The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, James Nordstrom, Bob Furey; ex-officio Gordon Carlstrom; and, alternate Don Duhaime. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nicola Strong and Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were Roch Larochelle, Bob Todd, LLS, Brandy Mitroff, Mitch Larochelle, Ray Shea, LLS, Andrew Wegman, Dorothy Fillmore, Jay Marden, Earney Mayo, Mark LeBlanc, Clifton Labree, Al Bell, Jim Bath, Reggie Houle, Steve Hunt, Betty Poltrack, Richard Silvernail, Tony Ferm, Jason Wenzel, Dianne Sawyer, Pattie Rice, Dan Teague, Doyal Lyons, and many others in the audience.
PUBLIC HEARING
Driveway Regulations
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Interested parties present were Bob Todd, LLS, Brandy Mitroff, Mitch Larochelle, Ray Shea, LLS, Andrew Wegman, Dorothy Fillmore, Jay Marden, Earney Mayo, Mark LeBlanc, Clifton Labree, Al Bell, Jim Bath, Reggie Houle, Steve Hunt, Betty Poltrack, Richard Silvernail, Tony Ferm, Jason Wenzel, Dianne Sawyer, and Pattie Rice. The Chairman remarked that a large crowd was present at this hearing, which he presumed to be over concern regarding a recently mass-mailed postcard from the Concerned Landowners of New Boston, LLC. The Chairman noted that this recent mailing was riddled with misinformation regarding updates that had been made to the Driveway Regulations. He stated that Selectmen ex-officio, Gordon Carlstrom, would speak to this issue.
Gordon Carlstrom stated that the Selectmen had discussed this issue at their meeting one night prior and noted that although it was not typical for them to take a position on issues of this nature they felt in this case that the mailing in question was counter productive because it contained incorrect information and was more an attempt to confuse the public and incite a negative reaction towards the Planning Board. He added that a lot of time and effort had been put into the new Driveway Regulations, the intent of which was to protect the Town and taxpayers from driveways that created issues over the long term, which could cost everyone tax dollars. Gordon Carlstrom further added that the uprising caused by this mailing had wasted many hours for the Town with the Planning
Department, Town Clerk and Selectmen’s Office being overcome by phone calls and visits from concerned individuals. He noted that a point made in the postcard stated that trees would be clear cut up to 300 feet and/or existing stonewalls would be removed to accommodate new driveways. Gordon Carlstrom clarified that there was nothing in the Driveway Regulations that called for clear cutting of trees but, rather, sight distance could be improved for new driveways by the removal of some trees. He added that he could not recall an instance where a stonewall had to be removed other than to create an opening for a new driveway’s entrance. The Chairman noted that if a builder approached the Board with a proposal to construct a driveway that abutted someone’s land the Board could not force the abutter to alter anything on their property to satisfy the requirements for that new driveway so that it satisfied the Driveway Regulations. An
interested party stated that the postcard mailer stated: “Stone walls and trees would be stripped…”. The Chairman replied that such an option could only occur on the property that the driveway was being constructed on. He added that if an applicant could not obtain proper sight distance on their property for a driveway entrance a Driveway Permit could not be issued and a lot would, therefore, not exist. Gordon Carlstrom noted that no requirement existed where trees could be stripped or stonewalls removed from abutting properties. He added that occasionally some trees become an issue or a stonewall may bump out and need to be realigned but only by the landowner’s permission. Clifton LaBree asked how the Board defined a “clear line of sight”. The Chairman replied that a clear line of sight did not mean that an applicant had the authority to remove a tree on an abutter’s property if that abutter did not
consent. Steve Hunt stated that the issuance of many Driveway Permits could become affected as the Driveway Regulations required that sight distance be 14.5 feet back from a roadway and that area could include many trees and possibly stone walls.
A member of the audience stated that he was considering paving his driveway which was 20 years old and wondered if he would not be given a Permit to do so because he did not have an adequate 200 foot line of sight on either side of its entrance. He added that because most lots in Town only had 200 feet of frontage he would need to ask abutters on either side of his property in the event that sight distance improvements required removal of trees on their land, otherwise, he could not get a Permit. The Chairman stated that this was the crux of the issue as the postcard mailer misled the public by suggesting that the Board could require abutters to succumb to sight line improvements for abutting driveways rather than by their own consent. Steve Hunt asked how the 14.5 feet of
sight distance back from the roadway became a requirement. James Nordstrom replied that this measure was based on AASHTO Standards, which were nationally recognized. He added that this standard did not affect existing driveways in Town. A member of the audience asked about paving of existing driveways. James Nordstrom replied that the standard did not affect paving. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the only effect the Ordinance would have on paving was to lower paving fees from $25.00 to $10.00. He added that a paving permit already existed. A member of the audience asked what the purpose of a paving permit was. Gordon Carlstrom replied that the paving permit alerted the Town to confirm that paving an existing driveway would not cause snow, ice, rocks or water to flow into a Town road. A member of the audience asked what the case would be if paving the driveway left the grade and culverts in the same preexisting condition.
Gordon Carlstrom replied that this would not cause any issue. The Chairman noted that the paving fee had been reduced and the fee was required because the Road Agent needed to inspect newly paved driveways. He explained that in the past individuals who had paved existing gravel driveways had installed culverts that had affected the pitch of a Town road it entered off of. A member of the audience stated that she felt tax money should pay for the Road Agent’s inspections of paved driveways and an additional fee should not be charged.
Dorothy Fillmore asked if the location of the hearing could be relocated as there were many people outside of the room that could not hear the proceedings. The Chairman replied that this could not be done this evening, however, the Board may consider adjourning the hearing to a later date and alternate location in order that all interested parties could be accommodated. He noted that it was important for the interested parties here this evening to be aware that the bulk of the information provided in the postcard mailer was fabricated and did not accurately reflect what the Ordinance did or what it changed. The Chairman clarified that abutting properties would not be cleared nor their stonewalls removed for the purpose of another’s driveway as no one could trespass
on another’s property for any purpose unless that individual gave their authorization. A member of the audience asked if the Town could require an individual to remove their stonewall if it was deemed hazardous to the line of sight for a proposed abutting driveway. The Chairman replied that the Town could not do so and that much of the Ordinance offers that protection. Gordon Carlstrom noted that when Clark Hill Road was constructed the existing stone wall in that area needed to be removed but was restored after completion of the roadway.
Jay Marden asked how this hearing differed from a hearing that was scheduled later in the evening at 8:45 p.m. Gordon Carlstrom replied that the later scheduled hearing involved proposed tree trimming on public and scenic roads by PSNH, which by law required a public hearing.
A member of the audience asked at what point an existing driveway upgrade would come before the Board. The Chairman replied that this would be the case for a driveway that was being moved up or down the roadway it existed on.
Dorothy Fillmore noted that regarding a prior issue involving the Steep Slopes Ordinance she had spoken to the Selectmen at the time of that posting and they claimed to have no information on the subject. She added that she wanted assurance the same scenario would not occur with the Driveway Regulations and the public mislead. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the chronology of the Driveway Regulations update began prior to June of 2003. Dorothy Fillmore stated that she understood the postcard mailer to be misleading but wanted to make sure that in this case the public was accurately informed. The Chairman stated that most of the information contained in the postcard was meant to excite the public.
Clifton Labree asked what the genesis of the Driveway Regulations was. The Chairman replied that the purpose of the Regulations was to put in writing what the Town had been practicing for years as a policy. Dorothy Fillmore noted that a Driveway Permit process was already in place. Gordon Carlstrom clarified that the Regulations would assure consistency and fairness for owners and future owners of property in the Town. Dorothy Fillmore stated that the Town could not be expected to protect the public from themselves and that it was a homeowner’s or potential buyer’s responsibility to educate themselves.
The Chairman stated that the Board would attempt to secure the Central School Gym for September 13, 2005, for a hearing on the Driveway Regulations. He suggested that if in the meantime interested parties educated themselves on the terms of the Driveway Regulations they would discover that they were not as obtrusive. Clifton Labree asked if Board minutes detailing discussions on the Driveway Regulations from prior meetings were available. The Coordinator replied that she had one remaining copy available but could make more.
Dorothy Fillmore asked if the Driveway Regulations could legally be posted for Zoning after the next public hearing. The Chairman replied that the Driveway Regulations were not part of Zoning. A member of the audience asked what the mechanism was for making changes to the Regulations prior to posting. The Chairman replied that two public hearings were required after which time if no other changes were needed the Regulations would be adopted. A member of the audience asked if the public was allowed to review the Regulations and propose wording changes between now and the next public hearing. The Chairman replied this was acceptable and suggested that any proposals be forward to the Planning Department so that the Board members could review and consider them for the
next hearing. A member of the audience asked if the Board would have any formal discussions on the Driveway Regulations prior to the next scheduled hearing. The Chairman replied they would not. Clifton Labree stated that he felt the Board had misread the wishes of the townspeople who in turn had not been well served by the Board. Gordon Carlstrom replied that he strongly disagreed with that comment.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to adjourn the Public Hearing on Driveway Regulations to September 13, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the School Gym. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Gordon Carlstrom noted that this date might be unavailable for the School hall location and interested parties should monitor the usual Town information sources in the event that the date needed to be changed.
BUSSIERE, JAQUELINE
Submission of Application/Preliminary Hearing/Design Review
Major Subdivision/13 Lots
Location: Indian Falls Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/88
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
&
INDIAN FALLS, LLC
Submission of Application/Preliminary Hearing/Design Review
Major Subdivision/6 Lots
Location: Indian Falls Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/89
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Ray Shea, LLS, Earney Mayo, and Mark LaBlanc Interested parties present were Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, Andrew Wegman, Mitch Larochelle, Steven Hunt and Tony Ferm.
Ray Shea, LLS, stated that this hearing involved two separate applications and landowners but was being presented together due to the close proximity and relationship of the properties. He added that the above noted applicants had been working together closely with a third party for approximately one year to establish a road connection between their subdivisions.
Ray Shea, LLS, stated that Indian Falls Road ran southerly from Bedford Road and Carriage Road was located to the west looping from, and back onto, McCurdy Road. He noted the first parcel on the plan to be 43 acres in size south of Indian Falls Road and the remaining lot of the Indian Falls Subdivision. Ray Shea, LLS, noted the next parcel to be 58 acres in size and located south of the Indian Falls parcel and east of the property owned by Dupuis Family Trust. He added that this parcel had no road frontage and was the proposed extension of Carriage Road.
Ray Shea, LLS, noted that the Dupuis Family Trust had been before the Board previously with a conceptual design of a short cul-de-sac off Carriage Road, which would be extended to the western line of the Bussiere property. He added that the applicants proposed to extend Indian Falls Road south through the Indian Falls, LLC, property into the Bussiere property with a western tie in to the Dupuis land and an extension of the proposed cul-de-sac another 700 feet to the southern boundary of the Bussiere property. Ray Shea noted that the current cul-de-sac on Indian Falls Road was 1,500 feet from Bedford Road, therefore another 2,500 feet of road would be cut through the two properties to the intersection with a 350-foot stretch of road to connect to the Dupuis land and another
700-foot cul-de-sac to the southern boundary. He explained that this layout would connect Bedford Road to Indian Falls Road through the Dupuis property up to Carriage Road and McCurdy and provide two accesses for the Indian Falls property, Bussiere property and the extension of the Dupuis property. Ray Shea, LLS, stated that the 43-acre Indian Falls parcel was proposed six lots and the Bussiere parcel proposed 13 lots. He added the wetland impact was a small crossing of approximately 2,000 s.f., located after the proposed extension of Indian Falls Road and was noted on the plan in beige. Ray Shea, LLS, further added that the proposed road design and test pits had been completed at the time of the preliminary plan and that all lots with the exception of one met the Steep Slopes Ordinance and soils requirements. He explained the extension of Indian Falls Road from the cul-de-sac to the Bussiere property would create this 20-acre non-conforming lot on the
eastern side of the road. He added that although the lot would not satisfy the Steep Slopes Ordinance there was a buildable area, therefore, the applicant could seek a variance from the ZBA or consolidate this lot with an abutting landowner’s parcel, however, ownership lines would need to be clarified. Ray Shea, LLS, noted that another option would be to connect this lot to an Indian Falls lot across the street to keep the parcel under the same ownership. Steve Hunt asked if the ownership lines were denoted in green on the plan. Ray Shea, LLS, replied that was correct.
Steven Hunt asked how long it would be before the connecting roads were established between the subdivisions being discussed. Ray Shea, LLS, replied that this would depend on the approval process and that there would probably be a requirement of no further building until the connector roads were completed. The Chairman clarified that this was stipulation for the Dupuis subdivision where their connecting road design had to be approved by the Board before further subdivision occurred. Steven Hunt asked what the case would be if the housing market declined and this road was not completed. The Chairman replied that the Town would not incur any risk because the proposed road would be bonded and would, therefore, be completed regardless. Steven Hunt asked where the
proposed connector road would travel after accessing the Bussiere property. Ray Shea, LLS, replied that the Bussiere property stretched to the southern point of
Klondike Corner. Steven Hunt noted that he recalled the Board had mentioned at a previous hearing on this subject that they would like to see a connector road within these subdivisions tie back into Bedford Road in the vicinity of Klondike Corner. The Chairman replied that although the Board suggested that option its feasibility was unknown. Steven Hunt asked if that uncertainty would affect the approval process of this application. The Chairman replied that it would not.
Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, asked if an overall Traffic Impact Study had been done for these applications. The Chairman replied that a Traffic Impact Study had not yet been done. Roch Larochelle asked if the Traffic Impact Study would consider the ultimate buildout of these subdivisions and the possibility of a tie in to Bedford Road so that the Board would be aware of what the full impacts to Bedford Road, Klondike Corner and Carriage Road could be. The Chairman replied that in this case the Traffic Impact Study should consider these scenarios. Mitch Larochelle stated that it would be unfair to request a developer to do a Traffic Impact Study that included parcels of land that may never be subdivided. Al Bell noted that the developer could chose to put
certain parcels into conservation, which would not cause traffic impacts. Jay Marden asked how many lots had been approved in the first section thus far. Ray Shea, LLS, replied that 11 lots were approved in the first section and 19 lots in the second. Jay Marden added that the Carriage Road subdivision had been approved for 20 lots and that at a prior meeting it was discussed that the next phase of these subdivisions would consider setting aside land for wildlife, recreation, school, etc. He noted that Indian Fall’s 20-acre non-conforming parcel might suit this purpose unless a better site existed. Jay Marden noted that once the Indian Falls, Bussiere and Dupuis subdivisions were completed the number of house lots would approach 100 and resemble a small town. He thought that the Board should require that land be set aside. Ray Shea, LLS, noted that this option had been discussed along with offsite improvements, however, the Town did
not have a mechanism by which the applicant could accomplish this, therefore, they would like to move forward until such a mechanism was established. Gordon Carlstrom noted that Mr. Marden’s aforementioned suggestions were such a mechanism. James Nordstrom agreed that it was time for these owners to set aside land for what would eventually become a large community. He recalled that last year these same owners were going to discuss this option before coming to the Board. Earney Mayo stated that he had donated five acres to the Town from the Indian Falls Subdivision for walking trails and passive recreation, which was noted on phase #1 of their plan. Jay Marden replied that he understood this land had no access to Indian Falls and had not been given to the Town as it involved the estate of a deceased owner, which was not functioning properly. Earney Mayo replied that he had turned this deed over to the Town. Mitch Larochelle noted that
they had made offsite improvements to a half mile of McCurdy Road at a cost of $300K at the time of the first phase of the Carriage Road Subdivision. Jay Marden noted that it was the opinion of some people in the Town that such improvements should be made in addition to land donations by a developer. Steven Hunt noted that a large water aquifer existed in the next phase of the Bussiere property and should be considered valuable to the Town.
Mitch Larochelle asked who would be responsible for maintaining land donated towards a playground or recreational space. Gordon Carlstrom noted that it made sense economically and ecologically to create a sense of neighborhood as evident in cluster designed developments. He further noted that a neighborhood association could be established to oversee a small amount of acreage that had been set-aside for lot owners as a playground and/or green space and should not be too difficult to manage.
Andrew Wegman asked what time of year the wetlands noted on the plan were designated. Ray Shea, LLS, replied that the wetland mapping had been done over the course of 2 years and pointed out that Mr. Wegman should know that 3 delineators are studied to map wetlands: vegetation, soils and hydrology, so he should not base his assumptions purely on visible water.
Steven Hunt wished to return to the subject of the eventual buildout of these subdivisions reiterating that the Board had expressed concern at prior meeting over a potential road tie in to Bedford Road. He added that he was curious to know where such a tie in would go and how it would affect his property. Ray Shea, LLS, replied that an eventual road out to Bedford Road was investigated from the parcel near the first house on the left as you entered Bedford Road from New Boston Road. He added that an outlet road would then need to traverse around an existing mill pond/brook that was behind Mr. Hunt’s property on the Klondike Corner side and through that parcel as this was a fairly flat area that offered adequate sight distance. Steven Hunt asked at what point
this outlet road would cross over that brook. Ray Shea, LLS, replied that as the water from the brook flows down from the Bussiere property towards Bedford Road it became more defined while back from the road many water rivulets and small drainage areas existed. Steven Hunt noted that two major watersheds existed in that area, namely, the pond near the Tracking Station and the brook as it approached Campbell Pond. Ray Shea, LLS, stated that this could be an impediment to a proposed outlet road. Steven Hunt stated that the current proposal did not depict the Board’s supposed concern for an outlet onto Bedford Road. He added that he was concerned that an outlet road would go behind his property and that blasting for such a road could damage his well. Steven Hunt noted that he knew of two wells whose water quality had been drastically affected by one day of blasting in the Pulpit Road subdivision in Bedford.
Jay Marden stated that the Board should require the landowners in question to provide studies regarding what they planned to do with the remainder of their land. The Chairman replied that this had been required. Ray Shea, LLS, stated that all the tax map/lots had been plotted with potential roadways shown. He noted that a Traffic Impact Study for a potential roadway out to Bedford Road would not affect the plan’s layout as presented this evening. The Chairman noted that the Board could then assume that the applicants would not be against the stipulation on their plans that no further subdivision would occur until the roads within the sites were connected. Ray Shea, LLS, replied that was not an unreasonable statement.
Don Duhaime stated that he thought the Board would prefer that the proposed road connection from Indian Falls Road to Carriage Road be completed before Building Permits were issued because until that was done cul-de-sac length limits would being exceeded. The Chairman noted that if a road was bonded the Town could not withhold Building Permits. Ray Shea, LLS, added that if the connection from Indian Falls Road was approved and bonded the cul-de-sac-was theoretically eliminated. Don Duhaime disagreed. James Nordstrom stated that New Hampshire State Law prohibited towns from withholding building permits if road bonding was secured and that there was case law to back this up. The Chairman asked Don Duhaime if he contended that the road should be built or designed
and accepted before building permits were issued. Don Duhaime replied that that he felt the subdivision connector road should be constructed before anymore building permits were issued for the developments involved. The Chairman clarified that the Town could not require this, however, in this case, three ownership parties would enter into an agreement that building and bonding the proposed connector road was a condition of subdivision approval. Mitch Larochelle noted that the Dupuis Subdivision Plan already noted that stipulation. The Chairman asked who was constructing the road that would connect to Carriage Road. Mitch Larochelle replied that his team would be responsible for constructing the road up to the Bussiere property and that this was reflected on their plan. He noted that all three landowners would be responsible for posting their road bonds at the same time, which guaranteed that the connector road would be built.
Jay Marden asked what the Board’s policy was on issuing a limited number of Building Permits per year in the Town. The Chairman replied that there was no policy currently. James Nordstrom clarified that the Planning Department were not responsible for issuing Building Permits. Jay Marden recalled that the Board had requested phasing for certain subdivision applications in the past. The Chairman replied that they had and that this was a voluntary agreement between the Board and an applicant. Mitch Larochelle noted that they had phased the first subdivision of Carriage Road over a four year period.
Gordon Carlstrom returned to the prior discussion involving the potential outlet to Bedford Road and noted that it was his belief that that the Traffic Impact Study should consider that potential and what if any decreases in traffic could be anticipated on McCurdy and Bedford Roads as a result. He noted that in this way the Town could plan appropriately for any maintenance or upgrades these roads might require. Mitch Larochelle noted that a conceptual study of traffic was done as part of the first phase concept for the Carriage Road Subdivision. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the Traffic Impact Study should also be done from a conceptual standpoint for the ultimate buildout of the three subdivisions involved as improvements to the end of Bedford Road were planned by the Town
in the next several years. Steven Hunt asked if the Board was concerned about potential road tie-ins that could affect existing abutting parcels. The Chairman replied that the Board was interested in having these outlets exit somewhere other than McCurdy Road or Bedford Road. Steven Hunt asked if the Board would be interested in having the developer(s) propose a tie in with any other abutting landowners. Mitch Larochelle noted that they had done a conceptual design incorporating Cindy Wilson’s property into a road tie-in, however, they were told that she may be placing her land into conservation. Steven Hunt asked if any of the developers had contacted his neighbors, the Ferms, or himself. He added that in the event that the Bussieres did not want to use their next parcel for a tie-in he wondered if alternate scenarios were being considered and wondered how this would affect his property. Al Bell asked how developers could do a
conceptual design incorporating someone else’s lot when the future plans for that lot were unknown. Steven Hunt clarified that he was concerned that the Board would approve permits based on the belief that an eventual tie in to Bedford Road from these subdivisions would occur. The Chairman asked if any of the developers had considered a road outlet to Klondike Corner beyond what had been described this evening. Earney Mayo replied that they had only considered an outlet through the Bussiere property and part of that property would need to be re-zoned as it was currently zoned for mobile homes. Jay Marden thought that residential use was always allowed as a lesser use than commercial or mobile home zones. Steven Hunt noted that this mobile home zoning was a result of a Legislative mandate where towns in the State were required to set aside a certain amount of land for low income housing, therefore, if the Bussiere land removed that zoning from
their property he assumed it would need to be placed somewhere else in the Town.
Steven Hunt stated that Amherst, NH, placed a high value on water aquifers in their town and was strict about test pit data and setback requirements. He added that in some cases building was not allowed in these areas at all and hoped that this Board would make the same considerations for New Boston. The Chairman noted that the Town had regulations that governed those issues. Steven Hunt added that his largest concern regarding these applications was his well because his neighbor’s well had gone bad as a result of previous local blasting. He asked if there was any way to have wells in the area tested prior to blasting and/or to notify homeowners when blasting was to occur. The Chairman replied that a Board member not present this evening was an expert on
the subject of blasting and expected that he would clarify that there was no evidence that blasting was detrimental to nearby wells. James Nordstrom stated that blasting companies were required to notify homeowners who lived within a certain radius of where blasting would occur. Steven Hunt noted that he was certain that the wells he had mentioned that went bad after blasting were not in any radius of that operation. James Nordstrom stated that if Mr. Hunt’s well was found to be outside of the blasting radius for these subdivisions the Board could condition that he be notified of when the blasting was to occur. Steven Hunt noted that he thought such notification would be helpful and serve as a correlation if something were to happen to his well.
A site walk was scheduled for September, 10, 2005, at 8:30 a.m. Ray Shea, LLS, asked if there was anything specific the Board wished to discuss for the next meeting. The Chairman replied that he would like the applicants to explore the feasibility of a potential road outlet on Bedford Road at Klondike Corner as this would dramatically affect the results of a Traffic Impact Study. He added that he was curious to know if such an outlet could be a reality or not.Steven Hunt asked how many acres were involved in the next proposals for subdivision. Ray Shea, LLS, replied that the Bussiere property was 80 acres and the Dupuis property was 50 acres. Steven Hunt asked which parcel was zoned for mobile homes. Ray Shea, LLS, replied that was the 80 acre parcel. Jay Marden asked how much acreage comprised the additional land owned by the Dupuis family. Mitch Larochelle replied that was approximately 100 acres. Steven Hunt added that this additional acreage abutted the New
Boston Tracking Station.
The Chairman asked the Board if they had any additional questions that they wished the applicants to consider for the next meeting other than questions that could be answered at the site walk. James Nordstrom stated that he would be interested to see the feasibility of a road outlet on the site walk. He added that if the applicants were going to prove feasibility of such an outlet
based on USGS and SCS overlays alone it would not be worthwhile, however, aerial data could prove educational.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the applications of Jacqueline Bussiere, Preliminary Hearing, Design Review, Major Subdivision, 13 Lots, Location: Indian Falls Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/88, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, and Indian Falls, LLC, Preliminary Hearing, Design Review, Major Subdivision, 6 Lots, Location: Indian Falls Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/89, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to September 27, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
INDIAN FALLS, LLC
Compliance Hearing/Conditional Use Permit/3 Wetland Crossings
Location: Indian Falls Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/89-11 & 13
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Don Duhaime stated that the inlets and outlets to the culvert at Lot #12/89-13 were not visible and that the outlet on Lot #12/89-11 appeared to be covered. He added that these items did not reflect what was on the plan. James Nordstrom agreed. He added that Lot #12/89-13 also needed headwalls. He noted that there were no issues with the roadway crossing, however, the two driveway crossings were questionable as they were not constructed according to what was designed and approved on the plan. Don Duhaime stated that the edges of the driveway appeared to be caving in as was evident by voids between the rocks that were washed out.
The Chairman clarified that the lots were not in compliance. James Nordstrom reiterated that the main crossing of the subdivision was fine regarding the CUP, however, there were several other outstanding items that needed to be addressed.
Bob Furey MOVED to deny compliance for Indian Falls, LLC, to construct three (3) wetland crossings at approximate sta. 2+75 for Indian Falls Road construction and on Lots #12/89-13 and 12/89-14 for driveway construction due to the fact that the wetland crossings on Lots #12/89-13 & 12/89-14 have not been installed according to the approved design plans. For instance, the diameter of the culverts & materials used do not match the approved plans. The wetland crossings must be corrected to accurately reflect the approved design plans. Gordon Carlstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
LYONS, DAVID & SUSAN
Compliance Hearing/Conditional Use Permit/2 Wetland Crossings
Location: Laurel Lane
Tax Map/Lot #12/106
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Doyal Lyons.
No abutters or interested parties were present.
James Nordstrom stated that he had no compliance issues and that all items that the Board would normally look for regarding CUP compliance were present. Bob Furey agreed.
James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit to dredge and fill 4,460 s.f. of poorly drained soils for the construction of a driveway on Laurel Lane, Tax Map/Lot #12/106 by David
Lyons and Susan Charest-Lyons and to release the security being held for said installation. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Doyal Lyons asked if he could now inform the applicants, his parents, that compliance had been confirmed. The Chairman replied that he could. James Nordstrom asked who had done the construction of the wetland crossings. Doyal Lyons replied that Mike Boyle had done the construction.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2005
1. Approval of the minutes of July 12, 2005, with or without changes. (Distributed at the June 26, 2005, meeting.)
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of July 12, 2005, as written. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Driveway Permit Application for Mitch Construction, Co., Inc., Carriage Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/93, for the Board’s action. (Drive-by prior to meeting)
James Nordstrom wished to clarify that Lot #12/93 was not restricted from the current driveway grade requirements in the Subdivision Regulations given that the subdivision approval that included this driveway was predated. Bob Furey asked if the Driveway Permit was already approved. James Nordstrom replied that a rough graded driveway had already been constructed. The Coordinator noted that because the lot size was changed by the most recent subdivision and made smaller it should fall under the Regulations that the entire subdivision was subject to.
The Chairman asked if Lot #12/93’s driveway grade had a positive pitch into the roadway. James Nordstrom replied that it did and that as constructed it did not meet the grade requirements of the Driveway Regulations. The Chairman suggested that the Board could require the submission of engineered plans that would be certified by an engineer upon the driveway’s completion. The Chairman noted that before the Lot #12/93 was reconfigured by the applicant it may have been possible to relocate the driveway to an area that was not as steep, however, it had been the applicant’s choice to reconfigure the lot.
The Board determined that an engineered plan would be required before the Driveway
Permit Application was approved. James Nordstrom noted that Lot #12/93’s driveway had been cut approximately one year ago.
3. A copy of a letter dated April 22, 2004, from John Riendeau, Road Agent, to Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, Re: Master Plan and Subdivision Regulation updates was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator stated that the above noted letter was generated last year by the Road Committee and contained suggestions for inclusions in the Subdivision Regulations, Building Code and the Master Plan. She added that the Road Committee had requested that this letter be forwarded to Rene LaBranche of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., however, because the Master Plan Committee was currently working on the Transportation chapter she asked the Board if they would consider forwarding the letter to that entity which was being overseen by SNHPC. The Coordinator noted that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., could then have a final check once the Committee had addressed this chapter. James Nordstrom thought this seemed like a good idea.
Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, was present in the audience and noted that some portions of the letter were not applicable such as the section speaking to the Steep Slopes Ordinance, however, the Road Committee's main concern had been that the letter be forwarded for review. He explained that the Road Committee had originally requested that Rene LaBranche do the preliminary review, however, there had been no mechanism in place to pay for such a review and this is how the letter had come before the Board. James Nordstrom stated that the Road Committee’s letter made some excellent points. The Chairman added that the letter could be forwarded to the Master Plan Committee as the Coordinator had suggested.
4a. A copy of a letter dated July 27, 2005, from Andrew Prolman, Prunier, Leonard & Prolman, PA, to the Board, Re: extension request for 13-15 Hopkins Road, Inc., was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
4b. A copy of a letter dated August 1, 2005, from Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: drainage review for 13-15 Hopkins Road, Inc. Subdivision, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator asked if the Board would be in favor of the methodology used for the drainage calculations or not. James Nordstrom replied that Amy Alexander had cited the Regulation and the fact that the materials used did not comply. He asked if the Board had issued conditional approval with one of the conditions being that Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s, outstanding comments are addressed. The Coordinator replied that was the case.
The Chairman stated that the opening phrase in the last paragraph in Amy Alexander’s letter summarized her opinion: “We do not recommend the methodology…” James Nordstrom noted that the above noted application was approximately one year old. The Chairman surmised that the extension request could be granted and asked the Board if a 90 day extension was appropriate. James Nordstrom asked if this was the second or third extension requested by the applicant. The Coordinator replied that if granted this would be the third extension. James Nordstrom clarified that because the applicant could not comply with the conditions precedent until this issue was dealt with an extension of at least 90 days was warranted. Gordon Carlstrom
agreed that this extension length would be needed as drainage calculations would still need to be done. The Chairman noted that the extension approval should also have a somewhat urgent tone as this would be the third one granted. James Nordstrom added that the applicant had also not yet addressed all the engineering comments. The Chairman suggested that a final extension of 90 days be granted and that it be noted that if the conditions were not met in this time frame that the approval of the application would be revoked.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to grant the extension requested by Andrew Prolman, Prunier, Leonard & Prolman, PA, for 13-15 Hopkins Road, Inc. Subdivision, to November 1, 2005. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator to forward Amy Alexander’s letter to the applicant adding that the Board had agreed with the Town Engineer’s comments that the methodology was unacceptable.
PUBLIC HEARING
Re: Tree cutting on Thornton, Clark Hill, Colburn, Hooper Hill, River, Riverdale, and Scobie Pond Roads, Scenic Roads.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Dave Crane, an arborist for Public Service of New Hampshire. Interested parties present were Jay Marden and Brandy Mitroff.
Dave Crane stated that tree trimming was proposed every five years in this jurisdiction as part of a routine maintenance cycle. He added that they would be trimming trees along 85-90% of the power lines in the Town, which included lines on all scenic roads. Dave Crane noted that
it had only been four years since the last trimming for New Boston and was proposed one year earlier than usual because there had been a higher power outage rate than the standard average rate which was not uncommon in rural areas. He stated that the Town’s outage rate for the year ended July 31, 2005, was 0.23 tree-related outages per mile compared to PSNH’s standard outage rate of 0.17. Dave Crane added that although this was not a significantly higher overall outage rate than average the outages on scenic roads in the Town had been calculated at 0.88 tree related outages per mile, which was five times the average.
Dave Crane stated that his contractor specified that any growth four inches in diameter or less, eight feet to the side of a power line or 15 feet over qualified for trimming and that larger trees, which were usually dead or decayed, were considered on a case by case basis. He noted that 25 trees had been slated for removal on seven roads in the Town with four being dead or dying and three that were close to energized wires. Dave Crane further noted that two of the three aforementioned trees were rubbing on wires. The Chairman asked what roads these trees were located on. Dave Crane replied that there were no such trees on Riverdale Road, one dead tree on Scobie Road and the bulk of the remainder on Thornton, Colburn and Clark Hill Roads. He added that the most
significant tree slated for removal was at the intersection of Clark Hill Road and Dennison Road where a good size tree was rubbing on a power line which although heavily insulated against rubbing, was not designed to take this type of abuse. Dave Crane noted that another tree ten inches in diameter was rubbing on a secondary power line along with a small red maple tree, which may also need to be trimmed.
Dave Crane stated that the Town had just under seven miles of power line on scenic roads, therefore, 25 identified trees meant that approximately four trees per mile needed to be removed which was not a significant amount given the rural character of the area. He reiterated that most of the trees involved were dead or dying and would appear so even to an untrained eye. Dave Crane stated that the contractor would be required to speak with all land owners that had these identified trees on their property. Jay Marden asked if the contractor would remove all the debris generated by the tree cutting. Dave Crane replied that typically the brush debris was left behind after cutting unless a land owner requested its removal beforehand. He added that any debris that was
deemed hazardous would automatically be removed.
Brandy Mitroff stated that she lived on Thornton Road and that there was still a mess of debris along the roadside from the tree trimming done four years prior. She added that she did not recall that any residents on Thornton Road had been contacted in 2001 concerning trees that would be trimmed and thought this procedure should be better clarified. Dave Crane replied that he did not have coverage in this area at the time of the 2001 trimming. Brandy Mitroff noted that at the previous public hearing in 2001 it had also be confirmed that the debris would be removed, however, the piles were left where they fell and moved to the side of the road. She summarized that Mr. Crane should not assume that the contractor was effectively communicating with the land owners for
this project. Dave Crane stated that he had 30 maintenance crews headed by six full time employees and did not foresee an issue in this case. Brandy Mitroff added that she assumed that if a land owner was not home at the time the contractor attempted to make contact this would not hold up the project. Dave Crane replied that he would look into the debris left from the previous trimming adding that it was a reasonable complaint. He added that he would address the problem with the Vice President of Asplundh who resided in Weare, NH. Jay Marden stated that a similar situation existed on Gregg Mill Road where pines trimmed on State owned land during the last cycle were left in piles. He added that he himself cleared that debris.
Jay Marden asked if there was any tree removal planned for Hooper Hill Road or Riverdale Road. Dave Crane replied that two trees were identified for removal on Hooper Hill Road and the land owners would be contacted. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the trees slated for removal would be marked beforehand so that there would be an opportunity to view them. Dave Crane replied that this could be done if it was the Board’s preference. Brandy Mitroff commented that this was done for the tree trimming of 2001 and Selectmen and members of the Board were able to preview the trees beforehand. She added that she had not noticed any trees marked for the currently proposed trimming on Thornton Hill Road. Dave Crane replied that was his error as he was unfamiliar with the protocol. Brandy Mitroff stated that
she did not see how a public hearing could be held this evening when the trees had not been marked for the public’s information. Dave Crane agreed and stated that he was agreeable to an adjournment of the hearing by the Board and would in the interim make sure that the trees were properly marked.
Jay Marden asked if the bulk of the work for this cycle would involve trimming limbs
and cutting brush. Dave Crane replied that was correct. He added that if involved land owners were not at home at the time of contact that an informational pamphlet with appropriate telephone contact numbers and a section for their authorization or questions would be left on their doors. He added that six of his full time employees also spend time during evening hours attempting to contact landowners and there should be no reason that contact is not established.
The Chairman asked that the trees involved be appropriately marked. Dave Crane stated that this would be done by August 15, 2005. Gordon Carlstrom asked that a breakdown of the number of trees and their locations be faxed to the Planning Department. Dave Crane replied that this would be done. The Coordinator then gave the fax number to Mr. Crane.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the Public Hearing, Re: Tree cutting on Thornton, Clark Hill, Colburn, Hooper Hill, River, Riverdale, and Scobie Pond Roads, Scenic Roads, to August 23, 2005, at 8:30 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dave Crane gave a toll free contact number to the Coordinator should any questions arise in the interim.
5a. A copy of a letter received July 28, 2005, from John Riendeau, Road Agent, Re: Indian Falls, LLC, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
This item is addressed in item 5b.
5b. A copy of a letter dated Jul 29, 2005, from Rene LaBranche, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Indian Falls Subdivision progress report, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that at the last meeting it was discussed that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., did not recommend a bond reduction for Indian Falls Road due to several outstanding review items. She noted that since then Earney Mayo had met with the Road Agent who confirmed that these issues had been addressed. The Coordinator further noted that Rene Labranche had reviewed the punchlist and had highlighted some items that should still be addressed before the bond was reduced and these items had also be rectified. She noted that this reduction would be the first where the bond would be reduced by $99k to bring it to a new total of $51K.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to reduce the bond of the Indian Falls Subdivision by $99K, which would bring the new bond amount to $51K. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
6. A copy of a memorandum dated August 2, 2005, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to the Board and other various departments/committees, Re: Town of New Boston Master Plan Questionnaire Results, was distributed for the Board’s information.
7a. A copy of a letter dated July 25, 2005, from Geoffrey Katz, 299 Stark Realty, to the Board, Re: Apple Barn, was distributed for the Board’s information.
This item addressed in 7b.
7b. A copy of a letter dated July 29, 2005, from Geoffrey Katz, 299 Stark Realty, to the Board, Re: amendment to state driveway permit for the Apple Barn, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator noted that the Driveway Permit issue had been addressed. She asked if the Board considered the information provided by Mr. Katz in his letter regarding the septic system and water usage on site adequate to grant his amendment request to his plan. Bob Furey asked if the main point of Mr. Katz's letter was to support the size of the existing septic system for the new usage at the Apple Barn of a fitness/physical therapy center. James Nordstrom clarified that in 1997 or 1998 Mr. Katz's plan was approved for a 300 gallon per day system on the site and because he was now leasing a portion of the Apple Barn to the fitness center it was uncertain what the additional water usage would be. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the fitness center would have showers for
customers as that would greatly increase water usage. The Chairman replied that the applicant had not made any request to revise shower facilities on the plan. James Nordstrom stated that if a certified septic designer confirmed the information regarding Mr. Katz’s calculated additional water usage he would be satisfied. He added that he could not figure out how Mr. Katz made his usage projections. Bob Furey agreed and noted that the figures supplied were very exact and to the hundredth of a gallon in some instances. He added that he would be interested to know what reference material was used. James Nordstrom asked if the Board could request certification of these figures by a professional to assure that the calculations were correct. He added that he did not question Mr. Katz's honesty but would be more satisfied if a professional supported this information.
8a. A copy of a letter dated July 25, 2005, from Todd Connors, PE, Sublime Civil Consultants, to the Board, Re: Morin Subdivision, Greenfield Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Don Duhaime wished to note that the city of Manchester, NH, allowed ductile iron piping instead of reinforced concrete in situations where culverts had minimal cover of three feet. He noted that this could be an alternative for the Morin Subdivision’s shallow cover issue. The Chairman asked the advantages to either material. James Nordstrom replied that reinforced concrete piping did not react well with road salt. Don Duhaime noted that ductile iron pipe was a steel material also used for water pipes. Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, asked if the applicant was being required to replace the cross culverts located on Greenfield Road as the cover issue had been a concern of the Road Committee. The Chairman replied that was correct.
8b. A copy of a letter dated July 27, 2005, from Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator and to the Board, Re: final review of the Morin Subdivision, was distributed for the Board’s information.
9. Received letter dated July 27, 2005, from Jed Callen, Esq., Baldwin & Callen, to the Town of New Boston, Re: Conservation Easement opportunity from Carolyn Mohan, Mont Vernon Road, for the Board’s information.
10. A copy of a newspaper article from the NH Sunday News, July 31, 2005, re: Weare’s growth ordinance, was distributed for the Board’s information.
11. The minutes of July 26, 2005, were distributed for approval at the meeting of August 23, 2005, with or without changes.
12. A copy of a letter dated August 5, 2005, from Rene LaBranche, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Indian Falls’ bond reduction, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
This item was addressed in item #’s 5a and 5b.
13. A copy of a fax received August 8, 2005, from Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to the Board, Re: Forest View – Nissitissit Development, was distributed for the Board’s information.
14. A copy of NH State Driveway Permit dated August 4, 2005, for John A. Shea, 40 Jessica Lane, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that the above noted Permit regarded paving at the residence across the street from Old Coach Road at the intersection of NH Route 13 which involved overlaying the existing driveway.
15. A copy of a fax received August 9, 2005, from Joseph Swiezynski, to the Board, Re: 13-15 Hopkins Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Bob Todd, LLS, was present in the audience for this item. The Coordinator explained that at the last meeting this item raised a question regarding offsite road improvements and a meeting was held with Dufresne-Henry, Inc., the applicant, the Road Agent, Ray Shea of Sandford Survey and Engineering and herself regarding sight line improvements on Salisbury Road. She noted that a small copy of the road improvement plan was provided to each Board member. The Coordinator added that Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had previously questioned whether Site Specific would be required and Joseph Swiezynski had met with Ridge Mauck who stated that it would not be required as long as the proposed road was constructed and stabilized prior to lot development. She reminded the
Board that they had granted the applicant an extension to amend the drainage calculations, etc., earlier this evening.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he was unsure of what conditions had been extended for 90 days but noted that if the Board would not be accepting DES’s letter regarding an Alteration of Terrain Permit then the 90 day extension would not allow the applicant enough time if Site Specific was needed. He added that this had been an ongoing point of contention with the Town Engineer and discussions with them had been frustrating, therefore, the professional involved with these plans went to the Concord, NH, office of DES, who noted that only the road and not the lots were counted as they would not be built until the road was stabilized. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he would like to settle this issue tonight if possible. James Nordstrom replied that areas of impact for residential
subdivisions were based on road development only unless the grading of that road was consequential to the development of its lots. He noted that the applicant's plan and its terrain did not suggest that the latter would be the case, therefore, if the State had said that no Site Specific Permit was required he would agree. The Chairman also agreed and the Board’s consensus was the same.
16. A copy of an Order of Notice dated July 25, 2005, re: Vista Road, LLC and Concerned Land Owners of New Boston, LLC, V. Town of New Boston, was distributed for the Board’s information.
17. A copy of an Order of Notice dated July 21, 2005, re: Lull Road Corp. V. Town of New Boston, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Gordon Carlstrom explained that Lull Road Corporation was suing the Town over the ZBA’s decision to deny their Gravel Permit.
18. A copy of a letter dated August 8, 2005, to Mr. & Mrs. Matthew Reed, from the Board of Selectmen, Re: sight line improvement, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that the Reeds were the lot owners at the corner of Wilson Hill and Bedford Roads and the above noted letter was sent to them noting in part as a point of information that Vista Road, LLC, would consider improvements to that intersection at the time of their next subdivision application. James Nordstrom noted that he thought the Reeds would be willing to work with the Town for that improvement and may have been hesitant when initially approached because they thought the stonewall on their property would need to be removed. Gordon Carlstrom thought that sight line improvements at that intersection might only involve some shaving of the Reed’s lot and possibly moving a section of their stone wall back five feet from the road.
19. A copy of a daily road inspection report from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Waldorf Estates dated June 22, 2005, was distributed for the Board’s information.
20. The Coordinator stated that Nissitissit Development, LLC, had given a cash security for their remaining bond amount of $14,500.00, and requested that the Board vote to release their letter of credit.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the release of security for Nissitissit Development, LLC, in lieu of their cash deposit. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
21. The Coordinator asked the Board if they would consider by consensus that no more conditional approvals of applications pending Dufresne-Henry, Inc.,’s, road comments were given and that these comments should be submitted to the Board before approval was granted. Gordon Carlstrom agreed that each time the Board extended this courtesy it presented an issue. James Nordstrom stated he had no issue in making this change. The Board gave their consensus.
22. The Coordinator stated that the Planning Department was expecting receipt of the Perpetual Limited Easement for the bridge span on Lot #8/84-30-1 in Waldorf Estates. She added that she had reviewed the revised language and was waiting for delivery of an executed copy and asked if the Board could sign but not date the plans and mylar and the Planning Department could then date and record them when the executed deed copies arrived rather than wait until the next meeting. The Chairman replied that could be done.
Gordon Carlstrom asked if the Board would take under consideration phasing and limiting development in the Town going forward as this point had been brought up earlier in the evening. The Chairman replied that he was in favor of doing so. James Nordstrom agreed but added that there was currently no ordinance or regulation in place to make that requirement. The
Coordinator noted that the Master Plan Committee would be reviewing this topic in the Future Land Use section and once detailed in the Master Plan this would allow for a change in the Regulation.
23. Bill Matheson was present in the audience to ask for an extension to the conditional approval of his site plan. He noted that he had already had the plans prepared by Bob Todd, LLS, but had since decided that he wished to add a 14 x 14 outbuilding added to his plan for his furnace and pressure washers. He asked if he would need to have a new plan drawn to do so. The Coordinator thought that Bill Matheson could hand draw the outbuilding onto the plan by hand. The Board agreed.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to extend the conditions subsequent for Bill Matheson to November 30, 2005. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Don Duhaime wished to return to the subject of the connecting road proposed for the Indian Falls subdivision. He asked why the Board could not require that road to be completed before issuing Building Permits on its subsequent lots. James Nordstrom explained that if the Town accepted a bond for the road the Board could not withhold Building Permits. Don Duhaime suggested that the Town not accept the bond. The Coordinator replied that was not an option. Gordon Carlstrom noted that all three landowners involved would post their bonds simultaneously and this would serve to protect the Town’s interests in the completion of that road. James Nordstrom noted that the landowners were aware of that requirement. Don Duhaime stated that the landowner
located in the middle subdivision gained an advantage because the two on either side needed to construct their portions of the road sooner. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the bond would still be in place for all three owners. James Nordstrom noted that the key in this scenario was the CO process because owners would not secure CO’s until their portion of that road was built. He added that the guardrail issue with Indian Falls was a similar example where CO’s were not issued until it was properly installed. Don Duhaime noted that the first three homes completed received CO’s before the guardrail was fixed. James Nordstrom replied that this did happen and it was an error. He added that no CO’s would be issued to these developers until Harvey Lane was constructed and all life safety items were addressed.
Bob Furey stated that he had been on the CIP Committee earlier than the year and wondered if a CRF (Cash Reserve Fund) should be considered for a townwide transportation study. The Chairman noted that Town Counsel had suggested at the time of the fire cistern issue where the fifth lot developed in a subdivision triggered the installation for a fire cistern, that the Board needs to change their procedure to require this planning at the first lot. He further noted that the same planning could be done for lot potential and traffic. Gordon Carlstrom thought that there was no reason why a traffic plan could not be done for the three landowners discussed earlier in the evening as that potential build-out could create a road network which would put the
plan on a different scale with potentially greater traffic impacts. Bob Furey thought that something should exist in the Subdivision regulations or in Zoning that gave the Board the discretion to require more in depth traffic plans. Gordon Carlstrom added that this should be required in the preliminary phases of a plan rather than later in the building process and thought that the “discretion” of the Board could be used in many areas of the Subdivision Regulations. He added that Jay Marden’s points made on the subject of developers providing recreational areas within large subdivisions and that Town Counsel should be consulted on the subject. The Coordinator asked Gordon Carlstrom if he could confirm that it was acceptable for her to contact Bill Drescher, Esq., on the subject as the Selectmen
had authority over the legal budget for the Town. Gordon Carlstrom replied that he would look into this on the next day.
Don Duhaime stated that he thought the Town Engineer should be more involved on their inspections of subdivisions and felt that not enough was done considering the time that was logged. Gordon Carlstrom commented that some of the new lots he had seen in Town had no landscaping allowances and appeared very unfinished. Don Duhaime thought that the Regulations should stipulate that new lots be partially landscaped before CO’s were issued. James Nordstrom thought that some of these items were addressed in erosion control requirements.
Don Duhaime returned to his initial comment and clarified that all three landowners discussed earlier in the evening will bond their connecting road and before building could begin on the lots the road must be built. James Nordstrom explained that before CO’s were issued the road would need to be built. The Coordinator added that binder would need to be down also. Gordon Carlstrom cautioned that in the case of Indian Falls the security should be confirmed before that plan was approved. Don Duhaime clarified that no more conditional approvals would be given. The Coordinator clarified that she referred to no more conditional approvals pending the Town Engineers review of the road plans, as it was impossible to have a condition-free approval.
Bob Furey suggested that Town Counsel be asked where the discretionary powers exist in
the Subdivision Regulations.
At 10:00 p.m. Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to adjourn. Bob Furey seconded the
motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien, Minutes Approved:
Recording Clerk
| 
