Minutes of the Planning Board
November 8, 2005
The meeting was called to order at 7:12 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, James Nordstrom, Travis Daniels, Bob Furey; ex-officio Gordon Carlstrom; and, alternate Douglas Hill. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were Amy Alexander, Jay Marden, Reggie Houle, John Dwinnells, Frank and Susan Woodward, Lou Nixon, Jim Dodge, Rick Kohler, John and Jane Workman, Todd Connors, PE, Steve April, Rose Colarusso, Mike Dahlberg, LLS, Brian Holt, Bob Smaha, William Lambert and Sara Hogan.
This will be a work session for the Planning Board to discuss the final draft of the Driveway Regulations and input gathered from the hearing of October 11, 2005.
Gordon Carlstrom thought that the main issue that was unresolved regarding the proposed Driveway Regulations was the sight distance requirement. He added that language should also be written into the Driveway Regulations that clarified the restrictions as being applicable to new driveways only and that Bob Todd’s language revisions discussed at the prior public hearing on the Driveway Regulations should be incorporated.
The Coordinator noted that she had put together the suggestions on the handout before the Board and had run it by Town Counsel earlier that day. She noted that he had added the second to last paragraph in place of what she had originally suggested and thought that the rest of the proposal was acceptable.
Gordon Carlstrom asked what the case would be if only 50’ of sight distance was possible for a proposed driveway. The Coordinator replied that in the case of a new lot it would be a difficult issue as the applicant would need to prove to the Planning Board that it was the best possible sight distance. She added that after the applicant’s case was presented it would be up to the Board’s discretion. The Chairman wondered if scenarios like these could make the Board appear too rigid in their decision making process. Douglas Hill noted that there was already poor sight distance on certain existing Town roads. The Chairman asked if it would be fair of the Board to give the impression to an applicant that a proposed driveway with less than optimum sight distance still had a
chance for approval. He added that he would prefer a minimum sight distance requirement to be stated in the Driveway Regulations and noted that, as the included language by Town Counsel was written currently, the Board would consider a waiver if sight distance requirements were not met. Gordon Carlstrom stated that this was a good point as the proposed Driveway Regulations did not say that the Board could not grant a waiver in some scenarios. He suggested that the language in Town Counsel’s section be revised to read “The waiver may be granted if…” instead of “…will be granted if…” which gave the Board the option of denying a waiver if that was their preference. James Nordstrom recalled that there had been certain situations presented before the Board in the past for subdivision roads that had to be reconstructed in order for their proposed driveways to meet sight
distance requirements. He noted that this would be an extreme solution if a single new driveway was being proposed by an applicant. From the audience, Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., noted that the Board should also avoid situations similar to that of Susan Road which had been a driveway that became a proposed new road whose design required that its feeder road be brought up to engineering standards after the plan was approved. Gordon Carlstrom stated that the format of the revisions presented for the proposed Driveway Regulations seemed acceptable but reiterated his suggestions at rewording the language of the waiver provisions. He noted that some additional language regarding the need for public safety also needed to be added in support of a minimum sight distance requirement. The Chairman added that the term “required” sight distance be changed to “stated” sight distance and that the applicant should be made to prove
that the sight distance obtainable was adequate and acceptable by the Planning Board and the Road Agent. Amy Alexander suggested that the Board reword: “The waiver will be granted if the applicant can demonstrate…” to “The waiver will be considered if the applicant can demonstrate…”which would afford the Board an option for denial of a waiver.
Douglas Hill stated that, given the restrictions presented, any new lot proposing a driveway off an existing road would need to request a waiver because they could not be guaranteed permission from abutters to remove trees from their properties to gain the required sight distance. He felt that no lot in Town would have the frontage available to automatically be compliant with the sight distance imposed by the Driveway Regulations and this would present many hard decisions for the Board. The Chairman asked how 300’ of sight distance was determined as the measurement for the proposed Driveway Regulations. Gordon Carlstrom replied that this measurement was an AASHTO standard. The Chairman stated that he did not like the wording in Town Counsel’s added paragraph that read:
“…sight distance issues are addressed to the greatest extent possible…” and he would prefer that the waiver request took many options into respect.
The Chairman asked Amy Alexander how safe sight distance onto a roadway was determined. Amy Alexander replied that safe sight distance was based on the speed of a road and that assigning an exact measurement was difficult especially for existing road configurations in New Boston. She added that she believed an applicant should be expected to consider what the best location for a proposed driveway was and that 300’ of sight distance was a reasonable measurement. The Chairman noted that he agreed 300’ of sight distance was acceptable for new subdivision lots but did not see how it would be feasible off certain existing roadways in Town.
Douglas Hill noted that the proposed Driveway Regulations needed to accurately reflect the intentions of the Board so that the intent behind waiver provisions could be meaningfully interpreted by future planning boards of the Town. Amy Alexander reiterated that a wording revision to: “…will consider a waiver…” should aptly cover any waiver request scenarios that could be presented to the Board. Bob Furey asked if it would be appropriate to briefly state in the proposed Driveway Regulations what the Board would consider in waiver requests to sight distance issues such as traffic, fiscal and environmental concerns. Gordon Carlstrom pointed out that Bob Furey’s suggestion was addressed in Section 9.4 of the proposed Driveway Regulations. Bob Furey agreed that
Section 9.4 accurately denoted an idea of the Board’s expectations when considering sight distance issues. He added that he was in favor of the language revision suggested by Amy Alexander which changed “…grant a waiver…” to “…consider a waiver…”.
The Chairman believed that the revision made to the setback requirement from 14.5 feet to 10’ would be beneficial to achieving proper sight distance. Douglas Hill asked why the height above pavement was modified from 3.9’ to 3.5’. Amy Alexander replied that the Town went by the AASHTO standard of 3.5’ while the State went by 3.9’. The Coordinator added that 3.9’ was a typographical error and never intended as the proposed measurement. James Nordstrom noted that the standards of AASHTO and NHDOT were not the same measure. Bob Furey noted that the State’s recommended sight distance was 400’. Amy Alexander pointed out that 400’ of sight distance with an eye height of 3.9’ as required by the State was theoretically
equivalent to 300’ of sight distance with an eye height of 3.5’. Douglas Hill asked if the AASHTO standards quoted were urban standards. Amy Alexander replied that they were. The Chairman read the following revised language proposed within the Driveway Regulations: “The Board acknowledges, however, that many existing lots of record or lots proposed on existing Town roads may be unable to achieve this sight distance due to the rolling terrain and winding roads of New Boston”. He asked if this statement was meant to calm residents who may still view the Driveway Regulations as being too rigid. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the statement read by the Chairman could be thought of as the introduction into the waiver request process. The Chairman reiterated that some language should be added to reflect that if the sight distance proposed was not up to the required 300’ feet of sight distance it should be justified to
the satisfaction of the Planning Board and the Road Agent.
James Nordstrom asked what the case would be, for example, of a land owner whose lot of record had an optimized 90’ of sight distance from a proposed driveway and how the Board could justify granting a waiver for that applicant when his sight distance was 25% of what the Town required. Amy Alexander replied that in such a case the applicant had proved that he had optimized the sight distance to 90’ based on what he had to work with. James Nordstrom asked if that theory would be the criteria by which the Board would base their decision for granting waivers to sight distance requirements. He wondered what the cases would be for not granting such waivers. Gordon Carlstrom offered an additional example of a lot proposed for a subdivision with
one of two proposed driveways not satisfying the sight distance requirement. He asked if, in that case, the subdivision could not be approved by the Board. James Nordstrom agreed that the issue was a problematic one and that it raised the question of what factors the Board should use when considering waiver requests for sight distance. The Chairman thought that one factor should be that a proposed driveway was being considered on an existing lot of record. Douglas Hill thought that even if a lot was existing issues could arise depending on the road it was located on and again referred to Bedford Road as an example that would present an issue for sight distance. Amy Alexander noted that right-of-way widths should also be considered and factored into the sight distance issue. She added that existing lots of record would deserve more consideration if proposed for subdivision as multiple proposed driveways would need to meet sight distance
requirements. From the audience, Jay Marden asked how many existing lots of record in the Town had less than 200’ of frontage. The Chairman replied that if the lot of record was a backlot then the frontage might only be 50’. Jay Marden stated that a lot with 200’ of frontage would have more tree cutting allowance on its own property to accommodate sight distance. Douglas Hill noted that if the driveway were proposed in the middle of a lot with 200’ of frontage an applicant would still be required to assess over 100’ beyond each side of the frontage’s property line for sight distance. James Nordstrom wished to point out that in consideration of a 40’ right-of-way and a sight distance measurement taken at a 10’ setback you would still be in the Town’s right-of-way, therefore, the sight triangle would not be on abutting property.
The Chairman wondered why a 10’ setback was more appropriate than a lesser measure and offered the example of his own driveway which entered onto a road that went uphill to the left and downhill to the right. He noted that he was less than 10’ back from the driveway entrance to the road when he slowed his vehicle to drive out. Amy Alexander stated that an 8’ setback was not unrealistic as long as the proposed driveway remained as a driveway and did not become a road in the future. She likened that scenario to Susan Road and added that she did not have much to work with to solve the issue it presented because there were now existing driveways, utilities and homes to consider. James Nordstrom thought that the Susan Road scenario was not likely to occur again in the Town. The
Chairman asked what was a realistic setback measurement for a driveway given the number of trips per day by its resident vehicles that were assumed to be familiar with their neighborhood road and its traffic patterns. Amy Alexander thought that 8’ would be a reasonable setback in that case. Gordon Carlstrom agreed. He asked what the required sight distance from the setback line should be. Douglas Hill replied that he would not have an issue with the 300’ of sight distance proposed if the minimum eye height was revised from 3.5’ to 3.9’. James Nordstrom noted that shrinking the setback measure from to 8’ would eliminate sight distance scenarios where the sight triangle would infringe on existing stone walls and shrinking the measure to 6’ would eliminate that occurrence entirely in the Town. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the required minimum sight distance should remain at the proposed 300’. James
Nordstrom thought that the distance stipulated would need some basis. He noted that tonight’s discussion could appear as though the Board had arbitrarily chosen an 8’ setback even though the scientific standard provided by AASHTO was 10’. The Chairman asked if the 10’ setback standard applied to driveways on rural roads. James Nordstrom replied that the standard was based on intersection sight distance in rural scenarios. The Chairman noted that intersections had white stop lines and stop signs with 14.5’ setbacks. Gordon Carlstrom felt that 300’ of sight distance with an 8’ setback was acceptable. The Chairman clarified that this restriction would apply to existing lots of record and not new subdivisions. James Nordstrom noted that when the proposed Driveway Regulations were adopted the Subdivision Regulations would need to be modified to qualify that such lots needed to meet required sight
distance criteria. The Chairman stated that 8’ setbacks could be considered, however, he did not want to encourage the construction of straight boulevards in order to meet sight distance requirements because that was not in character with the existing roads in Town. Amy Alexander noted that the traffic speed in cul-de-sacs was not 35 m.p.h. which was why AASHTO based sight distance on speed. Gordon Carlstrom noted that roads in the Town were now being classified by the Road Committee and that sight distance could be based on those classifications. Amy Alexander stated that a clause should be included in the proposed Driveway Regulations that an applicant could not hold the Board liable if they were granted a waiver to the sight distance requirement and an accident occurred as a result of that limited sight distance. The Chairman noted that Town Counsel had informed the Board that such a clause would only offer a certain amount of protection to
the Town. Amy Alexander replied that at least it would be a layer of protection. Bob Furey felt that it would be better to tie sight distance requirements to design speed rather than road classifications. James Nordstrom felt that the two factors coincided with each other.
The Chairman believed that tonight’s discussion should be pondered more by the Board before any considerations of adopting the proposed Driveway Regulations were considered. Gordon Carlstrom felt that sight distance should be based on the design speed and classification of a road where feeder roads would be rated higher than cul-de-sacs like Fraser Drive. The Chairman noted that a driveway at the top of Fraser Drive feeding onto Bedford Road would be considered differently than a driveway at the end of the Fraser Drive cul-de-sac and in that respect the Board would need to assure that the Driveway Regulations did not say that a certain sight distance had to be met for certain scenarios. Gordon Carlstrom noted that this was the reason that a waiver provision was possible. Amy Alexander added
that that Board could not preconceive every circumstance that might occur regarding driveway sight distances. James Nordstrom believed that the rationale offered by Gordon Carlstrom addressed the goals of the Planning Board in regard to the Driveway Regulations. The Chairman asked the Coordinator to incorporate the revisions discussed tonight into the draft.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2005
23. A copy of a letter dated October 28, 2005, from Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, and to the Board, re: Greenfield Road Improvements, was distributed for the Board’s information.
11. A copy of a letter dated October 24, 2005, from Frank and Susan Woodward, to the New Boston Planning Board, Re: Greenfield Road construction, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
13. A copy of a letter dated October 31, 2005, from Susan Woodward, to Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, New Boston Planning Board, Re: existing driveway, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., was present to discuss the topic of the improvements made to Greenfield Road which regarded the three Miscellaneous Business item #’s 23, 11 and 13 noted above. Reggie Houle, developer and John Dwinnells, road builder, were present. Frank and Susan Woodward, residents of Greenfield Road, were also present.
Amy Alexander stated that she had forwarded her recommendations and also emailed pictures of the recent improvements on Greenfield Road to the Coordinator for the Board’s review. She added that the improvement modifications that she asked the Board to consider were noted in her letter and were now almost completed with the final issue being that no planting area was available for the uprooted lilies in the location of a ditchline that was created to accommodate runoff from an adjacent site. Amy Alexander noted the location of a 46’ long culvert and gravel extensions which would better enable the Woodwards to efficiently access their driveway. She added that these modifications were not on the approved plan but were a better option and authorized at her discretion. Amy Alexander showed
the areas where ditchlines and culverts were added beyond the plan specifications to accommodate and redirect heavy runoff that proved to be challenging for the originally proposed culverts that were installed for the road improvements. She added that the existing stonewall in the location of the Woodward property now acted as a check dam. Amy Alexander further added that the contractor had done minimal disturbance on the downhill side of Greenfield Road with rip rap added to the impacted side and the road raised 18” which would provide more snow storage. She noted that the rip rap would slow the velocity of stormwater off Cochran Hill Road and the Woodward property before it reached the newly installed culverts. Amy Alexander reiterated that her remaining issue was that the plan called for replanting daylilies between stations 1+00 and 3+50 in an area that was now a fully rip rapped ditch line. She suggested that the lilies be replanted on the
full length of the north side of the road. Amy Alexander questioned whether the daylilies should be replanted to the existing established density they were at before the road improvements began as this could choke their growth once they began to naturally multiply. The Chairman clarified that the intent was that the replanting efforts not be done in a sparse manner. Amy Alexander replied that daylilies were very tenacious plants and they would spread efficiently once planted.
The Chairman noted that he had recently viewed the site and noticed that runoff was flowing aggressively around the installed culverts and not through them. Amy Alexander explained that it was typical for water to flow around a pipe when the ground had been recently disturbed and once the silt build up was established the water would redirect through the pipe. Returning to the topic of the lilies she noted that sporadic planting of the lilies now would allow them to reach the same relative density they had before the road improvements began in a year or two. Amy Alexander noted that the reason the lilies thrived along Greenfield Road in the past was because winter snow plowing thinned them out and allowed them more room to grow back in the
spring. She added that she sought the Board’s direction as to where she should have the daylilies planted because it was a noted item on the plan.
Frank Woodward questioned the placement of a culvert relative to the location of a new ditchline as he felt that more water would be redirected to that culvert instead of going over the road as it had done in the past. He noted the location of the foundation to the old Connelly residence which burned to the ground in 1959 and was never rebuilt, adding that it was very close to the installed ditchline. Amy Alexander stated that she recalled seeing what she assumed was an old waste pipe from that residence in the ground when the ditchline was being installed. Frank Woodward stated that he currently owned that property and he had suggested to the contractor that the runoff be redirected under the road. The Chairman asked Amy Alexander if the intent of the ditchline and culvert placements were to slow
down water runoff. Amy Alexander replied that was the case and that she would not want water to be redirected across the road because it would flow at a high velocity. She added that she had not known of Mr. Woodward’s suggestion until now but would not have recommended it as it would have increased the momentum of the runoff. Frank Woodward stated that the Road Agent had informed him that he would be responsible for the maintenance of the newly installed culvert at an existing private driveway even though he noted that it was in the Town’s right-of-way. James Nordstrom asked Amy Alexander if she had been able to speak with the original design engineer regarding the plans. Amy Alexander replied that she had trouble in contacting that party and needed information from them regarding the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. The Chairman clarified that the water runoff from the Woodward property was being ditchlined and channeled to one
of three culverts and that the purpose of redirecting it to the ditchline was to slow the velocity. Amy Alexander replied that was correct. The Chairman asked if the ditchline and culverts seemed to be performing adequately. Amy Alexander replied that at this point in time with no increase in flows off the Woodward property these mechanisms were sufficient. The Chairman asked what could increase the run off flow. Amy Alexander replied that any additional clearing on the Woodward property would increase the water flow as their
driveway was a straight traverse uphill from the road. The Chairman asked if the work done to the joining of the driveways with the newly improved road and to the access to the farmyard was sufficient to enable the Woodward’s Bobcat trailer to negotiate the entrance grades of their driveways. Amy Alexander replied that it was sufficiently done although the access to the fire pond was not on the improvement plan. She asked the Chairman if he had viewed the pictures she had emailed regarding the improvements. The Chairman replied that he had and that the improvements seemed to be dramatic where water was no longer pooling at the base of one of the Woodward driveways and it seemed to be a better access grade for the farm equipment. Frank Woodward stated that the conditions were significantly better than
previously but Greenfield Road was not at its preconstruction grade and was now lower. The Chairman replied that the original grade did not have to be matched but the accessibility to the driveways did. Amy Alexander stated that there would be another three inches of pavement added to the road and the road grade would be significantly higher than it was pre-improvement. Frank Woodward noted that he had pictures taken over a number of years of his driveway that would prove that the road bed was now lower than it was originally. The Chairman reiterated that the main issue was that the Woodward’s driveways could be accessed as they were before. Amy Alexander stated that this work had been done and the Woodward driveway was graded with 6 to 8 yards of crushed gravel to widen their radius to almost 50’ which would be tapered in to the final paving of the road.
The Chairman stated that another concern of the Woodwards was that the entrance way to the new subdivision differed from what was on the plan. Amy Alexander replied that it was not significantly different and that the road was moved over slightly to accommodate the wider ditchline. She added that four feet had been taken off the Morgan lawn versus the original plan to take over all their front lawn. Frank Woodward noted that the original intent of the applicant had been to maintain the look of an existing rural country road and not create a straight smooth road. The Chairman noted that Greenfield Road was intentionally left crooked to maintain its character. The Chairman clarified that the road location was slightly altered from what was on the plan in order to conserve the front lawn on the
Morgan’s property and to increase the ditchline on the opposite side. Amy Alexander replied that was correct. Susan Woodward noted that in the original plan the increased space for the ditchline was already allowed for but the road was moved more to the south and now the ditchline went all the way to the existing stone wall in front of their property. The Chairman explained that the ditchline was heavily rip rapped in order to slow the velocity of run off which was found to be very aggressive and was the reason that the road had washed out before. Susan Woodward noted that the run off only became aggressive after the contractor removed substantial amounts of vegetation in that area. The Chairman explained that because the road was not designed properly when it was originally constructed runoff from the hill caused it to wash out frequently and the deep ditchline recommended as an on site modification by the Town Engineer would solve that problem. Susan Woodward stated that
the result of these improvements was that Greenfield Road had lost its rural character. Amy Alexander noted that this was now a 20’ paved road with ditchlines to accommodate stormwater runoff that would increase on the south side of the road as the Woodwards continued to make changes to their property.
Frank Woodward asked if the Town would maintain the culvert installed in the right-of-way as he was not informed of it prior to its installation. Amy Alexander noted that this culvert was an HDPE pipe with stone headwalls and with the velocity of storm water that was coming off the Woodward property it should be a self cleaning mechanism. Douglas Hill thought that Frank Woodward’s request should be considered because he had not wanted a culvert in that location and was not making alterations to his own property that would have required a culvert. Frank Woodward noted that he was also concerned that pooling from the fire pond would compromise the culvert closest to that location. Amy Alexander noted the locations of three culverts that would accommodate that runoff. She explained that
the invert elevations of two of the culverts were at the same level and there would be additional storage between them while the other culvert would be aided by a stone check dam which would treat the water before it filtered through the field and into the fire pond. The Chairman added that the rip rap in the ditchline would slow the discharge before it reached these culverts rather than placing a burden on the road as had happened in the past. Frank Woodward asked again if the Town would maintain the ditchline installed in the right-of-way at the private drive on his property. The Chairman replied that the Board would take the maintenance of the culvert and ditchline under consideration. He added that their main goal in this evening’s discussion was to obtain answers from the on site engineer to determine that engineered changes were made because they were necessary and not because the developer wanted to cut corners.
Susan Woodward stated that Greenfield Road now resembled a highway rather than the rural road it once was. The Chairman asked why so many trees were cleared along the road and if any sound engineering reason would require that clearing. Amy Alexander replied that this was a question for the Road Agent, however, she surmised that these trees would have died anyway when the ditchline was being constructed in those areas. She noted that she would have removed the trees if it had been her decision as working with roots around rip rap installations was difficult and often impacted nearby stone walls. Amy Alexander added that whatever vegetation grew back from the roots that remained would gradually narrow the road once again to its rural character and the daylilies should also re-grow. She noted
that in her recommendation letter to the Board she had asked that the developer reset the boundaries of the right-of-ways on the Morgan and Woodward property lines.
Susan Woodward restated that if the developer abided by the approved plan and constructed the road improvements on the north side the trees could have remained with the ditchline in the front, however, it was too late now. Amy Alexander wished to note that the trees had already been cut when she was called onto the job. She stated that she did not want to disturb anything on the north side of the roadway because it served as a filter for the stormwater and because the trees had already been cut on the south side it was necessary to add a ditchline to slow the water down. Frank Woodward asked why the ditchline could not have been installed on Cochran Hill Road as much of the runoff came from that location. Amy Alexander replied that the improvements were already being made to Greenfield Road and in
discussion with the Road Agent it was determined that the majority of the water was coming from the Woodward’s lot, therefore, it did not make sense to impact the north side of the roadway where the filter treatment was on the outlet.
Gordon Carlstrom asked where Amy Alexander recommended replanting the lilies on the south side of the road. Amy Alexander replied that she wanted the Board’s input but believed she could add some on top of the rip rap ditchline which was on the north side of the stonewall which was on the south side of the road. She added that the most viable place for replanting would be on either side of the entrance to Daylily Lane and that many of the lilies should regenerate from where they were impacted. Susan Woodward noted that they were promised that they would be put back where they were taken from even though that was not what the plan indicated. Reggie Houle stated that the meeting minutes did not reflect that intention. The Coordinator concurred. The Chairman stated that regardless
of what the minutes stated he recalled what was discussed and the Woodward’s interpretations were correct regarding the replanting intentions that the original developer proposed. Frank Woodward stated that he had spoken with the original developer, Paul Morin, during the application process who said that there would be minimal impact to trees and utility poles and this was reflected in the minutes. He added that he had photos of the road staked before this meeting and they had since been altered to accommodate tonight’s discussion.
Frank Woodward felt that the Town would be responsible for filtration issues if the engineering modifications did not work properly. He intimated that there may be issues with contaminated runoff from his pasture area due to the vegetation that had been cut from the right-of-way. Amy Alexander noted that in her experience as a farmer it was her responsibility to keep waste from her property from compromising the town’s ditchline and other properties. She noted that in the Woodward’s case if they removed more vegetation from their property there could be a runoff problem in the future. Susan Woodward noted that the wooded area of their property which Amy Alexander referred to used to be a field and would be a field again over time, however, water tests performed in that location had
netted acceptable results for the performance of the culvert that handled that flow previous to the road improvements. Frank Woodward clarified that a year a half prior the USDA had rated the flow from his culvert as acceptable based on the vegetation on his property. He reiterated that he would maintain his property to accommodate acceptable flow rates but wanted the Town to accept their portion of responsibility if the engineering modifications installed were found to be inadequate.
James Nordstrom returned to the subject of the daylilies and asked if it would be feasible to plant some on the south side of the road between the rip rap and the existing stone wall. Susan Woodward noted that the rip rap in that area extended right up to the stone wall. Amy Alexander stated that she could not replant to original density, however, in two years time that density should return to what it once was. She added that she could also plant the lilies down the radius of the new road but would not recommend replanting on the north side of the road from station 3 and over as lilies were already regenerating there. James Nordstrom clarified that the lilies should be replanted on the south side of the road between the ditchline and the stone wall with the remaining amounts on the radius of the
entrance to Daylily Lane. He noted that in two years time the rip rap should be well vegetated and not as visible. Susan Woodward asked what could be done about the tree clearing issue as she no longer had a vegetation shield from the new development. The Chairman stated that it was unfortunate that the Board had not clearly understood at the time of the application that increasing the ditchline in that area would necessitate the removal of so many trees. James Nordstrom asked if any trees were cut from the Woodward’s property. Susan Woodward replied that the trees cut were in the right-of-way except for one at the bottom of their driveway which had the top half removed for reasons unknown. Reggie Houle noted that Frank Woodward had requested that tree be trimmed. The Chairman asked if it would be possible to have some spruce trees from the development site transplanted to the Woodward’s property. Amy Alexander did not
think that should be considered as the relationship between the developer and the Woodwards had become adversarial. Gordon Carlstrom added that the Town would not condone replanting trees in the right-of-way either. Reggie Houle stated that Frank Woodward was present when he discussed the tree clearing plan with the Road Agent. Frank Woodward asked what recourse he would have had anyway.
Amy Alexander stated that she tried her best to minimize impacts by keeping them inside the right-of-way. The Chairman noted that he understood that it could be difficult for property owners like the Woodwards to visualize when the plan was originally presented how much authority the Town had, along with the Road Agent, to make improvements to Town rights-of-way. Frank Woodward noted that he was proactive from the inception of the plan with the original developer and felt that promises had been made that went unfulfilled. Amy Alexander stated that she understood the Woodward’s position, however, Greenfield Road was repositioned because the south side had already been impacted when she came onto the job and she wanted to minimize further impacts. Susan Woodward stated that from the
Board’s point of view it seemed futile to go through a time consuming application process such as this one had been only to have the plan revised by other entities after it was approved. She added that they were confused not because they were not engineers and unknowledgeable of engineering practices, but rather because they were sold on a plan that was approved and then not abided by. Susan Woodward wondered how often similar scenarios would arise in the Town going forward. The Chairman noted that a point to consider in future scenarios was how a change of ownership could affect how a plan was designed and approved. Amy Alexander noted that this project had been a learning experience and that, from her standpoint, if she was called onto a project after the fact, she could only employ her best efforts to work with what was available and make a project engineeringly sound. She added that she hoped to have Greenfield Road paved by the end of the
week.
Frank Woodward stated that when he built the second barn on his property the Building Inspector had determined that Greenfield Road was a 2.5 rod road and not a 3 rod road, therefore, he did not see how 2’ shoulders with ditchlines was acceptable for the improvements. Amy Alexander replied that this was one of the reasons that she was called onto the job.
NIXON, JANET E. & DAVID L. Adjourned from 10/11/05
Compliance Hearing/Major Subdivision
Conditional Use Permit/Steep Slopes
Location: Lyndeborough Road
Tax Map/Lot #7/58
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. Present in the audience was Lou Nixon.
James Nordstrom, Bob Furey and Douglas Hill stated that they had viewed the site. James Nordstrom noted that the site was properly reshaped, loamed, mulched, rip rapped and stabilized and that the driveway had not significantly changed from what the Board had viewed on earlier site walks. Douglas Hill stated that he could not foresee any runoff issues with the driveway as constructed.
James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit to construct portions of a driveway in the Steep Slopes Conservation District on property on Lyndeborough Road, known as Tax Map/Lot #7/58-1 by David L. and Janet E. Nixon and to release the security being held for said installation. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
NEW BOSTON SELF STORAGE, LLC
Compliance Hearing/Major Subdivision
Conditional Use Permit/Steep Slopes
Location: Lyndeborough Road
Tax Map/Lot #7/58
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant, James Dodge.
The Chairman stated that a compliance walk had been held on the previous Saturday with members of the Board and the only outstanding issue was the absence of a no parking sign. No members of the Board had viewed the site since the compliance walk, however, James Dodge stated that the sign was installed 15 minutes after the compliance site walk ended. The Chairman stated that reparations of existing wetlands appeared to be done to plan specifications and confirmed in a letter to the Board by Harry Murray, LLS.
James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the Major Site Plan of Land of New Boston Self Storage, LLC, by James and Claire Dodge, to construct a new 3,630 s.f. self storage building on the same site as the existing self storage buildings, 175 Weare Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/21-3 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.
The Chairman asked James Dodge if he had a copy of the letter by NHDES dated February 4, 2005, regarding the restoration plan approval. James Dodge replied that he did.
WORKMAN, JANE L. & JOHN P.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: Pine and Thornton Roads
Tax Map/Lot #4/41
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Rick Kohler of Robert B. Todd Land Use Consultants, and the applicants John and Jane Workman.
Rick Kohler stated that the parent lot was 23.7 acres with frontage on Thornton and Pine Roads and that the applicant proposed to subdivide it into two lots with the second lot being 2.6 acres fronting on Pine Road leaving the parent Lot #4/41 with 21.15 acres. He added that the site had no jurisdictional Steep Slopes or wetlands and noted the location of the proposed driveway for Lot #4/41-1 to be in the mid-western portion of the lot with 230’ of sight distance to the east and 300’ westerly to a rise in Pine Road. Rick Kohler noted that a 50’ swath would remain on the western side of Lot #4/41, the parent lot, for future potential access to a backlot although the applicants had no current plans to subdivide further. Rick Kohler stated that the frontage of the lot to be subdivided
would be 193’ and that an illustrated radius on the plan was intended as part of that frontage and that the boundaries facilitated future access to a backlot. Bob Furey asked if there were any poorly drained soils or wetlands on the site. Rick Kohler replied that he had conducted the test pits and the soils were moderately well drained with no jurisdictional wetlands or Steep Slopes.
Bob Furey inquired about a stonewall encasement in the corner of the parent lot and asked if it was a separate lot. Rick Kohler explained that the stone wall encasement was formerly a cemetery and that the plots had been removed and relocated on the hill of the Town cemetery. He noted that this was the same issue as in a landmark case in Supreme Court which determined that once all bodies were removed from a cemetery it was no longer a cemetery and the easement no longer applied. Jane Workman noted that the bodies had been removed from the cemetery in the mid 1800’s. Gordon Carlstrom noted that there were drainage issues on an existing hill on Thornton Road and asked if the hill was on the applicant’s lot or the one next to it. Rick Kohler replied that the hill was part of the
corner Lot #4/42 and that a topographical feature east of that lot was a depression that caused runoff to jump the ditchline and run onto that parcel. He noted, however, that there were no topographical features along the subject site’s frontage that would complicate that issue. Gordon Carlstrom noted that a lot of work had been done on Thornton Road to address the drainage issues. Rick Kohler agreed and noted that any flowage on the corner Lot #4/42 headed in a northerly direction and the site runoff headed westerly.
Douglas Hill commented that the site was oddly configured and asked if that was the original formation of the parcel. Rick Kohler replied that he was unsure if the site had been subdivided long ago and was not familiar with its history, although the configuration of the existing stone walls suggested that it might have been originally bounded that way. The Chairman stated that the Board needed to act on several waiver requests.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waivers requested for John P. and Jane L. Workman, Pine & Thornton Roads, Tax Map/Lot #4/41, in a letter dated October 17, 2005, by Bob Todd, LLS, relative to required checklist item #49: Erosion & Sediment Control Plan, checklist item #50: Site Specific Soils Mapping, checklist item #52: Drainage Area Outline and Watershed Drainage Computations and the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies required under Section IV-F of the Subdivision Regulations. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of John P. and Jane L. Workman, Major Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Pine and Thornton Roads, Tax Map/Lot #4/41, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
A site walk was scheduled for Saturday, November 19, 2005, at 9:15 a.m. +/-.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of John P. and Jane L. Workman, Major Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Pine and Thornton Roads, Tax Map/Lot #4/41, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to November 22, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 9:14 p.m. the Planning Board took a 10 minute break.
This will be an informational session with Todd D. Connors, PE, Sublime Civil Consultants, to discuss a conceptual review for Clark Hill Estates Condominium, Tax Map/Lot #8/118, Clark Hill Road.
Todd Connors, PE, Steve April of Clark Hill Realty and Rose Colarusso were present for the discussion.
Todd Connors, PE, submitted copies of the conceptual plan to the Board. He stated that last year he had presented a proposal for a 12 unit condominium site and since that time the applicant had acquired an adjacent five acre parcel, Lot #8/118-1, which brought the total acreage to almost 30 acres. Todd Connors, PE, noted that the previous proposal had now been reconsidered as having a different road alignment given the additional acreage and potential for more units. He added that a lot of headway had been made at prior meetings regarding what the Town preferred for fire water supply and further subdivision of the site. Todd Connors, PE, further added that they had done additional surveying of the abutting property as well as topographic mapping and mapping of wetlands for the back portion of Lot
#8/118 which he had previously suggested would have a waiver request filed. In regard to the new proposed road alignment on the conceptual plan, Todd Connors, PE, explained that the road was originally proposed to enter off the small frontage available on Clark Hill Road along the property line and up into the parcel and that due to challenges with proposed vertical curves being compromised by nearby wetlands on the site it would have been necessary to have a considerably larger footprint for the road itself in order to construct it to Town standards. He added that with the purchase of the adjacent property it was now possible to swing the proposed road into the new parcel, avoid existing wetlands and have a softer grade.
Todd Connors, PE, stated that the current proposal was to subdivide the two parcels into five lots with one lot to support construction of a single family home, two larger 10 acre lots in the back , with 12 unit condominium complexes on each, a smaller three acre parcel with a four unit building and the existing house remaining on the final lot. He noted that the owners wished to get input from the Board before moving forward with a formal application. Todd Connors. PE, stated that septic systems and wells for each lot were intended and that 2 common septic systems would be proposed for each of the 12 unit buildings while one septic system was considered for the four unit building. He added that they had not sent any information to other Town agencies such as the Fire Department and recalled that they
had been concerned about fire water safety measures which could be revisited when the application was filed. Todd Connors, PE, asked how the Town measured the cul-de-sac length for the 1,000 foot maximum length. The Chairman noted that an extension to the length could be requested if necessary. James Nordstrom stated that he recalled the cul-de-sac measurement to the throat of the cul-de-sac. The Coordinator noted that the Subdivision Regulations stated the same.
Todd Connors, PE, recalled that previous discussions concerning the long driveway to the back of the parcel were supported by comments from the Coordinator and Town Counsel that due to the length it should be built to Town road standards. He added that because the road was now only going to a proposed cul-de-sac and not all the way to the units should the same standards apply to the driveway to the proposed buildings. Gordon Carlstrom thought that NFPA standards would apply for small building groups. Todd Connors, PE, stated that certain units would be proposed with two and three bedrooms and that three bedroom units were being considered on either end of the building while the two bedroom units might be in the middle. He added that each unit would have a single stall garage and a parking space in
front of it while ten visitor parking spots were proposed on either side of the buildings. He added that more or less visitor parking was achievable based on the Board’s preference. Todd Connors, PE, pointed out that the driveways off the cul-de-sac to the buildings had a wide looping turn and wondered if it would be better to make a connection between the two lots rather than having two loops. He noted that a benefit to that connection would be additional emergency access although residents from each unit might use the connection to travel between the two. The Chairman noted that Town resident, Jay Marden, who was present in the audience and an advocate for open recreational space would probably be in favor of a road connecting the two buildings and a park in the middle for children of residents to use for recreation. Todd Connors, PE, replied that a park could be considered.
Steve April stated that his wife had informed him that they could record in the deed, a preference to sell to buyers aged 55 and older under the Fair Housing Act as that was their marketing intent. He added that marketing to that age group would lessen impacts to the school population. The Chairman asked what the selling price would be for these condominiums. Steve April replied that he thought they would be priced in the low $200K’s for approximately 1,400 s.f.
Todd Connors, PE, questioned if the 150’ structure setback from wetlands applied to setbacks from buildings only or if pavement could be considered as the Zoning Regulations defined “structures” as anything fixed to the ground. The Board was unsure and the Coordinator thought that the Building Inspector could better answer that question.
Steve April recalled that lighting features had been discussed at length at prior meeting and asked Todd Connors, PE, if he could review that topic with the Board. Todd Connors, PE, stated that previous discussions had included an entrance lighting feature and a lighted common mailbox which would also illuminate the intersection. He noted that because the conceptual design now involved separate lots the common mailbox feature would not be applicable and that each unit could have a common mailbox with low wattage lighting while a lit entrance sign was still being considered. Gordon Carlstrom noted that there was now a Town ordinance that disallowed permanent signage for subdivisions.
Douglas Hill asked if a Traffic Impact Study had been done. Todd Connors, PE, replied that one had not been done at this juncture, but he assumed that there would be roughly 8 trips per day (per the standard number from the ITE Trip Generation book) from each unit and at 28 units that would equal approximately 224 trips per day. He asked what the Board would like the owners to pursue given the fact that the unit proposal had grown from 12 to 28 units. Gordon Carlstrom thought that a Traffic Impact Study would be required given that the Clark Hill Road/NH Route 13 intersection was problematic. He suggested that the study should look at that intersection and the proposed new road and Clark Hill Road intersection, at least.
Bob Furey returned to the subject of connecting the two driveways of the unit structures and noted that he did not believe it would enhance emergency response capabilities. Douglas Hill asked how long the unit driveways were to each building. Todd Connors, PE, replied that they were approximately 240’ from the cul-de-sac. He noted that fire protection needs beyond sprinklers were discussed at prior meetings and they had proposed an accessible water supply tank with fill pipes which could serve the sprinkler systems and surrounding land in the event of a brush fire.
Todd Connors, PE, stated that he had denoted Steep Slopes on the plan and had not broken out the areas in the 15-25% range but rather those closer to 15% and those over 25%. He added that the lot sizings worked well once Steep Slopes were discounted, however, wondered if there were any revisions to Steep Slopes being considered by the Town that might compromise the calculations made on the conceptual plan. James Nordstrom replied that if it was determined that the Steep Slopes Ordinance would be revised the conceptual plan would probably be less affected than it was currently. The Chairman clarified that relaxing the Steep Slopes Ordinance, not making it more stringent, was currently under consideration by the Town.
Todd Connors, PE, asked what other studies the Board would require if an application was filed by the owners. The Chairman replied that the usual three studies, Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact, would be required and that if the applicant intended to market to buyers over age 50 the Board would be interested to know how the calculations would be affected by the age bracket. Todd Connors, PE, asked if the Fiscal Study would be based on the effects to the Town, Police Department and School. The Chairman replied that would be the case. Todd Connors, PE, asked if the Fiscal Impact Study should be approached from a certain scope or if he should apply it by how other projects did the calculations. The Coordinator replied that the Subdivision Regulations offered general guidelines and the
office had some prior examples.
The Chairman asked Todd Connors, PE, what determinations had been made about the note for no further subdivision of the parcel that was intended on the prior version of the conceptual plan. Todd Connors, PE, replied that they were of the opinion that this was not a binding clause because they had since purchased an abutting lot which was one of the other lots that was party to that subdivision application and the owner of the remaining lot, Rose Colarusso, who was present in the audience, would also be affected by that clause. He added that Mr. April’s attorney suggested that an agreement be worked out regarding the driveway access to the other lots. He also added that the attorney thought the no further subdivision clause was intended as a deed restriction but never made it into the deed when the
parcels were sold, however, it was on the plan that referenced the deeds. Todd Connors, PE, stated that their attorney’s opinion was that although it was legally part of the plan it could not preclude further subdivision and he would present that opinion at the time of application. Rose Colarusso noted that she had paperwork regarding a right-of-way put in many years ago that was not well defined and in very general terms.
Todd Connors, PE, asked the board’s thoughts on phasing construction and what the Board’s practice was with other applicants in the Town. James Nordstrom replied that none of the current Regulations had provisions for phasing, however, the Board sought to establish phasing schedules with applicants depending on the size and scope of the project. He added that phasing was a function of practicality and in the case of this conceptual design he was not sure if there would be an advantage to doing so. Todd Connors, PE, thought that the public road would be built in the first phase they did and that the Fiscal Impact Study would offer more guidance in that consideration.
Gordon Carlstrom asked where the road frontage was for the lots proposed on Clark Hill Road. Todd Connors, PE, replied that it was very small with the frontage to the 24 acre parcel being approximately 50 feet wide. He then noted the area of the frontage for the five acre parcel on the plan. Gordon Carlstrom asked how the two lots in the rear could be established without having access off Clark Hill Road. Todd Connors, PE, replied that the frontage to those lots would be off the proposed public road that would be built to Town road standards. Gordon Carlstrom asked where the 200 feet of frontage was for the bottom lot. Todd Connors, PE, noted the frontage on the plan and added that it exceeded the 200 feet required for multi-family units in the R1 District. James Nordstrom asked
if the reason for proposing a Town maintained public road was that there was not 50 feet of frontage available on Clark Hill Road. Todd Connors, PE, recalled that there was exactly 50 feet of frontage available on Clark Hill Road and that the 24 acre parcel was proposed as a backlot when the subdivision was originally contemplated. He noted that the reason for proposing the public road now was because an additional building had been added to the plan on the newly acquired property.
Gordon Carlstrom asked why the dashed line on the conceptual plan was circular. Todd Connors, PE, replied that under the R1 district, structures were required to be setback 150’ from existing wetlands and the radial line on the plan followed the contours of two existing wetland pockets. Bob Furey asked if the same detail was true for the lot above those and noted that Steep Slopes were in that area also. Todd Connors, PE, replied that the dashed two-dot setback line noted the setback from a wetland runoff channel and overlapped the notation of a Steep Slopes District.
Bob Furey asked where a common playground area would be proposed if it became a consideration. Todd Connors, PE, noted an area for each lot and that it was likely that there would be two separate associations. Douglas Hill asked what type of water supply would be required for each of the wells to the 12 unit buildings. Todd Connors, PE, replied that at 300 gallons per day, per unit, 3,600 gallons per day would be needed for each building. He added that the well would be drilled and pump tested to determine the yield and then compare that to the peak yields required for that type of condominium and make up any difference with an atmospheric storage tank that could be stored in the basement. Todd Connors, PE, further added that given the size of the proposed project a non-transient non-community
well versus a community well could be used. He noted that the State permitted that after providing a conceptual review which was then succeeded by a normal well approval process, as was done for single family homes. He noted that the non-transient non-community wells had certain restrictions regarding how many connections they could have and believed it was 15 building connections or 25 people, therefore there could be a well for each of the six unit wings.
Douglas Hill asked if any soils testing had been done. Todd Connors, PE, replied that some perc tests and soils testing were done and he recollected that they were satisfactory. Steve April recalled that those test results were better than expected. Todd Connors, PE, added that certain locations might have been compromised with the expansion of the project, therefore, the tests would be re-performed.
R.J. MOREAU COMMUNITIES, LLC
Compliance Hearing/Conditional Use Permit/1 Wetland Crossing
Location: Inkberry Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/41-45
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. No one was present in the audience. He asked if the outstanding fees for certified letters had been paid by the applicant. The Planning Assistant replied that they had. The Chairman then asked if the plan had been revised to show the required culverts. The Coordinator replied that it had not. The Chairman clarified that according to the plan submitted the site was not in compliance because the wrong culvert materials and headwalls were shown. He asked that a subsequent compliance hearing be procedurally scheduled after a corrected plan was received at the Planning Department.
LAMBERT, WILLIAM
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Site Plan/NRSPR/Equipment Storage & Repair Building
Location: Hemlock Drive and NH Route 114
Tax Map/Lot #3/52-26
Commercial “COM” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Mike Dahlberg, LLS, and the applicant William Lambert. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Mike Dahlberg, LLS, submitted a copy of the State Septic Approval to the Coordinator. He added that the site plan had been revised to reflect the correct size of the proposed building. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, further added that the plan now showed designated parking spaces for the proposed building and trailer, new storage bins, salt bins, a secure fenced area southeast of the proposed building and the location of the existing well and its radius. Gordon Carlstrom asked if employee parking was shown on the plan. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that employee parking was labeled “Existing Parking” on the plan. Bob Furey asked if there was potential to have parking spots at the front of the site. William Lambert replied that he had existing parking in that area now. Douglas Hill
asked if bathrooms were still proposed for the building even though it would be a seasonal operation. William Lambert replied that they were. Gordon Carlstrom inquired about exterior lighting for the plan. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that the lighting was shown and had been increased in size for the plan drawing. The Coordinator asked if note #11 on the plan had been changed as it had stated that no lights were proposed. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that this note was corrected. Gordon Carlstrom asked if a new septic system was proposed on the plan because if that was the case then it would need to be installed before a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) could be obtained. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that the plan illustrated the location of a “future septic system”, a term which gave them some leeway, and that the State Septic Approval recently obtained was valid for four years. James Nordstrom clarified that the
applicant’s plan was to get the building constructed and usable with the worst case scenario being that it would sit for a year without the use of sanitary facilities. William Lambert noted that he planned to have the sanitary facilities installed by the fall of 2006 after the seasonal business slowed.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she had any outstanding issues with the plan. The Coordinator replied that she did not. Douglas Hill asked if designated signage was on the plan. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that the signage appeared in the corner of the plan.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the site plan for William Lambert to construct a building for equipment storage and repair for the existing landscaping material supply business, Tax Map/Lot #3/52-26, Hemlock Drive and NH Route 114 a/k/a North Mast Road, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDEDNT:
1. Submission of a minimum of three (3) copies of the revised site plans that include all
of the checklist corrections, waivers and any agreed-upon conditions from this hearing;
2. Submission of Site Plan application fees.
3. Execution of a Site Review Agreement regarding the condition(s) subsequent;
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be January 30, 2006,
the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action from the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed 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 map convene a hearing pursuant to 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 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 use of the building 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 building 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 Conditions Subsequent shall be May 1, 2006, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing on same as described in item 4 above.
Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Discussion with Brian Holt, Vista Road, LLC, re: driveways to Lots # 6/40-5-10 through 15.
Brian Holt of Vista Road, LLC, was present to discuss the Driveway Permit Applications for Hutchinson Lane Lot #’s 6/40-5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14 & 5-15 which the Coordinator noted was inadvertently missed off the Miscellaneous Business Agenda. Also present was Bob Smaha from Vista Road, LLC’s real estate division. Brian Holt stated that these driveways were located on the downhill westerly side of the road and then submitted plans for the Board’s review. He referenced Lot #6/40-5-10 as a representative lot for the group which he explained had a finished through grade at basement level and a 1% or 2% grade into the driveway which meant that vehicles would drive into the garage at the approximate level of the Hutchinson Lane. James Nordstrom clarified that the front of the
homes for the lots in question would be set at the front setback line and that the grades would be flat from the road to the front of the homes.
The Board requested that Brian Holt show the plan profile on the display board. Brian Holt did so and noted the location of his example lot, Lot #6/40-5-10, which was at station 8+30 and indicated grades of 670’ and 668.5’ on the Board’s copies. He noted that that the grade design corresponded to each of the lots in question. From the audience Jay Marden asked if any of the homes on this section of the road would have garages under the first floor. Brian Holt replied that they would not and that the garages would be at the top grade level of the lots. James Nordstrom stated that the Board was concerned when they viewed the sites which currently had 20-30’ drops in the landscape but that he was satisfied with Brian Holt’s explanation of how the lots would be
graded. Bob Furey clarified that the lots were preliminarily graded to obtain Building Permits and would later be filled and finished. James Nordstrom did not see any problem in attaching the plans provided by Brian Holt to the Driveway Permit Applications for these Lots. The Chairman noted to Brian Holt that As Built Plans would be required once the driveway construction was completed.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Applications for Tax Map/Lot #’s 6/40-5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14 & 5-15, for proposed driveways, with the attachments provided by Brian Holt and the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the driveway shall have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft) from the centerline of the road; the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of twenty foot (20’) radii minimum; and, the driveways shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90
degrees. As part of the approval it is stipulated that subsequent As Built Plans will be submitted for the proposed driveways upon their completion. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
1. Approval of minutes of September 27, 2005, with or without changes, distributed at the meeting of October 25, 2005. (No Copies)
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of September 27, 2005, as written. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. The minutes of October 11, 2005, were distributed for approval at the meeting of November 22, 2005, with or without changes.
3. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for LaBree One Family Trust, Clifton E. LaBree, Owner, Tax Map/Lot #9/21, 126 Wilson Hill Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
Because the above noted Subdivision Plan had multiple signature sheets it was determined that this item would be endorsed at the end of the meeting. The same determination
was made for item #’s 4 through 7.
4. Endorsement of a Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Peter De Roetth, Tax Map/Lot #11/12 & 11/12-1, 55 Hooper Hill Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
5. Endorsement of a Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Scott C. & Robyn A. Elliott, Tax Map/Lot #5/5-1 & 5-2, Pine Echo & Tucker Mill Roads, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
6. Endorsement of a Site Plan for Northern Sky Holdings, David Craig, Manager, 5 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #18/8, by the Planning Board Chairman & Secretary.
7. Endorsement of a Site Plan for Roger Dignard, 146 South Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #13/50, by the Planning Board Chairman & Secretary.
8. Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Popple Road, Tax
Map/Lot # 6/32-12, for the Board’s action. (Drive-by prior to meeting)
Bob Furey stated that he viewed the site and that the driveway appeared to be satisfactory. The motion is addressed with item #9.
9. Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Swanson Road, Tax Map/Lot # 6/32-31, for the Board’s action. (Drive-by prior to meeting)
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #’s 05-055 and 05-
056, for proposed driveways, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the
driveway shall have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the
driveway to a minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft) from the centerline of the road;
the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of twenty foot (20’)
radii minimum; and, the driveways shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90
degrees. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
10. Signature required for final approval of Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-45, Inkberry Road.
The Coordinator explained that the Board had not approved the CUP because the plan had not been properly revised, however, the driveway was all set. The Chairman signed the Driveway Permit Application.
12. A copy of a letter dated October 31, 2005, from Geoffrey Katz, to Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, New Boston Planning Board, Re: certification, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that she had prepared documents for Mr. Katz’ signature regarding the usage title for the amended Site Plan, however, Mr. Katz disagreed with the use “personal service establishment/office” which would have complied with Zoning uses and stated instead that the architect’s definition of “mercantile” fit with “retail” which was the same as “personal service establishment”. She noted that Mr. Katz’ suggestion did not comply with the Zoning usage definitions available and he did not want to sign the paperwork. The Chairman suggested that Dave Ely, the project architect, be informed that a suitable definition that complied with Zoning was required. Gordon Carlstrom agreed. The
Coordinator asked what the case would be if Mr. Katz did not cooperate as the business was already up and running and his CO had been obtained. James Nordstrom noted that the only recourse of the Board would be the threat of revoking the Site Plan Approval.
14. A copy of a letter dated October 25, 2005, from Janet White, Piscataquog River Local
Advisory Committee, to Peter Hogan, Planning Board Chairman, Re: PRLAC, was
distributed for the Board’s information.
15. Copied articles from New Hampshire Town & City, October 2005 edition, were distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that the pages missing from the distribution at the last meeting were now included.
16. Registration flyers for Farm & Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP), Informational
Session, were distributed for the Board’s information.
17. Daily road inspection reports for Vista Road, LLC, Hutchinson Lane, dated September 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 12th, 13th, 15th, and 16th were distributed for the Board’s information.
18. Daily road inspection reports for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Highland Hills, dated September 8th, 9th, 13th, 15th, and 16th were distributed for the Board’s information.
19. Daily road inspection reports for Nissitissit Development, Forest View, dated September 8th and 9th were distributed for the Board’s information.
20. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing on November 21, 2005, from the Town of Bedford, re: installation of a wireless communication facility.
21. The minutes of October 25, 2005, were distributed for approval at the meeting of November 22, 2005, with or without changes.
22. Discussion. Re: letters received from the Conservation Commission regarding subdivision and site plan.
The Coordinator explained that the Conservation Commission was concerned that inter-departmental letters were not being read at Planning Board meetings which they felt could give the impression that the Commission was not acting on certain issues that had warranted their review. She added that the Conservation Commission was requesting that these inter-departmental letters be read at Planning Board meetings going forward. The Board agreed.
24. Signature required for final approval of Driveway Permit Application for R. J. Moreau
Communities, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-23, Swanson Road. (No copies)
The Chairman signed the above noted Driveway Permit Application.
25. Board’s action required for final approval of Driveway Permit Application for John and
Natasha Benevides, Tax Map/Lot #2/62-4, 341 Twin Bridge Road. (No copies)
The Coordinator noted that the Road Agent had confirmed that there was 200’ between the proposed driveway and the existing driveway and also had not required a culvert in favor of a swale.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #05-053, for a
proposed driveway with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the driveway shall
have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a
minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft) from the centerline of the road;
the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of twenty foot (20’)
radii minimum; and, the driveways shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90
degrees. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
26. Daily road inspection reports for Mitch Construction, Susan Road, dated September 19th, 23rd, 26th, 29th, and 30th were distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman asked the status of the Susan Road issue as it related to the Carriage Road improvements and an existing hump on Carriage Road near the intersection of Susan Road that was being considered for removal as part of those improvements. The Coordinator replied that a memo received from Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, suggested that the existing hump not be modified. James Nordstrom agreed and noted that based on the sight distance profile T.F. Moran had missed the distance by only 2 or 3 inches. He added that because the margin of error could change depending on the location from where the profile was taken he did not feel that this small difference warranted the reconstruction of 400’ of Carriage Road although the Town Engineer would most likely disagree.
James Nordstrom stated that the location of Susan Road’s entrance in relation to the speed on Carriage Road suggested that traffic would be slowing anyway as it approached an existing curve. The Chairman noted that the sight distance profile’s margin of error could be 4” off the wrong way too. He added that he had viewed the site from the intersection at Susan Road and Carriage Road and determined that a car approaching the intersection from the left around the existing curve was not visible from a safe distance. The Chairman added that if the existing hump on that portion of Carriage Road were removed a car at the intersection of Susan Road would be better able to view oncoming traffic before it was at the curve. Bob Furey stated that he had also viewed the site in question and agreed with the Chairman’s observations.
The Chairman stated that he had also spoken with residents of Carriage Road, by chance, on the day he was at the site and they had inquired about the suggestion of a stop sign being installed at the intersection. He noted that he had explained to these residents that installing a stop sign in that location could create a perception issue as there was no white stop line on the road and it was not an area that a driver unfamiliar with the area would expect to stop. The Chairman noted that the question of liability was also a factor if the Board allowed a stop sign tobe installed in a place that was inappropriate and an accident occurred. James Nordstrom wished to note that his own observations were based on viewing the plans only, however, if a problem with sight distance
had been confirmed in the field then that should be weighed more heavily. Gordon Carlstrom added that if Susan Road eventually connected with Bedford Road then it could serve as a through way to McCurdy Road with increased traffic. The Chairman added that he found in his visit to the site that traveling up Carriage Road and turning left onto Susan Road would also present a safety issue as a vehicle would be turning in front of oncoming traffic that would not be easily seen behind the existing hump that was at the curve.
The Coordinator noted that Earl Sandford, PE, LLS’s recommendation would be added to Miscellaneous Business for the next meeting to allow time for Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to respond to his suggestion.
27. Daily road inspection report for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Highland Hills, dated
September 20th, was distributed for the Board’s information.
28. Daily road inspection reports for Golden Oak Developers, LLC, Indian Falls Road, dated
September 20th, 21st, 23rd, and 27th were distributed for the Board’s information.
29. Daily road inspection report for Reggie Houle, Daylily Lane, dated
September 23rd , was distributed for the Board’s information.
30. Daily road inspection report for Vista Road, LLC, Hutchinson Lane, dated
September 19th, 21st, 22nd, 26th, 27th, and 29th were distributed for the Board’s information.
31. The Coordinator wished to review the Zoning Amendment issues distributed at the last meeting which had been inadvertently missed off the Miscellaneous Business agenda tonight. She noted the first item to be that the Building Inspector had asked for more clarification from the Board regarding building on Class VI roads. The Coordinator stated that a second item involved the consideration by the Board of changing the definition of “family” so that applications that came before the Board in the future involving group home proposals would be required to go through Site Plan Review. She noted the final items to be a minor housekeeping item that involved parking in campgrounds and lastly whatever suggestions were made by the Steep Slope Committees regarding amendments to the Steep Slopes
Ordinance. The Board agreed with the issues raised by the Coordinator and asked that she prepare the paperwork for their review.
The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the plans previously noted earlier on the Miscellaneous Business agenda.
At 10:52 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien Minutes Approved:
Recording Clerk
|