraulically rather than blasting them. The Chairman asked how far above the existing contractor's yard the building would be if placed at the location suggested by Peter Hogan. Earl
Sandford, PE, noted that it would be approximately 16' above the current contractor's yard level.
Abutter Larry Nemon stated that he lived across the street from the proposed contractor's yard and noted that the original estimate for removal of material was 45,000 - 50,000 cubic yards. He wondered what the amount would be with the building at the level discussed above. Earl Sandford, PE, noted that he would need some time to make those calculations. Peter Hogan pointed out that the building at this level would be in everyone's view.
Mark Anderson asked what the capacity was to crush ledge in terms of yards per hour, wondering how long it would take to move 45,000 yards. John Neville stated that between 150 - 200 tons of material could be crushed per hour. Mark Anderson commented that if he was an abutter with the noise of crushing onsite he would be interested to know how many hours over three years the crusher would be running. He stated that it would be very different if the crushing was one month a year rather than four hours a day for a year.
Earl Sandford, PE, stated that blasting would take place from October to April from 8 am to 4 pm. The Chairman asked if other processing activities would then take place at different times of the year. John Neville stated that some crushing might take place to get the material out of the way. The Chairman confirmed that the crushing was not part of the restriction placed on the blasting, and crushing could take place from April to October. John Neville stated that it would not be a daily thing. Dwight Lovejoy asked where the crusher would be set up and John Neville stated that it would be on the existing contractor's yard lot. Earl Sandford, PE, stated that there was 6.5 acres of flat land on which to create a staging area.
Mark Anderson thought that if the true concern here was the removal of ledge rather than roadblocks to stop the project altogether the abutters would weigh how many hours the noisy removal operation would take versus being able to see the building forever from their homes. He said that having the commercial building on a lower level would end up better aesthetically for the abutters. He said that personally he would be happier if he had to put up with an extra 200 hours of noise over three years if he would end up with a building he was happier to look at. Peter Hogan said that John Neville had suggested five years for removal of the material over time. He wondered if the entire process could be done in five months. He thought that having the removal go on around the calendar would be worse
than going at the project full bore. John Neville stated that he would not be approaching the removal in a continuous fashion. The Chairman asked John Neville to get back to the Board with the amounts of material and numbers of hours needed for crushing for the various plan scenarios presented.
John Melito reminded the Board that John Neville had previously begun to excavate the site without permission from the Town and he was told that he was prepping the lot for a building. Mr. Melito stated that he had hired an attorney to stop that operation. He said he knew what the noise would be like because it had happened before. Mr. Melito stated that, in his opinion, the building proposal was a disguise to sell the material from the site. The Board noted that the past history of this site was not relevant to the current application.
Jed Callen, Esq., stated that he represented 12 families, abutters and near neighbors to the proposed commercial building. He began by noting that he commended the Planning Board's minutes of the last meeting and that he would not repeat any of the arguments previously made. He went on to say that he had understood Mr. Neville to say that the sale of the material would be contingent on the economy which he took to mean that removal of the material would be dependent on how quickly John Neville could sell the material. Jed Callen, Esq., noted that John Neville had clarified this to mean that the speed with which he would sell the material was dependent upon the availability of his equipment to conduct the excavation as opposed to being used for other work. Jed Callen, Esq., stated that Mr. Neville
indicated that there was always a market for this product.
Jed Callen, Esq., next noted that he had asked John Neville if he had to hire someone to come in and prepare the site what would it cost and how long would it take. John Neville had told Jed Callen, Esq., that the site was similar to one he was familiar with in Bow Junction which had cost $500K. Jed Callen, Esq., stated that he confirmed this number in a letter to Mr. Neville on December 3, 2010, which had been copied to the Planning Board and had not heard anything to the contrary from Mr. Neville. Jed Callen, Esq., said that this number was relevant when determining if the cost of $500K was incidental to a 100' x 100' building or if this was a major earth excavation. He stated that it was not irrelevant that some excavation had already taken place on this site. He went on to say that
given the experience of the neighborhood of the impact of the blasting, hammering, crushing, dust and so on there was a history of compliance or non-compliance on the part of this applicant. Jed Callen, Esq., noted that a letter to the Code Enforcement Official in May of 2009 was in regards to the removal of material on this site and the Code Enforcement Official had sent a letter back informing John Neville that he could not remove the material without a site plan and gravel permit. Jed Callen, Esq., noted that he was pleased with Dwight Sowerby, Esq.'s letter and noted that the Board could proceed with site plan approval and if the Board determined that the operation required a permit for earth removal the site plan approval would be conditional subject to the need for a Special Exception. Jed Callen, Esq., stated that it was clear to him that the volumes and calculations were for materials that would be used elsewhere and this would clearly qualify as an
excavation of earth materials.
The Chairman asked Jed Callen, Esq., to clarify his point. Jed Callen, Esq., stated that a Special Exception from the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) would be required which would include discussion of the impact to the neighborhood and he urged the Board to require that exception. The Chairman noted that he agreed with Town Counsel that the Planning Board could not require the approval of the Special Exception prior to Site Plan Approval but could make it a condition under new State laws. Jed Callen, Esq., stated that the applicant would need a Special Exception unless the Board concluded that the materials were not being excavated in commercial quantities. Peter Hogan said that was not what he had read. Jed Callen, Esq., noted that it went back to the decision of which was the tail and
which was the dog and noted that the models presented by the applicant make the point clear. He said that a road in from Whipplewill Road requiring much less leveling of the site was possible if the point was to build a 100' x 100' building. He went on to say that if setting up a 3 - 5 year excavation was the plan then a Special Exception and earth removal permit would be required. Jed Callen, Esq., noted that the Town's gravel regulations were currently in draft form but RSA 155-E required a permit. He asked who would grant such a permit and whether the old regulations were still in effect. He said they were out of date and asked if the Board would act under regulations not yet adopted.
The Chairman stated that the regulations would be acted on in the next month or two so this issue may become a non-issue. Jed Callen, Esq., stated that he had never said that this plan was utterly undoable and illegal, simply that there was a process to be followed. He noted that some people may say that the abutters should prefer a low site for the commercial building. He said that it was not the Board's decision to decide that the abutters should feel that way. Jed Callen, Esq., went on to say that the abutters wanted the Board to know that they objected to the low proposal and did not know enough about the mid-level proposal. He said that they preferred the top proposal with minimal lot development. He noted that the building was not an essential part of the operation on the
existing lot and the building had not been proposed as a garage but as a generic building. The Chairman pointed out that the lot was zoned Commercial. Jed Callen, Esq., stated that the applicant could build a commercial building from Whipplewill Road without moving 50,000 cubic yards of material.
Earl Sandford, PE, said that Jed Callen, Esq., had mentioned a letter from the Town that he stated would require a site plan and a gravel pit application. He noted that the letter had not said that both of those things would necessarily be required. He went on to say that he agreed with the Town attorney that the amount of material did not matter. He said that John Neville would end up with a commercial building on a commercial site and stated that a "dog's a dog".
Charles Cleary, Esq., representing John Neville, asked to speak regarding the issue of gravel permits and Special Exceptions. He noted that Dwight Sowerby, Esq., had missed one point which depended on how the Board viewed the proposal, that is, was the building a pretext for the gravel removal or did he really want to build the building because it was the intent that really mattered. Attorney Cleary noted that the Special Exception issue was in the Table of Uses in the Zoning Ordinance but the excavation of gravel, if John Neville intended to build the building, was not the use being applied for. The use being applied for was a commercial business and the Board could not require extra permits for construction related to developments. He noted, for example, that no use permits were required for
blasting, framing or building and he did not see how the Board could require a Special Exception for the land development component, unless the Board thought that was John Neville's proper use. Charles Cleary, Esq., stated that if the excavation was incidental to construction then neither a permit under RSA 155-E or a Special Exception would be required. Peter Hogan noted that this was exactly what he had taken from Dwight Sowerby, Esq.'s letter and wondered why Attorney Cleary had brought this up. Charles Cleary, Esq., stated that he thought there was a leaning in Attorney Callen's letter towards the pretext argument - that the building was a pretext for John Neville to be able to excavate the site. He thought that if Dwight Sowerby, Esq., was asked "if the use is not excavation is the letter still right?", Attorney Sowerby would say no. Peter Hogan stated that the big issue before the Planning Board was deciding which was the
"dog" and which was the "tail" and any amount of material to be removed was irrelevant.
Earl Sandford, PE, asked if there was a definition of the volume of material that would be considered incidental. The Chairman said there was not and noted that a recent Supreme Court decision was clear that no across-the-board number could be put on this. Mark Suennen stated that the recent Batchelder v. Plymouth allowed that 200,000 cubic yard was incidental to that project and no fixed quantity was established.
Mark Anderson pointed out that blasting took place every day for the removal of material for cellar holes and swimming pools and he thought Mr. Neville was being singled out because he was an excavation contractor. Mark Suennen pointed out that the Planning Board was not involved in single homes on single lots as it was not in the Board's purview. He stated that the Board had to review this application because it was a commercial (non-residential) use on a commercial lot.
Peter Hogan stated that the suggested timeframe needed some consideration. He said that 3 - 5 years was a long time to subject someone to the noise of hammering. The Chairman noted that there were three or four mathematical calculations for Earl Sandford, PE, to take care of and report back to the Board and asked if the applicant was agreeable to adjourn to the next meeting. He noted that information should be submitted to the Planning Board a week prior to the meeting at which it would be discussed and asked if two weeks was long enough. Jed Callen, Esq., said that he would not have time to respond on the same day. Mark Suennen stated that the week ahead deadline was for the applicant and the Board would just need response materials as soon as Attorney Callen could submit them. Peter
Hogan stated that realistically getting something in the office by the Friday prior to a meeting would mean that the Board would get the information over the weekend but may not have had the time to review it. Jed Callen, Esq., stated that he understood the Board's request to have things submitted as soon as possible but pointed out that the abutters' opportunity to have a public hearing is the night of the meeting and that they could submit information orally or in writing.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the work session for John & Denise Neville, NRSPR,
Development of lot to accommodate commercial building, Location: Whipplewill Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/63-24, Commercial “Com” District, to January 11, 2011, at 8:00 p.m. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 28, 2010, continued.
1. Approval of minutes of November 23, 2010, distributed by email.
Mark Suennen stated that, in light of the CIP discussion earlier, the culvert replacement for Riverdale Road should be added to the letter from Tim White, Senior Transportation Engineer, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, as discussed in the November 23rd minutes.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the minutes of November 23, 2010, as written. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
7. The Chairman noted that an invitation to the Fire Wards' annual Oyster Stew Supper had been received and all Planning Board members were invited to attend. This function would be held on January 5, 2011, at 6:00 p.m.
4. Memorandum dated December 21, 2010, from Board of Selectmen to all Town Departments and the School Board, re: Cul-de-sacs, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman requested that this item be put on the Miscellaneous agenda for the next meeting as the Board had only just received it and had no time to review.
5. Endorsement of a Site Plan for Skyway Towers, Tax Map/Lot #8/132, Old Coach Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
Dwight Lovejoy stated that the extra trees had been planted onsite.
The Chairman noted that this plan would be signed at the end of the meeting.
6. Application for Appointment to the Planning Board, received December 28, 2010, for the Board's Action.
The Chairman noted that Don Duhaime had reapplied to be on the Board.
Mark Suennen MOVED to recommend to the Board of Selectmen that Don Duhaime be appointed to the Planning Board in an alternate position poste haste. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. Letter received December 17, 2010, from Kenneth J. Kozyra, Agent for AT & T Mobility, to New Boston Planning Board, re: request for a Site Walk and Compliance Hearing, Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/33, for the Board’s action.
The Board determined to schedule the site walk for January 15, 2011, and to go ahead and post the notice for the hearing on January 14, 2011, for the January 25, 2011, meeting. It was noted that the letter requesting this site walk indicated that the site was substantially complete and it was unclear what that meant. Mark Suennen said that the site had to be completed per the approved plan and anything that remained undone should be determined and bonded as necessary.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
| 
