The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members James Nordstrom and Travis Daniels; ex-officio Christine Quirk; and, alternates Bob Furey and Don Duhaime. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nicola Strong and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting, were Andrzej and Christine Pedzik, Ray Shea and Mike Coon of Sandford Surveying, Mark LeBlanc, Julie Dillon, Brian Holt, Eric Mitchell, LLS, Amy Sanders, and Jay Marden and Jonathan Willard.
PEDZIK, CHRISTINE Adjourned from 05/25/04
Submission of Application/NRSPR/Kennel
Location: 762 River Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/20
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Raymond Shea of Sandford Survey and Andrzej and Christine Pedzik. No abutters were present.
The Chairman stated that the noise level that would be generated by dogs at the applicant’s kennel business was an issue that the ZBA wanted the Planning Board to address. He felt that because the noise level of the surrounding area to the kennel site was far higher than average it lessened the burden on the applicant to suppress all barking noise. The Board agreed with the Chairman’s statement.
The Chairman added that the plan included notes detailing the schedule for when dogs were to be let outside and would not be left unattended. He commented that he knew barking was inevitable, however, the applicant had indicated that dogs would never be left outside unattended so that barking would not get out of hand. Ray Shea noted that the acoustical tiles to be installed in the ceiling of the kennel along with the applicant’s proposed stockade fencing behind the kennel area should also work well to deflect barking noise. He added that the plan also noted a dog would not be allowed to bark outside for more than fifteen minutes at a time. The Chairman responded that he did not think the stockade fence was necessary or effective in quelling
barking noise, reiterating that noise from trucking traffic in that area was louder anyway. He added that it was the applicant’s choice if they wished to have it installed.
The Chairman asked if the Board had any comments from the site walk performed and there were none.
The Chairman asked if there were any additional concerns on the site plan that needed to be addressed. Ray Shea replied that the completed septic design and State driveway permit were still pending. The Chairman responded that those items were not necessary for this application to be considered complete. James Nordstrom stated that the driveway permit was a conditional item and would be needed.
Ray Shea stated that a sign indicating that kennel customers should not back out of the applicant’s driveway onto Route 13 when leaving was proposed. He added the plan also noted that catch basins on the property would be regularly vacuumed for silt and clean outs at bends in the drainage piping would allow the drainage system to be properly cleaned. Ray Shea further noted that the proximity of the abutters’ house locations in reference to the site were added to the
PEDZIK, CHRISTINE, cont.
plans, along with hours of operation and location of the dumpster.
The Chairman thought that the hill at the back of the property should suffice as landscape screening to surrounding abutters and asked if the Board had any comments. Christine Quirk asked if the current trees at the front of the property were being kept. Ray Shea said that some sections of trees at the back of the site would need to come down due to the slope in that area, and the stand alone trees at the front of the property would also be removed. He added that clustered sections of trees in the front would remain.
The Chairman asked if the plan included notes on the hours of operation. Ray Shea replied that note #11 referenced this and note #13 referenced how long a lone barking dog would be allowed to remain outside. The Chairman then commented that note #12 on the plans regarding one dog barking should be rewritten as it was possible that more than one dog might be outside barking for over 15 minutes. Andrzej Pedzik stated this was a good point and that no dogs would be outside unattended when the applicant’s were not home. Ray Shea said that the note could indeed be modified. The Chairman offered that the note could state dogs would not be left unattended outside alone or in groups in order that barking be minimized. He thought that such
language would also fulfill the ZBA’s requirements.
The Chairman stated that a signed permit from the Building Inspector would be required for the proposed business signs on the plans. He then asked where the sign instructing customers to back out of the driveway would be located. Ray Shea replied that it would be located on the right side of the driveway where customers would see it as they entered the property so that they were informed ahead of time. The Chairman then asked what types of signs were proposed for customer parking or was this decision pending the completed driveway design. Christine Pedzik thought that they would wait to see how the driveway design evolved before making that decision. The Chairman offered that railroad ties were sufficient to delineate parking spaces.
Christine Pedzik added that metal parking signs were also an option, yet she preferred wooden signs that would blend more appropriately with the character of the surroundings. James Nordstrom offered that striping to delineate parking spaces was also an option. Ray Shea added that the driveway would be paved as well. The Chairman asked if paving was a decision made for the Board’s benefit or the applicant’s. Christine Pedzik replied paving the driveway was for their benefit along with providing safe travel for clients and their sometimes rambunctious dogs. Andrzej Pedzik added that he had always intended to pave the driveway. Ray Shea added that there was some minor sloping in the driveway area so paving was also being done to promote safe travel. The Chairman thought that marking parking spots without the use of striping would fit more into the character of a home business. Christine Pedzik offered that chained
stakes mounted inside large flower pots might be appropriate. Ray Shea noted that two defined parking spaces should not be difficult to mark. The Chairman agreed that the chained flower pots would look better than commercial type pavement striping, adding that the example of two rail road ties along with a parking sign would be the minimum requirement for the applicant’s compliance hearing for the site.
The Chairman told the applicant that when all improvements had been performed and the
site was found to be in compliance the Building Inspector could then issue a Certificate of
PEDZIK, CHRISTINE, cont.
Occupancy. Andrzej Pedzik asked if modifications such as shelving in the garage were required for compliance or was it only necessary that the structure itself be shown. The Chairman replied that those items shown on the plans themselves such as lighting, landscaping, signs, and delineations would be what the Board viewed on the compliance site walk.
The Chairman asked the status of the driveway permit. Ray Shea responded that the permit was pending with no issues expected as there was 500 feet of sight distance in either direction where the driveway met the road. The Chairman noted that once the driveway permit was issued it would need to be noted somewhere on the plans as a matter of record.
The Chairman asked if there were any more questions or comments. James Nordstrom stated that the details of the evergreens should be changed on note #8 of the plans from a caliper measurement to 4 or 5 feet high or some such reasonable height for that type of shrub to become a hedge.
James Nordstrom further noted that alternate Bob Furey needed to be appointed an official Board member in place of Christopher Johnson in order to vote on tonight’s motions.
James Nordstrom MOVED to appoint Bob Furey in place of Christopher Johnson as a voting Board member for tonight’s Planning Board meeting. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the site plan for Andrzej and Christine Pedzik to operate a kennel and grooming business from their property at 762 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/20, subject to the following conditions:
CONDITION(S) PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) revised site plans that include all of the checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing.
2. Submission of revised driveway permit or other written confirmation that the proposed business use in addition to the existing residential use is acceptable to NH DOT.
3. Submission of approval of the septic system from the State of NH DES.
4. Execution of a Site Review Agreement regarding the condition(s) subsequent.
The deadline for complying with the condition(s) precedent shall be August 21, 2004, 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.
CONDITION(S) SUBSEQUENT:
1. All of the site improvements are to be completed per the approved site plan;
2. The Town of New Boston Planning Department shall be notified by the applicant that
PEDZIK, CHRISTINE, cont.
all improvements have been completed, and are ready for final inspection, prior to
scheduling a compliance hearing on those improvements, a minimum of three (3) weeks prior to the anticipated date of compliance hearing and the opening of the business on the site;
3. Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be submitted prior to the compliance hearing.
4. A compliance hearing shall be held to determine that the site improvements have been satisfactorily completed, prior to releasing the hold on the issuance of Permit to Operate or Certificate of Occupancy, or both. The kennel/grooming facility cannot be used or occupied for the business until the compliance hearing has been held, and an affirmative finding made by the Planning Board.
The deadline for complying with the condition(s) precedent shall be July 1, 2005, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing on same as described in item 4 above.
Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
INDIAN FALLS, LLC Adjourned from 05/25/04
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/14 Lots
Location: Bedford, McCurdy & Campbell Pond Roads
Tax Map/Lot #12/89
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Ray Shea and Mike Coon of Sandford Surveying, and Mark LeBlanc of Indian Falls, LLC. No abutters were present.
Ray Shea stated that since the last meeting comments from the Town Engineer along with issues raised by the Planning Board had been addressed.
Ray Shea stated that optional individual driveways were now shown on the plans for the two lots that previously showed only common drives should that become an issue. He added that a sign warning of entering traffic was proposed on Bedford Road on the western side of the property at the top of the hill. Ray Shea further added that a note on sheet #1 of the plans indicated no further subdivision would occur until another access from Indian Falls Road was obtained. He noted that a conservation easement was added to half of Lot #14 which basically divided the lot in half.
Ray Shea stated that he had worked with Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to devise a method that prevented road run off from sheeting off at the culvert by curbing a section of road in either direction toward a ditchline to avoid wetland impacts.
Ray Shea stated that there were two comments on Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s, second response letter and noted that their first response letter addressed only technical issues. Ray Shea stated that the first comment regarded the Town Engineer’s preference for structural head walls
INDIAN FALLS, LLC, cont.
rather than field fabricated without plans which was acceptable to the applicant. He then stated that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., thought that the square footage area of wetland impact at the culvert crossing was too small to encompass the work area. Ray Shea explained that the applicant’s intent was to not have this area too excessive on the plans. He added that a revised plan had been submitted to the DES with increased areas of wetland impact and approved on that basis after a site walk with a wetlands bureau representative. Ray Shea then submitted a copy of the DES’s letter of approval to the Board.
The Chairman asked for review of the plan’s common driveways. Ray Shea noted on the plans where the existing woods road would provide access to Lot #’s 12 and 14. He added that it was reasonable to use the woods road in this instance as minimal curb cuts would be required. The Chairman asked why the optional single driveway entrance for lot #14 was located so far down on the proposed road rather than further up. Ray Shea replied that the woods road traveled through a knob in the land and, therefore, a single driveway for lot #12 would need to be cut in ahead of it. The Chairman asked if wetlands were present in the area of the proposed single driveway and Ray Shea said they were not. Ray Shea then showed on the
plans where a single driveway for lot #11 would be located. He noted where the woods road looped around the back lot (lot #13) to a 50 foot strip. Ray Shea said the driveway to lot #11 could travel between the 50 foot strip to lot #13 and the wetlands. He added that this scenario was feasible but not viewed as necessary.
James Nordstrom asked if the split point at the common driveway that accessed lot #11 could be moved down to minimize the length of the common portion of that driveway. Ray Shea replied that this could be done by decreasing the depth of the lot’s easement. The Chairman asked what the new depth measurement would then be and Ray Shea replied it would be approximately 70 feet. The Chairman responded that less depth was preferred. Ray Shea offered that the depth could be cut in half but he was trying to stay away from wetlands in that location. James Nordstrom thought that a balance could be achieved between distance from the wetland area and proximity to the road and saw no need for parallel driveways to the back lot. The Chairman
agreed adding that the goal was to minimize curb cuts without unnecessary wetland impacts. He asked if the driveway could enter the lots below the wetlands area. Ray Shea replied this was possible if a swale was altered.
Ray Shea stated that he had discussed options for the applicant’s contributions to offsite improvements with the Coordinator. He added that the Road Agent was addressing costs for culvert improvements on Bedford Road and the applicant was willing to contribute a certain amount toward such improvements. James Nordstrom asked how much the applicant was willing to contribute. Ray Shea replied that because the results of the Traffic Study for the plan netted a 4% increase in daily traffic on Bedford Road for the first year of the subdivision’s completion, the applicant was willing to contribute the same percentage toward the improvement costs. He noted that future traffic impacts from this subdivision would naturally decrease over time but the
applicant was willing to contribute $4,000 based on not having any solid cost figures at this time and, assuming an anticipated cost of $100,000. Ray Shea added that the applicant wanted this issue addressed in case it was a conditional requirement for the application.
INDIAN FALLS, LLC, cont.
Bob Furey asked how curb drainage would be piped to the upland areas on the plan. Ray Shea replied that piping to swales would treat the run off before it flowed to catch basins on either side of the road way. James Nordstrom asked what kind of curbing would be used. Ray
Shea replied that it would be bituminous. Don Duhaime felt that this curbing material would be subject to damage from snow plows and ultimately erode into the wetlands, adding that granite would be a better choice. The Chairman noted that this was the same reason wooden guard rails were no longer employed and asked if Dufresne-Henry, Inc., approved bituminous curbing for this plan. The Coordinator replied that they must have as their review was complete. The Chairman asked the linear foot measure of curbing proposed. Ray Shea replied the length was 250 to 300 feet on either side of the road way or 500 to 600 total feet of curbing. James Nordstrom agreed with Don Duhaime in that bituminous curbing would not last and felt that the cost difference to upgrade to granite would be an
insignificant amount. The Chairman added that because the intent of curbing was to protect wetlands a dependable curbing material should be used. Mark LeBlanc of Indian Falls, LLC, stated he was agreeable to making this change.
Don Duhaime asked what the proposed sight distance was for the road way where it entered from Bedford Road. Mike Coon said it was 500 feet in all seasons, 3.5 to 4.5 feet off the traveled way. James Nordstrom said the sight distance was substantial.
Don Duhaime asked if the Board had any requirements for speed limit signs on that area of Bedford Road due to a blind curve that saw traffic speeds of 45 mph. Ray Shea replied that there were speed signs in that area, however, that was more of an enforcement issue for the Town and not a burden on the applicant. Don Duhaime stated he had not noticed any speed limit signs on Bedford Road. Christine Quirk said that more speed limit signs were being installed on Town roads each year. Don Duhaime added that he was merely concerned from a safety standpoint as traffic was increasing on Bedford Road and school buses would be pulling to the side to let children on and off. The Chairman did not think school buses were at increased risk as the flashing
lights on top of the bus were meant to halt oncoming traffic. Don Duhaime replied that a 35 mph speed limit sign might be helpful and was only a suggestion.
James Nordstrom asked if erosion control for lot development had been discussed with Dufresne-Henry, Inc. Ray Shea replied that this item was brought up with Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., but was difficult to ascertain for 13 lots not yet under construction. He added that once the project was underway, SWPPP enforcements would be available. James Nordstrom agreed with Ray Shea’s opinion but thought that a note should be added to the plans stating that as lot construction took place the contractor would be responsible for maintaining erosion control standards. Ray Shea said that erosion control was such a primary issue of construction that it was an obvious requirement to builders but such a note could be added to the plans. James
Nordstrom added that a reference to the Subdivision Regulations should be included in this plan note and Ray Shea agreed.
Don Duhaime asked if a sequence of events would be employed in the construction of twin culverts on the plans as it was an item defined in the Subdivision Regulations. Ray Shea replied that the Erosion Control Plan addressed a general step by step procedure on how to
prepare a site for that type of construction and that this plan indicated specific erosion control
INDIAN FALLS, LLC, cont.
methods that would be used for that site.
Ray Shea stated that the applicant had just been notified regarding the bond amount
and that easement drafts had been amended.
The Chairman commented that the Fiscal Impact Study had reported a negative impact for the Town for this subdivision. Ray Shea replied that this was the case but once homes were completed an increase in the selling price of $10,000 or more would result in a break even figure or positive impact.
The Chairman asked if phasing was a consideration of the applicant and Ray Shea said that it was not.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s second review was submitted and she said that it was. Ray Shea reiterated that this was the review letter that contained the two outstanding issues he had initially discussed this evening.
The Chairman asked if separate cul-de-sac easement deeds had been submitted. The Coordinator replied that they had.
The Chairman then asked if all legal documents had been submitted to Bill Drescher, Esq., and the Coordinator said they would be now that all the documents were in hand.
The Coordinator then showed a copy of the bond estimate to the Board. She noted it had been faxed from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., that day. It was noted that the cost should be increased by $6,000 to account for the material change from bituminous to granite curbing. James Nordstrom asked if the construction inspection fees were included in the itemization. Ray Shea replied that the amount was $21,954 and was separate.
The Coordinator asked what form of security would be submitted. Mark LeBlanc replied that it would be a bank bond.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the Conditional Use Permit application as complete, and to grant the Conditional Use Permit and approve the plans of Indian Falls, LLC, too effect three (3) wetlands crossings at approximate sta. 2+75 for Indian Falls Road construction and on Lots #12/89-11 and 12/89-13 for driveway construction, as the four conditions for granting the Permit have been found to exist, subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of the financial security for the wetland crossing installation as part of the total amount of the bond as noted in Condition Precedent #7 in the Board’s motion to approve the subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #12/89.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be July 21, 2004, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should the conditions to approval not be fulfilled by the deadline date, and a written request for extension is not submitted prior to that date, the applicant is hereby
put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to
INDIAN FALLS, LLC, cont.
revoke the approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. Completion of the site improvements as related to the three (3) wetland crossings, as shown on the approved construction design plan.
The financial security shall not be released until the site has been inspected upon notification to the Planning Department by the applicants that the project has been completed, and a compliance hearing is held and confirms that the project has been satisfactorily completed by no later than July 1, 2005.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plan, prepared for Indian Falls, LLC, Tax Map 12 Lot 89, Bedford, McCurdy & Campbell Pond Roads, for the subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #12/89 into 13 new lots, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing.
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F, 3.
4. Receipt of Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s approval of the road plans and profiles.
5. Submission of a Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and Dufresne-Henry, Inc.
6. Submission of the language of the form of the security for review and approval by Town Counsel, the cost of which review shall be borne by the applicant.
7. Submission of the security, in the amount of $435,414 and in the form of a bond, for the construction of Indian Falls Road as shown on the approved plans and profiles.
8. Submission of the estimated construction inspection fees regarding the construction of Indian Falls Road in the amount of $21,900. A mandatory preconstruction meeting is required to be held with the developer/agent, road contractor, Town’s Road Agent, and representatives of the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen, as well as the Town’s consulting engineer, prior to the start of the road construction project.
9. Submission of the off-site improvement fees in the amount not to exceed $4,000. Final amount to be determined at a later date.
10. Approval of the language of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions regarding the installation of sprinkler systems in each house in the subdivision and deed language that would incorporate that requirement, by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
11. Submission of executed Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions regarding
INDIAN FALLS, LLC, cont.
sprinkler systems. The cost of recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
12. Submission of the language of the slope and drainage easements and cul-de-sac easement for review and approval by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
13. Approval of the language of the road deed by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
14. Approval of the language of the Conservation Easement Deed by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
15. Approval of the Conservation Easement Deed by the Board of Selectmen and the Conservation Commission.
16. Submission of the executed Conservation Easement Deed for recording at the HCRD, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
17. Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.
18. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
19. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be September 30, 2004, 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.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. Sprinkler systems shall be installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee before the occupancy of any dwellings on those lots.
2. Indian Falls Road is to be constructed in accordance with the Application for Inspection and in accordance with the approved plans and profiles. After the base (binder) course of pavement is approved by the Road Agent/Town’s engineer, the developer will allow the road to set over one winter, during which time the developer will be liable for the roads, including, but not limited to, winter maintenance thereof. The wearing (finish) course of pavement shall be applied no later
than one (1) year from the date of application of the binder course. The Application for Inspection must be turned into the Planning Department after the road is 100% complete, in order to initiate final inspection and acceptance of the road, and the release of the security for the same after a compliance inspection and hearing is held.
3. Driveway locations shall be approved at sub-grade and driveways shall be
INDIAN FALLS, LLC, cont.
installed through binder to the satisfaction of the Road Agent/Town Engineer and
in conformance with the Application for Inspection & approved driveway permits.
4. Per Subdivision Regulations Sections V-S, 1, J), As-Built plans showing the final location of any slope/drainage easement areas, and driveways, and the final road construction details, in the form of three paper print copies and one electronic file, certified by the applicant’s engineer that the layout of the line and grade of all public improvements is in accordance with the approved construction plans of the subdivision, shall be submitted for review
by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., prior to the issue of any Certificates of Occupancy within the subdivision.
5. Submission of executed Deeds of Easement to the Town of New Boston for any slope and/or drainage easement areas and the cul-de-sac easement area identified on the plans. The cost of recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
6. Submission of executed Warranty Deed for Indian Falls Road. Payment of recording fees at HCRD shall be made by the applicant.
7. Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set, and the appropriate fee for recording same with the HCRD.
8. The applicant shall install road identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) to the satisfaction of the Road Agent.
9. Driveway Permits must be approved for completed acceptable installation by the Road Agent and Planning Board prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy (CO’s) for the related lots.
10. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until the sprinkler systems are installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee and the driveways are installed and approved by the Road Agent and the Planning Board and the road is installed through binder pavement and the road identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) are installed to the satisfaction of the Road Agent/town’s engineer, guard rails are
installed, if necessary, and the As- Built plans have been reviewed and approved by the town’s engineer.
11. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and-or the recording of documents with the HCRD.
The deadline for complying with the conditions subsequent shall be June 22, 2005, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing to be held on the application. Prior to the acceptance of the completed road by the Town, an acceptable two year maintenance bond must be submitted by the applicant for the road in the amount of 10% of the performance bond value.
DILLON, JULIE
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Boarding/Riding Stable
Location: 422 Riverdale Road
DILLON, JULIE, cont.
Tax Map/Lot #3/72
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Julie Dillon and a friend. No abutters were present.
Julie Dillon submitted copies of the plan revisions requested by the Board. The Chairman stated that it would have been more helpful if the revisions were submitted to the Coordinator ahead of time for her review as the Board members did not have time at the meeting to ascertain if all information was correct. The Coordinator noted that it was acceptable to submit revisions at the meeting for completeness of an application but did not require the plans to be correct. The Chairman added that all submission items were first required to be in the Board’s hands and he was comfortable with accepting the application as complete based on what the applicant had provided. He reminded the Board that a site walk still needed to be scheduled.
The Chairman asked what was planned for manure management on the site. Julie Dillon replied that a bunker would be constructed the following spring to collect the manure to be hauled off the site.
James Nordstrom asked how the 100 year flood line had been transposed onto the plans. Julie Dillon replied that she had drawn it by hand and had used a reference map to note how the delineation skirted behind the existing barn area and dropped off near a berm type contour formed behind the property.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application for Julie Dillon, Submission of Application/Non-Residential Site Plan Review/Boarding & Riding Stable, Location: 422 Riverdale Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/72, “R-A” District, as complete. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that a site walk on the property along with the Coordinator’s review of the submission items would yield better insight into the plan. A site walk was scheduled for July 6, 2004, at 7:15 p.m.
The Chairman stated he was eager to learn more about the present and future manure storage plans along with plans for the existing building. Julie Dillon stated that she had been renovating the barn for the past two years.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn Julie Dillon, Submission of Application/Non- Residential Site Plan Review/Boarding & Riding Stable, Location: 422 Riverdale Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/72, “R-A” District, to July 27, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Christine Quirk excused herself from the Board as her application was up next.
QUIRK, THOMAS & CHRISTINE
Compliance Hearing/NRSPR
Friendly Beaver Campground/Expansion of Toilet Building
Location: Cochran Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #7/11
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Christine Quirk. No abutters were present.
The Chairman stated that the compliance walk had been completed, asked the Board if they had any issues and there were none.
James Nordstrom commented that the expansion project had turned out nicely. Christine Quirk replied that she had put a lot of money into the project.
James Nordstrom noted that there was now a fire hydrant in the front of the toilet building. Christine Quirk replied that the hydrant had been there since 1991 and was now more visible due to tree cutting. She noted that the hydrant was pumped out once a year to prevent bacteria buildup inside of it as chlorinated water from the nearby swimming pool could not reach it through the underground piping.
James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm that Thomas and Christine Quirk, Friendly Beaver Campground, have complied with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan to relocate and expand an existing toilet building from 480 s.f. to 3,600 s.f. which will include laundry facilities, video games, and an activity room, Cochran Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/11, and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 8:40 p.m. the Board took a short break before resuming at 9:00 p.m. Christine Quirk returned to her seat on the Board.
This will be an informational session with Vista Road, LLC, to discuss a potential Subdivision of Tax Map/Lot#6/33 & 6/40-2, Wilson Hill Road, to continue discussion from May 25, 2004.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present for Vista Road, LLC, were Brian Holt and Eric Mitchell, LLS. Interested parties Amy Sanders and Jay Marden were also present.
Eric Mitchell, LLS, submitted conceptual plans to the Board that illustrated the two types of subdivision designs discussed at the last meeting with one design being for an open space concept and the other being for two types of grid scenarios. He added that each design had a similar road proposed to access from Swanson Drive versus Wilson Hill Road as the latter connection would have resulted in excessive steep slopes and bridging a deep ravine. Eric Mitchell, LLS, noted that he was aware that the Board had expressed an interest for future road networks that would provide additional access from Wilson Hill Road to Route 13, however, this
VISTA ROAD, LLC, cont.
was the best road concept that was feasible and access for Wilson Hill Road was not planned unless it became necessary. He noted that at the last conceptual discussion, the Board had needed to discuss the proposal with the Fire Department, Police Department and Highway Department.
Eric Mitchell, LLS, reviewed the entrance grade issue on Route 13 which was +3% in contrast to the regulation -3% grade. He explained that it was not possible to obtain a proper uphill profile using a -3% grade due to steepness. Eric Mitchell, LLS, noted that proposed grades for the plans started at 3% and rose to 8% with no 10% grades. He added that he had further modified the plans to a +2% grade at the road entrance off Route 13 which would satisfy NH DOT requirements for line of sight and grading at the intersection. Eric Mitchell, LLS, further noted that the new K values of +2% to 8% on vertical curves would meet AASHTO standards. He then asked for discussion from the Board regarding Town agencies’ opinion regarding a second access
off the hill, stressing that, in his opinion, the conceptual road design presented was the only viable solution from the Route 13 entrance at the Byam farmhouse up to Swanson Drive. Eric Mitchell, LLS, stated that they were doing test pits at the site and continued to work on the road design, driveway gradings and cut and fill requirements for slopes, however, the location of the road would not change from what was illustrated on the plans regardless of an open space or grid scenario. He then asked for questions from the Board.
Having read through the related comments from Town agencies, the Chairman stated that a question arose as to whether lot #1 on the existing Lot #6/33 of the proposed 36 lot subdivision would have a further subdivision restriction. Eric Mitchell, LLS, replied that they had not gotten to a point in the conceptual to make a decision on that, however, the second concept “B” of the grid type subdivision did illustrate that if a second access down to Wilson Hill Road cut through lot #1 it would also be subdivided for several lots. He went on to say that the open space concept allowed for lot #1 and more to remain as open space and potentially a conservation easement. The remaining concept “A” grid type subdivision did not show the second
access cutting through and, therefore, lot #1 might remain a large reserve for future use, possibly with one house lot that fronted on the access road. Eric Mitchell, LLS, summarized that the property on lot #1 was a challenging piece to develop which was why no definite decisions had been made regarding how it would be developed. James Nordstrom asked if Vista Road, LLC, could potentially further subdivide lot #1 even though it might not be practical to do so. Eric Mitchell, LLS, replied that concept “B” of the grid type subdivision showed that lot #’s 1-5, 27 and 28 were possible subdivision products of lot #1 if a stub road was built off the proposed road and there was no crossing of the ravine. He added that it was not possible to cut another road behind those lots so further subdivision beyond that was not possible and the land would remain open space. The Chairman stated that he preferred lot #1 on concept “A” of the
grid type subdivision to remain unsubdivided and added that it would be refreshing to see a developer that was willing to leave some land such as this mountain side in its natural state. The Chairman felt that Vista Road, LLC, was in a unique position to make such strides. Eric Mitchell, LLS, responded that this was another reason that an open space concept had been considered in that the house lots would be smaller yet large reserves of open space would remain: the area of lot #1 as well as on the
VISTA ROAD, LLC, cont.
opposite side of the watercourse. He added that the open space concept left 111 acres open where they were only required to have 50. The Chairman asked how the open space percentages would change if the majority of lot #1 was removed from the equation since it should not be developed anyway although he did not doubt that they could develop it if they so chose. Eric Mitchell, LLS, replied that the calculations were based on subtracting areas of steep slopes and
wetlands from the total area and dividing that into two acre lots to arrive at allowed density. He noted that much of the steep slope acreage was located on lot #1, therefore, removing that lot from the equation would probably keep density the same, especially since they were proposing 50 units when the calculation allowed 77.
James Nordstrom wished to clarify that if lot #1 was subdivided into 6 or 7 lots as shown on concept “B” of the grid type, the total units would increase from 36 to 43 or 44 lots. Eric Mitchell, LLS, said this was true, however, because the Town’s maximum dead end road length was 600 feet they could not get too far into the road way with a second access off Wilson Hill Road without crossing the ravine. James Nordstrom replied that this would probably net 4 or 5 additional lots instead. Eric Mitchell, LLS, said there was still a possibility that a cul-de-sac- could extend off the looped area of the proposed road, staying on the same side of the watercourse between lot #’s 22 and 23 of concept “B”. He added that these
lots were bigger than the required two acres so some other lots could be worked in but it might not be practical with a 600 foot cul-de-sac and they were still addressing how to tighten road grades as well. Eric Mitchell, LLS, further noted that if they proposed to bridge the ravine versus construct the cul-de-sac, greater expense would be incurred and Vista Road, LLC, would need to reconfigure the lots back up to 77 to cover that cost.
Christine Quirk asked what the acreage totaled. Eric Mitchell, LLS, stated that there was 198 acres. The Chairman stated that he obviously preferred the density of the grid proposal along with a large amount of open space, no disturbance to steep slopes and no bridge construction.
Bob Furey asked how the 20 acres of steep slopes exceeding 25% were shown on the plans. Eric Mitchell, LLS, replied that this was illustrated where the shading lines were drawn more closely together to almost a solid fill. He added that lot #’s 5,6,7, and 8 had areas of steep slopes that approached 33-35% which became an issue for septic systems. Bob Furey asked why the concept then showed lots in those areas. Eric Mitchell, LLS, replied that those slopes were in the very back of the lots and the open space calculations had netted that configuration.
Brian Holt asked the Chairman if he wanted a grid type subdivision with no open space. The Chairman stated he wanted a combination of both concepts where there was open space and fewer house lots. James Nordstrom stated that 36 lots would obviously be preferred over 50 on an identical road design as it meant less impact to the Town. He added that a combination of the two concepts could work if lot #1 was given conservation protection. Brian Holt added that Vista Road, LLC, also had development costs to consider and that each of the two concepts provided that balance. He noted that if the Town preferred the grid style development, the number of lots would not stay at 36, but would increase to 43 or 44. Brian Holt added that they were
further willing to decrease their lot allowance from 77 to 50 while affording over 100 acres
VISTA ROAD, LLC, cont.
of open space for the Town to use for recreation, etc. Brian Holt stated that they were willing to cooperate with the Board so that a mutual preference could be agreed upon and felt they were offering very good design options. Eric Mitchell, LLS, added that the open space lots were sized according to the State’s requirement for standard grid sized lots so that they could support their own well and septic system. He said another option was for community water or septic systems which would preserve more open space while making the lots smaller and adding density. Eric Mitchell, LLS, did not think this area was conducive for that option and that a flatter site that could support more cul-de-sacs nestled within clustered lots would be a more appropriate. He concluded that the designs
presented seemed to be a better fit for the site with private utilities for each lot on a Town maintained road. The Chairman asked if 50 lots were the minimum number of lots to make the designs workable. Eric Mitchell, LLS, replied that 50 is what was chosen where 77 was what was allowed based on the open space calculations. He noted that test pits being performed now might negate some lots due to wetlands issues, such as lot #6, therefore, lot counts might decrease. However, the lots were sized according to State requirements for standard grid lots and had 150-200 feet of frontage and were at least 1 to 1.25 acres in size.
The Chairman asked if the site had an appropriate and accessible area for future municipal use such as a school given that 50 lot subdivisions were becoming the norm. Eric Mitchell, LLS, did not think this particular site was conducive for a school as it did not have flat enough areas to support parking lots, fields, etc. The Chairman wondered when Thibeault Corporation would be able to set aside a space from a large subdivision for a municipal area. Brian Holt asked how much space was needed. The Chairman said he could not give an exact acreage amount. Brian Holt stated that Thibeault Corporation’s land extended from the Wilson Hill area to the Jenkins business on Route 13 and asked what kind of municipal building was desired. The
Chairman replied that he thought another school would be necessary in the future. Brian Holt stated that Ernie Thibeault and the owners could discuss that option. The Chairman felt it was an important consideration for Thibeault Corp. as they were more able to facilitate that option than a smaller developer. Brian Holt thought that a school would only require 8-10 acres. James Nordstrom thought that five acres could even suffice. Brian Holt commented that they had just been working on a 30 acre site in Alton, NH for a high school. Eric Mitchell, LLS, added that when you considered the athletic fields, parking, etc. incorporated into the total acreage it became a substantial area. Brian Holt noted that this could be considered in future concepts.
James Nordstrom asked if a phasing mechanism would be considered for a 50 lot development. Brian Holt said it would be considered as it was done for the subdivision on Labree Road. Eric Mitchell, LLS, offered the idea of negotiated phasing which he had dealt with on previous projects. He added that such phasing provided logical areas of construction for the builder where the road was built out to a certain length and once the construction of house was completed to that point the road construction continued forward. Eric Mitchell, LLS, further noted that the roads were usually built in smaller sections to avoid having long dead ends during the phasing period. An interested party, Jay Marden asked if temporary circles were an option as the road
was phased. Eric Mitchell, LLS, stated that these were also an option although they
VISTA ROAD, LLC, cont.
used more area than an alternative “T” or hammerhead stop. Brian Holt said he was agreeable to phasing based on the consideration of the company’s costs and could discuss it further as the project progressed. Eric Mitchell, LLS, asked how the Board dealt with phasing for a 20 or 30 lot subdivision, for example. The Chairman replied that building would usually occur in increments of 10 homes constructed per year or if a prior year saw 5 homes completed, the following year allowed for 15 and then continued with 10 after that. Eric Mitchell asked if the Board had considered making growth control a Town ordinance. He noted that with progression it could be harder to negotiate and eventually some form of controlled assurance is needed. Brian Holt added that they were
willing to phase as they recognized its purpose.
James Nordstrom stated that he liked the open space concept as it was beneficial to the Town and protected, in this case, a very sensitive piece of land. He noted this was especially important when it was realized that the grid style subdivision would result in a number of lots that was within 10% of the cluster numbers anyway. He did think that some density would be lost due to wetlands issues. The Chairman agreed and added that he would prefer less density but realized the applicant’s profit requirements and compared to the grid type design plans this seemed more reasonable. Travis Daniels said his opinions paralleled both the Chairman’s and James Nordstrom’s.
Don Duhaime said he liked a concept for 36 lots and open space that had been mentioned previously. The Chairman said this would also be his choice but the applicant could not support it economically. Brian Holt said that this was the case and that he agreed the open space concept was a better choice. He added that James Nordstrom’s comment regarding a slight density loss was most likely true, and therefore, since unit numbers would decrease toward the grid numbers why not choose open space over no open space. Brian Holt stated that open space did get utilized and referenced a Hollis, NH, project where such areas were available for horse back riding, bicycling and walking trails. Don Duhaime thought that lot #1’s open space area was
so steep it would not be usable. Brian Holt said it might be difficult to use but not impossible. He added that they were employing their best effort not to build out the 77 units and give open space to the Town. Eric Mitchell, LLS, commented that it was fair to say that this open space was more likely to be used for hiking and passive recreation. Brian Holt agreed and said that the area would not be flattened out for a ball field as the Chairman suggested. The Chairman said that statement was incorrect and that he said he would like a future school site in some other area as he felt New Boston was heading in the direction of needing additional schools with on site ball fields for on hand maintenance. He explained that he raised this point because he wanted the applicant to be aware that this request would be made in the future and hoped that they would be responsive to it just as the Board had tried to do the same in their relationship with
them. Brian Holt understood and said it was a common situation in many communities.
The Chairman stated that this open space seemed to have a fair amount of usable area that were not too steep. He added that cluster subdivisions were a frustrating concept in his opinion as in many instances the neighborhood gained land that could not be used for anything. Eric Mitchell, LLS, stated that it was his opinion that open space meant it was land worth preserving whether environmentally, or for view factors or additional use. He added that clusters were
VISTA ROAD, LLC, cont.
sometimes done as it was the best alternative, however, the result simply became house lots that were closer together.
The Chairman asked Bob Furey if he had a preference regarding the design concepts. Bob Furey stated that his main concern dealt more with the +2% road grade at the entrance from Route 13 and thought this would be an issue with the Road Agent and Town agencies. Eric Mitchell, LLS, stated that this grade complied with national standards and its progression
toward 8% was a gradual transition from +2% to a vertical curve at 2.5% to 2.75% up to 8% at a distance 500 feet from the entrance way. He noted that the objective of this gradual transition was to allow for stacking areas for cars to safely stop in the road. Bob Furey stated the Road Agent’s comments on this issue were warranted.
Jay Marden stated that the east side of Wilson Hill Road still inaccurately appeared on the Locus plans and also asked if the blackened area near the Thompson land was Vista Road, LLC’s property. Brian Holt said it was not. Eric Mitchell, LLS, stated that this Locus plan was the one used when 35 acres were divided off the Thompson property in order to indicate that break of ownership.
Jay Marden asked if the land in front of the Byam house was also open space and Eric Mitchell, LLS, said it was. Jay Marden then asked what the average frontage and acreage was for the lots. Eric Mitchell, LLS, replied that the average frontage was 150 feet and the average acreage was 1.1 to 1.3 acres or 45,000 to 52,000 s.f.
Jay Marden noted that years prior when Byam Road and Inkberry Road were conceptualized 2 or 3 lots were supposed to be set aside for public use and wondered what became of them. Brian Holt thought this might be Lot #40 which was Town property. Jay Marden said that Lot #40 was on the left side of Byam road and the lots he questioned would have been on the right. He added that he was concerned about the need for open space as a bear den had already been lost to development in that area.
Jay Marden thought that a land swap with the Byams might alleviate the grade issue if the entrance was alternately constructed westerly off Byam Road rather than Route 13. Brian Holt said he had not considered that option. The Chairman stated that he did not think Phyllis Byam would be agreeable to any dealings that involved Ernie Thibeault. Jay Marden stated he only wanted to offer it as a suggestion and added he also was for the open space plan as he felt more open space was needed in proposed development designs.
Interested party, Amy Sanders asked if any form of traffic calming would be employed due to the proposed road’s alignment and steep grades and if the only access to the open space would be from Route 13. Brian Holt said this was a good point and there would probably be some other access areas to the open space. Amy Sanders asked if Wilson Hill Road would remain a right of way. Brian Holt stated that Wilson Hill Road was a Class VI road, would remain a right of way and that the public could travel down Wilson Hill Road, cross the proposed road and continue down to Route 13. Jay Marden noted that Wilson Hill Road was a Class V road from Route 13 up to the Thompson house. Brian Holt agreed and said it became a Class VI after that and R.J.
Moreau was bringing in 1,100 feet of Class V road beyond that and that the Class VI area in between was to remain a right-of-way for public use.
VISTA ROAD, LLC, cont.
Amy Sanders asked how the road alignment would slow traffic speeds down an 8% slope. Brain Holt thought that the road alignment was a good one with a balance of cuts and fills and slopes but added that traffic speeds were more of an enforcement issue. He thought that a speed sign or posted speed limit could be helpful. Amy Sanders thought that the lack of bends in the road would not encourage traffic to slow down. Eric Mitchell, LLS, stated that he would have preferred more bends in the road but it needed to be straight in order to successfully traverse the hill. Brian Holt added that New Boston’s relatively narrow 22 foot wide paved roads aided in cutting traffic speeds as wider roads offered more speed velocity and again stated that
policing would be the only other solution. He acknowledged that it was a difficult issue. The Chairman commented that the Town had voted down additional police and Travis Daniels noted that the portable speed sign was also voted down. The Chairman said the Town tried to make roads as safe as possible and that, ironically, it usually involved making them as straight as possible.
Jay Marden commented that he had seen a great increase in traffic cutting over Gregg Mill road from Route 77 to get to Byam Road. Brian Holt stated that the general public would probably not utilize the proposed road as a cut through as it only led to the subdivision but a traffic study would yield more information on that topic.
Eric Mitchell, LLS, asked if there were copies of any additional comments from Town agencies. The Chairman said he believed he had read them all at the meeting.
Jay Marden asked if the Town imposed impact fees and the Chairman said the Town did not. Jay Marden commented that Orlando, Florida, got $10,000 in impact fees per house and Manchester, NH, received $1,000 so he did not see why New Boston could not. Don Duhaime stated that Manchester invested their fees into the existing infrastructure such as sewer and water.
Don Duhaime asked how the lots in this conceptual plan could have 150 feet of frontage when the Subdivision Regulations required 200 feet. James Nordstrom replied that the Cluster Ordinance in the Zoning Regulations dictated the formula for density for cluster subdivisions and also discussed frontage or lot size.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JUNE 22, 2004
1. The minutes of May 25, 2004, were distributed for approval at the meeting of July 13, 2004, with or without changes.
2. Signature required for Notice of Merger for Alex B. Nofstger, Tax Map/Lot #12/103, 104, and 105, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Coordinator stated that a motion for approval was required for the above merger.
Travis Daniels MOVED to approve the Notice of Merger for Alex B. Nofstger, Tax
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
Map/Lot #12/103, 104, and 105. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the Notice of Merger.
3. Discussion Re: letter dated May 24, 2004, to Roger Noonan, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Planning Board Materials and Deadline for Site Plan.
(Distributed at May 25th meeting)
Travis Daniels stated that he was aware that Roger Noonan’s business plan for a farm stand had changed quite a bit and that he was instead going to construct a shed for his own personal use for plant storage. The Coordinator wondered why Roger Noonan would not call or write the Planning Department with such notification. Travis Daniels said he had mentioned this to Mr. Noonan who had also stated he would be stepping down as an alternate for the Planning Board although he had not yet officially conveyed this to the Board.
The Chairman thought that the Board should revoke the approval of Mr. Noonan’s site plan. The Coordinator noted that a public hearing was required in order to do this. James Nordstrom asked if the Planning Board was still required to formally revoke the approval of the existing site plan if Mr. Noonan informed the Board of new decisions first. The Coordinator replied that if Mr. Noonan informed the Board verbally or in writing that he wanted to withdraw the application from Town records then no hearing or cost would be involved. She added that she thought Mr. Noonan had an outstanding issue regarding lighting for the farm stand and she had suggested to him that he remove the exterior lighting proposal from the plans and change the hours of
operation to day light only which he said he would do. Travis Daniels said that Mr. Noonan’s business plan had changed because he did not want the disturbance of customers always being around his home.
The Coordinator thought that a letter from Mr. Noonan to the Board asking that his site plan no longer be considered active would be acceptable. James Nordstrom said he did not mind calling Mr. Noonan regarding this issue but was not sure if it was appropriate to do so. The Chairman was not certain that Mr. Noonan would give a definite answer by phone. Christine Quirk asked if Mr. Noonan was aware that a cost to the applicant was involved for application revocations. Travis Daniels did not think Roger Noonan was aware of this but thought that a prompt response would be forthcoming if he knew fees were involved. The Chairman suggested that a letter should be sent to Mr. Noonan informing him that if he did not contact the Board to withdraw his
application that the Board would formally revoke it for him at a cost that would be his responsibility and asked the Coordinator how many abutters would have to receive the certified letter of the formal hearing notice. The Coordinator was unsure but did not think there were many abutters. She added that a notice in the Town newspaper might be needed, however, she would need to review the Statute for Revocation procedure as the Board had never had this issue.
The Chairman asked if Roger Noonan’s application would just expire if no action was
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
taken on a site plan. The Coordinator replied that the applicant had four years to be considered exempt from changes to the Subdivision Regulations and Site Plan Regulations. She added that if Mr. Noonan considered the improvements to his property substantial then he could say that his site plan could not be revoked and that this was not specified at the Board at the time. James Nordstrom said this could be an issue unless the Board formally revoked the plan but thought that there was a good argument in the Board’s favor regarding substantial completion.
James Nordstrom asked how many letters had been sent to Mr. Noonan. The Coordinator replied that three letters had been sent and suggested that she draft a letter informing Mr. Noonan that in light of information received from Board member Travis Daniels, the Planning Board understood that he no longer wanted to continue with his application as approved and that unless
he contacted the Board by a certain date the application was considered withdrawn. James Nordstrom was not sure if such a letter would be legal and the Coordinator agreed. She stated that the issue was an applicant was ignoring the deadlines imposed by the Board. James Nordstrom added that it was also an applicant who was a current Planning Board member.
The Coordinator added that the applicant needed to meet the requirements of his plan in order to be considered in compliance at a formal hearing and that if his choice was not to meet those requirements then that should be relayed to the Board.
The Chairman asked what was involved in holding a revocation hearing. The Coordinator replied that noticed letters would need to be sent out to abutters. She added that if the applicant could not meet the requirements of the exterior lighting on the plans because he did not have a power source then the plans would need to be revised, resubmitted to the Board and then a compliance hearing held for the revised site plan which became more complicated. The Chairman stated that Roger Noonan did have a power source for his electric maple sugar pumps and Travis Daniels said this was the case. The Coordinator did not understand what the outlying issue would then be and added that she thought the apron for the driveway on the site plan had also been completed.
Travis Daniels reiterated that the applicant’s reconsideration was a recent development and did not think he would reconsider the farm stand. James Nordstrom expressed that the Board would need to take action at some point although he hoped it would not come to that.
The Chairman thought he had signed something that involved expiration of the application if the deadline was not met. The Coordinator explained that all Notices of Decision for Conditions Precedent state that a revocation may take place if the deadline is not met, however, this is usually before site work ensues. She added that it became complicated when work to a site had already begun because revocation could then be challenged by the applicant such as in the Byam Road application. The Chairman asked how long the applicant had to contest an administrative revocation. The Coordinator assumed 30 days and the Chairman noted that they had not heard from the applicant in six months and thought the plan should be administratively revoked. The
Coordinator stated that a public hearing would need to be scheduled and the Chairman thought it should be and that Mr. Noonan should be notified that this was going to happen in order to motivate his action. The Board agreed.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
4. Discussion Re: Update Master Plan Committee
a) Goals and Visions
b) Minutes of 06/15/04
The Coordinator stated that the Master Plan Committee now saw 7-10 people regularly attending each meeting and that they were on track in understanding that items in the Master Plan needed to be addressed in order before ordinance or regulations were discussed as was evident in their meeting minutes.
The Coordinator stated that the Committee wanted to work on the Steep Slopes
Ordinance as it was already mentioned in the Master Plan and concentrate on Natural Resources, Economic Base and Cultural and Historic Preservation as those chapters were necessary to update Future Land Use. She added that there was more discussion than writing at the moment and that the writing would take quite some time.
The Coordinator stated that she had taken the goals and visions from the Community Profile of New Boston Speaks and inserted them where appropriate under the chapter headings of the Master Plan so that the committee would remember to address those ideas presented by members of the community.
The Coordinator stated that the project groups formed out of the Community Profile would be meeting on June 23, 2004, and the Steep Slopes Committee would be meeting on June 29, 2004.
The Coordinator stated that the Master Plan Committee was interested in changing the layout of the Master Plan so that it was easier to read and have appendices that contained technical information such as charts, graphs and statistics in the Planning Board office. The Chairman did not think the Master Plan should be simplified in this way and that all information should be included in the same document. James Nordstrom did not have an opinion either way. The Chairman’s concern was that anyone looking at the Master Plan should receive all the information and not just a vague goal statement that may not indicate the true facts or intent.
5. A copy of a memorandum dated June 11, 2004, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Planning Board Members, Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, and Board of Selectmen, Re: Off-Site Road Improvements, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator stated that the formula calculation for assessment for offsite improvements for roads and drainage was reinstated by the legislature and became effective on June 7, 2004. She added that this meant that developers could now be legally assessed for fees for roads and drainage.
Don Duhaime asked if the Board or Road Agent ever required developers to do overlays or reconstruction of roads. He noted the example of heavy equipment that traveled Bedford Road which posted signs for no through trucking to access the Carriage Road development site. He added that roads should really be reclaimed as overlays were not a permanent fix. James
Nordstrom replied that some prior subdivisions had done offsite road upgrades such as McCurdy
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
Road and McCollum Road.
6. A copy of a memorandum dated June 11, 2004, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Planning Board Members, Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, Board of Selectmen, Ken Lombard, and Lou Lanzillotti, Re: Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis Seminar, June 9, 2004, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator stated that the seminar was fair and emphasized the Board’s opinion that Fiscal Impact Studies were moot if impact fees and a way to assess developers were absent from the equation and that towns should have larger scale economic impact analysis done to ascertain the possible need for an Impact Fee Ordinance.
The Coordinator stated that an interesting point made at the seminar was that increased
residential development did not necessarily negatively impact the Town’s tax base.
7. Daily road inspection reports dated May 17th, May 18th, May 19th, May 20th, May 21st, May 24th, May 25th, May 26th, May 27th, and May 28th, from Dufresne-Henry, Re: Highland Hills, were distributed for the Board’s information.
8. Daily road inspection reports dated May 17th, May 19th, May 20th, May 24th, May 25th, and May 27th, from Dufresne-Henry, Re: Waldorf Estates Phase III, were distributed for the Board’s information.
9. A copy of New Hampshire Town & City Article, June 2004 issue, Re: Adjusting Your View of Lot Line Adjustments, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator thought it might be helpful to applicants if the Board considered adding a statement to cover sheets for lot line adjustment hearings that noted lot line adjustments did not become legal when the Board approved them but when the deed for exchange was completed. She added that the assessor’s office could not update their information until deeds for exchange were completed and frequently had to phone applicants who were slow in completing this task.
10. Read File: Public Hearing Notice for June 23, 2004, from the Town of Deering Zoning Board, Re: wireless service facility.
11. Distribution of proposed amendments to the Subdivision & Site Plan Review Regulations for discussion at the meeting of July 13, 2004.
The Coordinator asked that the Board add or make changes to anything they recall was discussed for either ordinance that they felt was necessary as she had only touched on the main points.
12a) A letter dated June 11, 2004, from Morgan A. Hollis, Gottesman & Hollis, to Nicola
Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Waldorf Estates Ph. III, Foxberry Drive, Tax
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
Map/Lot# 8/84, was distributed for the Board’s information.
12b) A copy of a draft response to Attorney Hollis’s letter by Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, dated June 16, 2004, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman thought this response should be sent out to Attorney Hollis. The Coordinator stated the draft needed some adjustment as it discussed two alternatives and it also might need review by Town Counsel.
The Chairman thought that Attorney Hollis misunderstood the Board’s intentions regarding driveway plans and that Bill Drescher, Esq., would then be perplexed by his letter as was he. He added that he did not understand why Attorney Hollis cross-referenced the deviation of a home site location on its own lot to any subsequent nonconformity to the approved engineered driveway plans. The Chairman wondered why such plans would have been required by the Board if they were not to be followed.
The Chairman thought it would be more appropriate to forward the Board’s correspondence of May 12, 2004, as noted by Attorney Hollis to Town Counsel with this letter for clarification of the Board’s intent. He asked what was included in the correspondence. The Coordinator replied that this contained the noted requirements for the driveways for which permits had been approved and a copy was forwarded to Attorney Hollis as he was the agent working for Seff Enterprises. The Chairman stated this was the standard notification that the Board would perform inspections on the driveways and note any significant deviations. The Coordinator noted that the word “significant” was subjective in
this instance and that the alternative choices in her draft letter was that the Board discuss it directly with the applicant or send a response by letter. The Chairman stated that clarification was necessary and the Board’s intent was that deviation in driveway design and layout became significant when there was impact to Town emergency equipment and Town roads, and that driveways were supposed to properly enter a roadway at required grade minimums. James Nordstrom stated that the challenge was how to properly verbalize the Board’s intent and definition of “significant” to legal satisfaction. The Chairman thought the applicant should come to the Board for clarification and that no retraction of their original statements was necessary. He noted that he was more concerned about developers abiding by their engineered driveway plans and noted the deviations on Bog Brook Road.
Don Duhaime asked if the Board’s intent was that fire apparatus be able to get up these driveways. The Chairman replied that this was the case to a certain extent and that the intent more encompassed emergency equipment and to prevent erosion problems into the road. Don Duhaime asked for a definition of emergency equipment. The Chairman replied that an ambulance or police car was more likely to ascend a driveway that a fire truck. He further added that erosion was a main concern as noted in the ordinances. The Chairman noted that, although he was unable to locate them, there were supposedly driveways in some new subdivisions approved in town that entered the road way on a positive grade and
an issue arose that the Board was not checking driveways. He asked if the Coordinator knew of any such driveways. She
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
replied that there were none she knew of in new subdivisions but there were two on Middle Branch Road before the intersection with Tucker Mill Road, and one on Lyndeborough Road.
James Nordstrom asked if the Board would be involved in a legal issue over this letter. The Coordinator did not believe so as the Subdivision Regulations stated that driveways needed to be at 10% and if developers changed something in their driveway construction where this was no longer the case then they would not be following the Subdivision Regulations. She also noted that driveway inspections were based on approval of the subdivision and meeting subdivision regulations. The Chairman stated that the first statement in the Coordinator’s suggested response letter should be used.
The Coordinator asked if the draft response should be cc’d to Bill Drescher, Esq., and the
Chairman said it should be.
13. A copy of a letter dated June 15, 2004, from Emile R. Bussiere, Law Offices of Bussiere & Bussiere, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Vista Road, LLC, & Hutchinson Road, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion
The Coordinator explained that Brian Dorwart of the Road Committee had spoken with Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., and a meeting had been scheduled on June 24, 2004, after 2:00 p.m. where Dufresne-Henry, Inc., the Road Committee, Road Agent, Vista Road, LLC, and she would discuss the road design issues of Vista Road prior to the plan’s acceptance. She noted that this was unusual procedurally, but Amy Alexander was leaving Dufresne-Henry, Inc., and was very aware of discussion and issues of this plan.
The Chairman brought up the list of 18 items that the Road Committee refused to share with the Board and asked if a copy would be forthcoming. The Coordinator did not think this would happen as the committee was determined to have gone outside their realm of responsibility when the list was complied and for liability reasons it would then stay an internal document. She added that the Road Committee did review this list with Amy Alexander who said that she was confident the same issues would have been uncovered by Dufresne-Henry, Inc. James Nordstrom added that there was apparently a fine line between what you could comment on as a volunteer as a professional engineer.
The Chairman was amazed that the Board would never see this list but the Town Engineer, who worked for the Board, was able to. The Coordinator stated that the Road Committee assembled this list with the best of intentions, however, went too far in their analysis and now knew not to do so in the future.
Bob Furey asked if some items on this list could have involved engineering changes in the road design. The Coordinator stated that Amy Alexander said these comments involved nothing out of the ordinary. Bob Furey commented that they were many Town agencies that did not want this subdivision to be approved and wondered if this list would support that. The Coordinator did not think this list would have halted the project according to her conversations with Amy Alexander.
The Chairman thought that if the Road Committee was not willing to work with the
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
Board by sharing their information they should not work with them in the future. The Coordinator stressed that she was unsure as to why the Road Committee did what they did but that it was important to move forward now that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., was involved. Christine Quirk commented that this road had so many issues that she felt it contributed to how the list evolved the way it did. The Chairman asked if Christine Quirk knew what was on the list and she replied that she had heard some discussion on it but had not read nor completely understood topics on the list. The Chairman wondered if the Selectmen or Town Administrator were privy to the list and again expressed his disapproval of how this incident played out.
14. A copy of the Preconstruction Meeting Minutes received June 16, 2004, from Dufresne-
Henry, Inc., Re: Forest View-Nissitissit Development, was distributed for the Board’s
information.
15. A copy of a fax received June 15, 2004, from Dufresne-Henry, Re: NH Developer and Contractor charged with Clean Water Act Violations, was distributed for the Board’s information.
16. The minutes of June 8, 2004, were distributed for approval at the meeting of July 13, 2004, with or without changes.
17. Discussion of third draft of Driveway Regulations, particularly common driveways.
The Coordinator stated she had asked that the Board read the common driveway section in this draft. She noted that the Goals and Objectives section of the Master Plan stated that common driveways should be encouraged, which she noted in section 11.1. She also added to that section that common driveways would only be approved by the Board if it was determined that a lot could also support its own driveway if needed. The Coordinator further noted that in these regulations the word “driveway” referred to that portion of the driveway within in the right-of-way.
The Coordinator stated that section 11.2 dealt with the preferred configuration for common driveways where it should enter at the common lot line and then split at the right-of-way line. She added that if the common portion extended beyond the right-of-way line then legal easements would need to be reviewed at the applicant’s expense. She then left a blank area for the Board’s decision on how many lots a common driveway should serve, noting that the Board had required anything over two lots to be constructed to NFPA standards, however, she was unsure as to the maximum number of lots that should apply to this standard. The Chairman thought that three should be the most and anything beyond that would be a road and not a driveway. Christine
Quirk stated that a house she owned had three lots on a shared driveway. The Coordinator gave an example of a back lot with two front lots where the driveway extended up the middle, however, the language of entering at a common lot line would then not apply. James Nordstrom thought a solution would be not to include the maximum number of driveways
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
in the language. The Coordinator asked if this meant she should not alter section 11.3 and remove the first sentence of section 11.5. The Chairman said 11.5 could also be eliminated. The Coordinator said that section 11.5 would include the NFPA standards. The Chairman replied that section 11.5 could simply state that common driveways required the shared portion to be built to NFPA standards. The Coordinator stated that this would mean that common driveways for two lots would then require the 25 foot portion to be built to NFPA standards rather than reserving this higher standard for just three or four lots sharing a driveway.
Don Duhaime asked for a definition of NFPA Standards and the Coordinator replied that these standards were for planned building groups with criteria for height, width, base, material and obstructions for the driveway. Don Duhaime asked if these standards were more stringent than the Town’s standards and James Nordstrom responded that the Town did not employ such standards and that the idea was concerned with fire safety. James Nordstrom asked if the
language could state common driveways that served more than two lots required the shared portion to be so constructed without stating how many lots there could be. Don Duhaime alternately wondered if the wording could be restricted to common driveways at common property lines for two lots only. He asked if the Town was particular with curb cuts. The Chairman said that in some cases common curb cuts were considered appropriate, however, there had been past issue with lots that could not support a driveway on their own frontage so easements were then placed over other lots to provide access to the original lot in question. He noted that this loop hole had since been closed.
James Nordstrom said the issue was a matter of distance as well as the number of lots because if the common portion was only 15 feet it should not be required to adhere to NFPA standards, however, if the length was 50 feet then NFPA standards should apply. The Chairman said that there were good reasons for shared driveways to be held to higher standards than single ones as two owners needed to maintain them which could be a complicated scenario. Don Duhaime added that NFPA standards could be applied to all common driveways and that the developer could adequately incorporate this into his cost. The Chairman agreed. James Nordstrom did not think that NFPA standards would have restrictions that would complicate the build for driveways that had short lengths before
the split. The Chairman stated that section 11.5 should read “Common driveways are required to have the shared portion of the common driveway built to NFPA Standards”.
The Chairman had no issue with the following sentence that stated common driveways needed to be complete up a point 15 feet beyond the common access point as this was not a costly undertaking. The Coordinator noted that paving would need to be referenced somewhere with the draft. The Chairman said paving applied to all driveways and not merely common ones.
The Coordinator asked if there was confusion between section 11.2 that noted two or more driveways and section 11.3 that reference a preferred configuration. The Chairman said the wording of these sections allowed some leeway as it did not limit driveways to two only and supported that lots need to be built through their own frontage.
The Coordinator stated that Bob Furey had done some detail sketches for the draft and submitted them to the Board. Bob Furey added that he showed a 10% maximum grade on the
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
profile and wasn’t sure if that was necessary. The Coordinator said it was necessary for new subdivisions regulations but not for these regulations. Bob Furey stated he would take out the maximum 10% grades.
The Coordinator stated that page 6, section 9.5 needed clarification on all season safe sight distance based on the speed of the road. James Nordstrom thought 300 feet would be accurate for an average road speed of 35m.p.h. The Coordinator said she would add this and also check with the Road Agent as well.
The Coordinator stated that having spoken with the Road Agent, section 9.11 now stated that the driveway should have a negative 3% grade 25 feet from the center of the roadway or to the center of the ditchline, as sometimes 25 feet from the center went past the ditchline and drainage then needed to be reconfigured. James Nordstrom said this had always bothered him
because for those roads not crowned at 3%, the grade would need to increase to a negative 5% or 6% grade to accomplish the same and that most references to driveway grades usually began at the edge of the traveled way and not at the centerline of the road. The Coordinator said that changes to Subdivision Regulations were coming up soon and that this adjustment could be referenced there as well. Bob Furey asked if the text should be reworded to say from the edge of the pavement to the ditchline and have the crown of the road removed from the equation. James Nordstrom thought the Road Agent should be contacted for his opinion. Don Duhaime asked what the standard shoulder measurement was. The Coordinator thought it was 4 feet and James Nordstrom confirmed she was correct after
consulting the Subdivision Regulations. James Nordstrom thought the intent was that the 3% grade begin at the edge of the pavement to prevent erosion into the roadway and again thought the Road Agent’s thoughts were warranted.
The Chairman stated that he felt five feet of distance from abutting property lines was more appropriate than 10 feet stated in section 9.12 and gave the example of a back lot with 10 feet on each side of a 25 foot driveway would limit its contour in some case to a straight design versus the option for curving.
Don Duhaime thought that section 9.16 should do away with 16 gauge aluminized or steel culverts as he did not believe it held up as well as polyethylene. James Nordstrom said this was still commonly used for driveways culverts as in his own driveway.
The Coordinator stated that she still needed language for section 10 but thought a clean 4th draft could then be forwarded to the Road Agent, while previous drafts that contained now omitted language could be kept for reference. Don Duhaime asked if section 10 would include material types required for driveways. James Nordstrom said this was correct and assumed these materials were for portions of the driveway in the right-of-way and that instances of driveways that entered a paved road versus a gravel road would be held to different standards. Don Duhaime asked if the standard could incorporate that contractors should use a consistent material type for all driveways. James Nordstrom said this section concerned edge of pavement to the
right-of-way. The Coordinator said this was the case in order for proper emergency access and that once off the right-of-way and on personal property the applicant could choose the material to use. Christine Quirk asked if the Coordinator had written any of section 10 yet. The Coordinator stated she had not and needed assistance with this section. James Nordstrom said
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
that he and Bob Furey would discuss this section and modify the sketches to encompass tonight’s input.
The Coordinator asked if she could send a 4th draft on to the Road Agent although section 10 was still pending and would wait until a 5th draft was completed to send to Town Counsel. The Chairman stated that he would be interested in the Road Agent’s input on driveway materials.
18. Compliance inspection required for Cimray Homes, LLC’s remaining site work items, Parker Road (Moss Drive), Tax Map/Lot #3/121, for the Board’s action. (Drive by prior to next meeting, July 13, 2004)
The Coordinator stated that $2,000 was being held for minor repair to the cistern pipe paint and road shoulders.
19. A copy of a letter dated June 16, 2004, from Jon Lariviere, R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, to Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant, Re: extension request for conditions subsequent on Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/32 & #9/22, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that Mr. Lariviere wanted to do away with his present deadline which the Coordinator said was not possible unless a new one was requested. She added that this deadline had been set by the prior applicant. She noted that Mr. Lariviere then chose November 1, 2005, for the new project deadline.
Travis Daniels MOVED to grant the extension request by R.J. Moreau in their letter dated June 16, 2004, to November 1, 2005. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously
20. A copy of a fax received June 21, 2004, from Paul Carideo, T.F. Moran, Inc., to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: extension request for conditions precedent on Carriage Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/93, 93-19, 93-21 and 93-22, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the extension request by T.F. Moran in their fax received June 21, 2004, for two weeks to July 6, 2004. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
21. A copy of a letter dated June 21, 2004, from William Matheson to the Board, Re: extension request for conditions subsequent for the subdivision on Route 13 a/k/a Weare Road & Dunbar Road, Tax Map/Lot #14/116, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the extension request by William Matheson in his letter dated June 21, 2004, to August 1, 2004. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
22. James Nordstrom MOVED to recommend to the Selectmen that Bob Furey fulfill Christopher Johnson’s remaining term as a regular Board member. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 11:50 p.m., James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk Minutes Approved:
| 
