Planning Board Minutes 12/13/2005
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, James Nordstrom, Travis Daniels and Bob Furey; ex-officio Dave Woodbury; and, alternates Don Duhaime and 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 Brandy Mitroff, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Dave Elliot, Bill Weston, Willard Dodge, Christine Quirk, Roger Noonan, Jay Marden, Rick Martin, Rick Kohler, Dan MacDonald and, Lou Lanzillotti.
PUBLIC HEARING-Zoning Ordinance
The Chairman referenced the public hearing notice as noticed in the Union Leader and posted in Town. Present were members of the Steep Slopes Committee: Bill Weston, Willard Dodge, Brandy Mitroff, Dave Elliot, Roger Noonan and the Planning Board. Also present were Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Christine Quirk, Selectman, and Jay Marden. The Chairman asked that the Coordinator provide an update on her discussion with Town Counsel regarding his review of the proposed amendments. The Coordinator replied that she had rough notes on her discussions with Bill Drescher, Esq., which she then submitted to the Board and the members of the Steep Slopes Committee present. She explained that Bill Drescher, Esq., had met with her at the Planning Department and because he had not
been able to read through all the proposed amendments she had reviewed them with him verbally. The Coordinator stated that Town Counsel believed the proposed amendments to the Steep Slopes Ordinance were satisfactory. She noted that he did have several suggestions to tighten up some of the language. The first suggestion involved clarifying that the amendments applied to subdivisions and site plans which could be achieved by moving the sentence at the end of Section F,3: “All subdivision or development in the steep slopes conservation district will require these additional regulations to be followed” to the beginning of Section F. She added that Town Counsel’s next suggestion was to add the definition of critical areas found in the Subdivision Regulations to the Zoning Ordinance. The Coordinator stated that Bill Drescher, Esq., felt that because the notes suggested to be placed on subdivision plans and deeds were currently and
more appropriately located in the Subdivision Regulations they could instead be taken out of the Zoning Ordinance and referenced. She noted Town Counsel’s final suggestion to be that language be added which stated the Building Inspector could require an outside review of a Stormwater Management Plan if it was submitted at the time a Building Permit was requested by an applicant. The Coordinator further noted that Bill Drescher, Esq.’s, references to suitable building envelopes to support that review was not quite the language needed and this should be discussed by the Board and the Steep Slopes Committee.
Bill Weston asked if he should work on the revisions based on Town Counsel’s suggestions and resubmit them to the Board. The Coordinator replied that this would be acceptable. Bob Furey asked what the problem was with using the term “suitable building envelope” to support the Building Inspector’s call for outside review of a Stormwater Management Plan. The Coordinator explained that the Building Inspector would be looking at suitable building envelopes as they were designated at the time of a subdivision plan and not at the time a Building Permit was requested. Douglas Hill thought that disturbance of critical areas was more the issue. The Coordinator agreed. From the audience, Brandy Mitroff stated that she felt Bill Drescher, Esq.’s, suggestions would give the Building Inspector too much discretion and responsibility. She added that she preferred that the Planning Board handle the approval of the Stormwater Management Plan because she did not feel the Building
Inspector would act in the best interest of what the Steep Slopes Committee and the Board had strived for in the amendments to the Ordinance. Bill Weston added that by Town Counsel’s suggestion this would give an applicant the ability to move a valid building envelope on an approved plan without going back to the Planning Board first. The Coordinator interjected that she may have misrepresented this issue to Bill Drescher, Esq., because at prior Committee meetings it was discussed that they did not want an applicant to be tied up in schedule delays with the Planning Board when seeking Building Permits. The Chairman felt that in many cases builders had no regard for what they were approved to do and rectified their on-site changes with an As-Built Plan. He added that he did not want that confusion to involve the Building Inspector rather than going through the Board. Brandy Mitroff asked if the time line issue could be overseen by the Coordinator who
could decide if proposed changes to a plan needed to be reviewed by the Town Engineer. The Chairman did not think that deviating from an approved plan, or poor planning, should require any scheduling urgency on the Planning Board’s part. Dave Elliot agreed. Roger Noonan stated that the Committee’s original rationale was not to overburden the Planning Department, for example, if a builder came back to the Board with layout changes for 40 subdivision lots after the developer gained the plan’s approval by placing the building lots in general layouts. The Chairman replied that this type of situation occurred often and builders used As-Built Plans as rectifiers. Brandy Mitroff stated that if the Board did not mind the extra work load she felt they were the safest venue of procedure. The Chairman stated that more accountability was needed so that such scenarios did not continue to occur.
Bill Weston asked if Bill Drescher Esq.’s, new sentence for Section F should be deleted from the revisions. The Chairman thought that this should be done. Douglas Hill thought that Town Counsel’s suggestions would not be an issue if the entire possible building area of a lot was shown and critical areas were clearly marked. Bill Weston stated that a suitable building envelope was meant to be the entire suitable building area which could be one or more envelopes. The Chairman stated that the only time this would be an issue would be for small lots. Dave Elliot added that the applicant had a right to go through the approval process but not to assume any short cuts could be taken. Douglas Hill asked Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, if it would be more
work as an engineer to show all suitable building areas on a plan. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that it would involve a great deal of work for larger lots such as a 20 acre lot, therefore, waivers would generally be requested at the Board’s discretion, however, for smaller lots it would not be an issue.
Douglas Hill asked if the bonding standard was still based on the road bonding terms or if that was being relaxed. Bill Weston replied that the bonding was based off the road bond form and covered similar areas, however, was customized to stormwater management measures where if a certain cost was tied to the stormwater management plan that same amount would need to go into the bond.
Dave Woodbury stated that an issue discussed at the Planning Board meeting of November 22, 2005, was also discussed at the recent Selectmen meeting regarding which engineer would give the final approval to stormwater management plans for an applicant. He noted that as proposed the design engineer would give approvals which concerned the Selectmen and they suggested that an easy fix might be within the Subdivision Regulations being discussed at the next hearing which could in turn impact the Zoning Ordinance. Dave Woodbury stated that the Selectmen felt that the stormwater management plan should be treated the same as other aspects of subdivision items where a consulting engineer would provide an independent review of the plan and on the work done. He referenced Section H
of the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations, “Plan Review and Approval” and suggested that the language “The Planning Board may call for an outside technical review…” be changed to “The Planning Board will call for an outside technical review…” Bill Weston noted that Section I.5 could instead be changed to read consultant engineer rather than professional engineer. Dave Woodbury thought that the input of the professional engineer would still be warranted, however, the ultimate authority would be the consulting or Town’s engineer. Bill Weston noted that the Board still had the discretion of using the Town Engineer in such cases, however, the Committee had not wanted the applicant to have to pay for two engineer’s costs. Dave Woodbury thought this was already the case. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, clarified that this was the case at the subdivision approval
level, however, for small proposals, as with septic designs, the Committee suggested that the design engineer’s approval would work better. He explained that the economic factors of smaller scale plans proposed, for example, by individual home owners, differed from what was required of applicants of large subdivision plans.
The Chairman stated that Section I,6 should address the concerns of the Selectmen which read: “In order to release the performance bond, the requirements of I.5 must be met and the qualified professional must attest that the affected area(s) have been adequately, and verifiably stabilized. The Planning Board may disagree with the findings of any inspector and require that the board or their designee perform an independent inspection prior to the release of the performance bond”. He added that a clause should be inserted in this section that noted the applicant would bear the costs of any independent inspections. The Chairman noted that certain builders were more likely by reputation to address Steep Slopes and have certification provided by their design
engineer without incident, however, there were other cases where the Board knew there would be an issue with a builder at the outset and for those scenarios they would want the verification of the Town Engineer. Dave Woodbury stated that this level of discussion had not occurred at the November 22, 2005, meeting, nor at the recent Selectmen meeting and he was now more comfortable knowing that an outside engineer could be part of the process.
The Chairman asked if the Coordinator had any other input. The Coordinator replied she did not.
The Board discussed the remaining amendments to the Camping Park Standards and the Definitions and agreed with the changes as presented.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the Public Hearing for the Zoning Regulations to January 10, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Bill Weston stated that he would submit tonight’s revisions to the Coordinator.
PUBLIC HEARING-Amendments to the Subdivision Regulations and Amendments to the Non-Residential Site Plan Review Regulations
The Chairman read the public hearing notice as noticed in the Union Leader and posted in Town. Present was Jay Marden. No other parties were present other than members of the Steep Slopes Committee: Brandy Mitroff, Dave Elliot, Roger Noonan, Bill Weston, Willard Dodge. Also present were Selectman, Christine Quirk and Earl Sandford, LLS, PE.
The Chairman asked Jay Marden if he had any input to the hearing. Jay Marden replied that he did not. Bill Weston noted that the change in language to include the applicant’s responsibility for the cost for outside engineering review needed to be included as was discussed at the prior public hearing on the Zoning Ordinance. He asked if one or two hearings were required. The Coordinator replied that two were not required, however, the Planning Board usually opted for a second hearing if changes were proposed to the language posted and in lieu of the revisions discussed tonight for the Zoning Ordinance they would most likely adjourn this hearing so that everything could be addressed at one meeting. Bill Weston stated that he would not be at the subsequent
hearing but suggested that the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance be adopted by the Board pending the March, 2006, vote by the Town. He gave this rationale due to the fact that what was in the Zoning Ordinance currently did not effectively coincide with the changes proposed to the Site Plan Regulations. Brandy Mitroff stated that the Steep Slopes Committee had known of this potential conflict and had been told that it was possible to have the scenario Bill Weston just suggested as this would give the public the assurance that no gaps in the process would result. The Chairman recommended that the amendments could be adopted tonight based on Bill Weston’s suggestions. Dave Woodbury asked what the consequences of adopting the amendments would be if the subsequent vote in March, 2006, did not pass. The Chairman replied that the Board’s adoption would be negated if the ballot vote failed.
Jay Marden asked if an applicant who applied next week would use the current rules or the pending adopted rules. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that the amendments would be adopted with an effective date on March, 2006, pending a favorable vote. Bill Weston noted that in the case of the Zoning Ordinance any changes needed to be complied with from the time they were posted, however, the changes were less strict than the current Ordinance. James Nordstrom further noted that situations could occur where an application was submitted according to the proposed amendments to the Steep Slopes Ordinance and Subdivision/Site Plan Regulations, accepted and approved, followed by a failed vote in March, 2006. The Coordinator clarified that any applicant who submitted during this
in-between period was in a risky position as James noted by his example because a subdivision plan accepted under the rules of a failed vote could
be subject to revocation and the Board would need to inform those applicants of that risk. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that the current Steep Slopes Ordinance was stricter than the amendments proposed. Dave Elliot added that a responsible applicant should be prepared to take such a risk or follow the more stringent requirements. Bill Weston noted that the only other consideration would be if there were any other proposed changes planned for the Site Plan or Subdivision Regulations that would make adoption pending the March, 2006 vote complicated. The Chairman was not aware of any such changes.
Bob Furey stated that he liked the summary provided by the Steep Slopes Committee regarding their recommendations for amendments to the Ordinance along with their suggestion for a part time employee to handle enforcement. Bill Weston thanked Bob Furey adding that the Committee was in favor of the part time employee although they were still discussing that concept after some valid points were raised by the Board at the last meeting. Willard Dodge stated that he strongly believed that the Town needed the employee proposed to handle enforcement. Dave Elliot agreed that the Town needed a means of enforcement and until that was achieved he felt the rules were useless. Douglas Hill stated that it was heartening to see the amount of work that the Steep Slopes Committee had
put into this task.
Bill Weston stated that the Committee requested that the Planning Board pay for postage for a mailer to residents in March, 2006, before the vote that would explain the meaning behind a positive or negative vote to the amendments along with which side the Planning Board was endorsing.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adopt the amendments to the Subdivision and Non- Residential Site Plan Review Regulations as amended at this public hearing, to be effective contingent upon a successful vote of Town Meeting in 2006 on the proposed amendments to Section 204-9, Steep Slopes Conservation District. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2005
1. Approval of minutes of October 25, 2005, with or without changes, distributed at the meeting of November 22, 2005. (No Copies)
Addressed with item #2.
2. Approval of minutes of November 8, 2005, with or without changes, distributed at the meeting of November 22, 2005. (No Copies)
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of October 25, 2005, and November
8, 2005, as written. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. The minutes of November 22, 2005, were distributed for approval at the meeting of January 10, 2005, with or without changes.
4. Signature required for the final approval of Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #6/32-14, Popple Road.
(Drive-by prior to meeting)
Addressed in item #6.
5. Signature required for the final approval of Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #6/32-22, Swanson Road.
(Drive-by prior to meeting)
Addressed in item #6.
6. Signature required for the final approval of Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #6/32-29, Swanson Road.
(Drive-by prior to meeting)
Dave Woodbury stated that he had viewed the above noted driveways and although he did not have as much background regarding the sites as other Board members he found them to be satisfactory. James Nordstrom stated that he had viewed the driveways and thought they appeared to be ok. Douglas Hill agreed.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #’s 05-051, 052
and 065 for final installation of driveways on Tax Map Lot #’s 6/32-14, 22 and 29.
Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
7. Endorsement of a Subdivision Agreement for Curtis Hill, LLC, Old Coach Road, Tax Map/Lot #10/3, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman determined that he would sign this agreement at the end of the hearing.
8. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Susan LeClair Revocable Trust, Bedford Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/24, 24-1 & 24/12, 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 9 and 10.
9. Endorsement of a Site Plan for Sizemore Truck and Auto, Route 77, a/k/a Weare Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/29-1, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
10. Endorsement of a Site Plan for Andrzej and Christine Pedzik, 762 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/20, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
11. Discussion, Re: intersection of Carriage and Susan Road.
25. A copy of a letter dated December 6, 2005, from Earl Sandford, Sandford Surveying and Engineering, Inc., to the Board, Re: Carriage and Susan Road intersection, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
James Nordstrom stated that during the site walk recently held he noted that while there were no sight distance issues to the right of the intersection, there was only 175 to 200 feet of sight distance to the left which was an issue. He added that he had noted sight distance from 14.5, 10 and 8 foot setbacks and an eye height of 3.9 feet. James Nordstrom further added that based on comments offered by Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, the road improvements proposed and approved by the Board could create a safety issue for passing sight distance. He noted that it appeared at the site walk that the intersection sight distance could be improved without deterring from the passing sight distance. Dave Woodbury stated that he had viewed the intersection sight distance at Carriage
and Susan Roads after the site walk had been held and agreed that a trade-off to improving the sight distances existed. He added that he was unsure as to what the better alternative solution was as each engineer involved thought their recommendations were the better choice. Dave Woodbury noted that traffic turning left out of the intersection was likely to increase in the future as road networks were extended in the area of Susan and Carriage Roads and that it had been suggested at the Selectmen’s meeting that Susan Road be raised as it would be a less drastic impact than the proposed improvements to Carriage Road. The Chairman explained that raising Susan Road would result in a loss of its negative pitch into Carriage Road which was the initial reason that improvements to Carriage Road had been proposed by the applicant and subsequently approved by the Board. He noted that complaints by abutters who had not been made aware by the developer that these
improvements were forthcoming was the reason this discussion had ensued after the plan’s approval. He asked the Coordinator if the Town Engineer still supported the road improvements that had been approved by the Board. The Coordinator replied that they did. She noted that Miscellaneous Business item #25 regarded a letter by the abutters’ engineer, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, to the Town Engineer on this subject which had not yet received a reply. The Coordinator added that Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had commented to her that no contractor would follow the approved plans exactly and probably didn’t know what a 13K vertical curve was which she felt further confused this issue.
Bob Furey stated that an independent traffic engineer could be considered to evaluate this issue although he was unsure who would fund it. The Chairman clarified that this issue dealt with an approved plan that involved lowering Carriage Road and he did not think that the applicant would have proposed such costly improvements if a less expensive alternative was possible. Don Duhaime did not feel that Carriage Road could remain in its pre-improvement state because the sight distance to the left of the intersection with Susan Road was so reduced. Douglas Hill noted that if Carriage Road remained as it was a car turning left out of the intersection had a greater chance of being hit while if the approved improvements did go forward the risk of a child playing in the road being
struck by a car became heightened. He added that while neither scenario was preferred he would rather see a car hit than a child. Dave Woodbury suggested that a third party professional view the road issue at the developer’s expense. Douglas Hill noted that if it was found that the road improvements were not necessary having a third party review would be to the developer’s benefit. The Chairman clarified that the developer had the option of refusing a third party review because the plan had been approved.
Don Duhaime asked if the Road Committee and the Road Agent could be polled for their opinions. James Nordstrom replied that the Road Agent’s preference was that 300 feet of sight distance be at the intersection and reiterated that a less radical solution to this issue appeared evident at the site walk which other attendees agreed with, although this solution may cause some unsymmetrical vertical geometry on Carriage Road.
Bob Furey stated that he agreed with Dave Woodbury’s comments regarding improvements to turning sight distance over passing sight distance and added that through traffic from McCurdy Road onto Carriage Road should be of more concern. James Nordstrom noted that at the site walk some Carriage Road residents had commented that the neighborhood traffic tended to exit at the lower entrance of Carriage Road regardless of where they lived on the loop because the sight distance was better at that entrance than at the upper one off McCurdy Road.
From the audience, Brandy Mitroff asked if a three way stop at the intersection of Carriage and Susan Road would solve the issue as this was done in many other towns to reduce speed on a road. The Chairman replied that stopping on Carriage Road would not be something that would be anticipated. Dave Woodbury added that when stop signs were considered for roads in the Town the Police Department’s comments were sought and they based their opinion on if stopping was reasonably safe at certain locations given the design of the road and certain conditions such as ice. The Chairman noted that the Town Engineer had not been supportive of a three way stop at the intersection of Carriage and Susan Road. He added that the developer could be questioned about whether they
would support the funding of an independent study of the road issue and that the Road Committee could also be asked to provide their comments.
PUBLIC HEARING-Capital Improvements Program
The Chairman read the public hearing notice as noticed in the Union Leader and posted in Town. CIP Committee Members Lou Lanzillottie and Brandy Mitroff wre present along with interested party Dan MacDonald.
Don Duhaime questioned the breakout of the cistern proposal on the CIP table of $50K over two years versus $25K over four years. Brandy Mitroff explained that the village cistern proposal was reflected by the $50K breakouts and the $25K line items were for outlying cisterns in the Town. Don Duhaime stated that the Fire Department’s numbers came in at $350K supplied by George St. John. Brandy Mitroff replied that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had been asked to price the installation cost which came in at $400K. She noted that she would like to see the funds zeroed for 2006 and keep some funds for outlying years as she wanted the Fire Department to approve of the Town Engineer’s cost estimate before moving forward. Brandy Mitroff further noted that the
Coordinator had informed her that if a $400K bond was put to the Town vote it would be paid back at $50K per year starting in 2007 on the CIP. She added that she did not have the information for this year’s CIP with that change in cost to feel comfortable with doing anything this year.
Don Duhaime asked if land was available for a village cistern installation. Dan MacDonald replied that there was Town land on Meetinghouse Hill Road behind the School. Douglas Hill asked about access to the proposed cistern site. Dan MacDonald explained that the access point would be at the Town Common while the cistern would be set uphill to facilitate water pressure.
Dan MacDonald stated that in 1887 lightning began a fire in the Village that destroyed a significant portion because the structures were set close together and there was no water available to fight the fire. He noted that the current scenario in the village was similar and that a pre-plan exercise had been conducted with the Bedford and Goffstown, NH fire departments, however, if no water was available to accommodate their trucks which pumped 1,000 gallons per minute then the plan would not work. Dan MacDonald added that because many of the structures in the village did not have early warning systems a fire could destroy a third of the downtown because of no fire fighting water supply.
Don Duhaime asked if an elevated concrete storage tank was being considered. Dan MacDonald replied that three 30,000 gallon tanks with pumpers were the consideration. Don Duhaime asked why one larger tank could not be installed versus three. Dan MacDonald replied that their engineer had recommended multiple tanks in the event that one had a mechanical problem and in that way they would still be functioning tanks. Don Duhaime noted that concrete tanks were less expensive and provided more storage. Dan MacDonald felt that fiberglass was a better material and that it was cheaper to build and more versatile, however, he was open to suggestions. The Chairman noted that the inspection costs for concrete tanks had been found to be quite high which was why Dan
MacDonald proposed multiple fiberglass tanks. Brandy Mitroff reiterated that the need for further discussion on this issue was why she felt there should be no funding in 2006 and that a $400K bond could be started in 2007 at $50K per year in anticipation of a finalized plan being obtained. Dave Woodbury asked what the effect would be on the CIP table by removing $50K in 2006 and if any other funding was being added to balance that. Brandy Mitroff replied that nothing else was being added in and noted that in her opinion she felt that the majority of the Town residents were more concerned about what was on the ballot than how the CIP table was organized. She noted that the $50K reduction would be absorbed by the deficit from the School line item. Dan MacDonald added that the same scenario existed for the M3 grant which reduced the funded amount from $90K to $20K on the CIP table.
Bob Furey asked what locations for outlying cisterns in the Town were determined on the Cistern Master Plan. Dan MacDonald replied that there were 28 locations that had no fire water supply after the Village which had the highest priority. Bob Furey asked if the Village cistern was successfully voted in if the Fire Department would then campaign for the additional cisterns in outlying areas of Town. Dan MacDonald replied that would be the case and noted that all cisterns would be based on 30,000 gallon tanks. Brandy Mitroff clarified that if the Town supported a Village cistern they were likely to support outlying ones.
Lou Lanzillotti stated that he felt residents in outlying areas of Town would question why they should spend their tax dollars to protect the Village firstly when they also needed cisterns in their area. Dan MacDonald replied that all areas of town were proposed to be protected by cisterns eventually according to the Cistern Master Plan. Lou Lanzillotti remarked that “eventually” takes time and he viewed this scenario as the Village residents obtaining an unfair benefit over the rest of the Town without some sort of a fire or water district being established in the Village.
Don Duhaime stated that he had spoken with a cistern tank company who informed him that a bigger concrete tank would cost less than the installation of a plastic one. He offered the example of a concrete tank currently being installed in Goffstown, NH, for domestic water and fire protection that cost $750K and held 1.5M gallons of water. The Chairman noted that the Goffstown tank would continually move water that would not freeze while the proposed cistern for the Village would have standing water that could freeze as a result. Lou Lanzillotti noted that a way to sell the water district theory to Village residents would be that it “would provide water”. He noted that the Fire Department needed to have a plan in place so that the residents could be
provided with ample knowledge when voting. Dan MacDonald noted that the Fire Department had already paid for an engineered plan and that if expansion into a water district became an option more review would be needed.
Willard Dodge asked the cost estimate for three fiberglass tanks in the Village. Dan MacDonald replied that the cost would be $400K for 120 gallons which would be represented by multiple tanks tied together. Brandy Mitroff questioned the cost for the outlying cisterns in the Town given that each 30,000 gallon tank in the Village would be over $100K each. Dan MacDonald explained that the Village cisterns would be more expensive because they would have a wireless monitoring system and more underground pipe while the outlying cisterns for the Town would cost approximately $60-65K.
The Coordinator noted that Burton Reynolds had informed her that the line item for the Highway Department Dump Trucks should read $42K and not $40K.
The Chairman questioned the $89K amount in the accrued column of the CIP table for the Library. Brandy Mitroff replied that this figure represented various CRF’s over time. The Chairman asked how much the Library had raised in donations thus far towards their goal. Lou Lanzillotti replied that the Library’s figure was $250K, however, this included the $89K accrued, therefore, the total amount raised was approximately $125K. Brandy Mitroff added that the road construction estimate for the new Library was a general figure and a more accurate figure had not yet been submitted. She noted that it was of merit that the Library wanted to provide an access to Town owned land because there was currently no way for the public to drive onto that property.
Don Duhaime added that the Library posed the road construction idea as a way of showing the Town that they were moving forward with their plan. Lou Lanzillotti commented that a road built at some point to access this land could be drastically different than the road design proposed by the Library and that was an issue. Don Duhaime agreed and noted that a road design for the Library would need to be constructed for heavy commercial use in the event that a new Library was to be built on the land. Based on the fact that the Library had not provided an accurate estimate of the cost of the project and the fact that the use of the land was currently uncertain, the Board determined that the funding amount for the Library access should be zeroed for 2006.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to accept the CIP table as presented with the following changes: The Highway Department-Dump Truck annual CRF is changed from $40K in 2006-2011, to $42K in 2006-2011. The Library-Construct Access Roadway is zeroed
from $50K in 2006. The Selectmen-Cistern Installation in Town Center is zeroed for 2006 and $50K added for each year of 2007-2011. James Nordstrom seconded the motion.
Lou Lanzillotti stated that a footnote should be added to the CIP table that the Village Cistern is estimated at $400K. Brandy Mitroff noted that narrative changes may be required on the figure change for the Dump Truck line item.
The motion PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman noted that Don Duhaime had experience and could offer insight into the cost effectiveness of the cisterns plan for the Town. Dan MacDonald replied that the Fire Department would be pleased to accept any help on the issue. Brandy Mitroff stated that the fire district idea offered by Mr. Lanzillotti should also be considered. Dave Woodbury commented that he had more confidence in the Town as a whole being willing to pay for the Village cistern. He added that if the fire district option came before the Selectmen it would drastically change the way the Town was governed and may take time to consider. Lou Lanzillotti felt that an investment nearing $500K made a fire district a worthy issue to consider.
At 9:20 p.m. the Planning Board took a 10 minute break.
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Subdivision/NRSPR/Condominium
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/29
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Rick Kohler from Robert Todd’s office and the applicant Rick Martin. An interested party present was Jay Marden.
Rick Kohler stated that the property was 3.7 acres 500 feet east of Beard Road and Route 77 with an existing house and upgraded barn proposed for parking and storage for condominium residents. He added that the applicant had received State septic approval with individual tanks proposed for each of the two units. Rick Kohler noted that the lot had 292’ of frontage and noted the location of the existing well which would serve both residences along with an alternative well location.
Dave Woodbury asked why the proposed driveways to the units and the existing driveway were so close to each other. Rick Kohler replied that the westerly driveway was existing and the applicant proposed to provide for both units relative to the entrances to the residences. Dave Woodbury asked if this proposal complied with the Driveway Regulations. Don Duhaime noted that only one curb cut could be made, therefore, the proposal did not comply with the Regulations. Rick Martin added that he had done curb cuts within 20’ of each other for a prior subdivision on South Hill Road. The Chairman noted that the prior subdivision involved separate lots not condominiums and in this case the Board may be able to accept a curb cut for two units but not three or more.
The Coordinator asked how traffic would exit the lot as there was no turnaround proposed and backing onto Beard Road did not seem appropriate. Rick Martin replied that he could do joined driveways for each unit that would allow space for backing in to drive out, however, he had not proposed this initially because he had wanted to keep more grass area in the front of the lot for aesthetics. The Chairman stated that jointing the driveways would solve the backing out problem completely. Douglas Hill asked how far off the road the existing house was located. Rick Kohler replied that it was approximately 30’ off the road. The Chairman asked if there was any practical way to tie the existing gravel road in with the proposed driveways so that a looped effect was
created to serve all vehicles. Rick Martin thought that topographic issues could limit that option. Don Duhaime suggested that the existing driveway be used that would lead to parking areas in the back of the units. Rick Martin replied that he could do so and could add a walkway to each unit from the parking area. After several other options Rick Martin suggested that unit #2’s driveway could remain as shown on the plan and unit #1’s driveway could be the existing driveway. The Coordinator noted that in this scenario the backing out problem would still be an issue and the Road Agent may not permit it. Rick Martin noted that if he had problems with a permit for the proposed driveway then he would work with the existing drive and provide parking off of it. Jay Marden was concerned that access the units, for example, when bringing in groceries, would be difficult if there was not an area to use as a drop off point before parking in
the back. Rick Kohler noted that a second driveway could be added for Unit 1 at the eastern end of the building if sight distance could be achieved.
The Chairman thought that a site walk or drive-by was warranted to view the proposed driveway(s). Rick Kohler stated that if the Board was satisfied with the sight distance which he recalled was good then the applicant would opt for using the existing driveway as access. Rick Martin added that he would opt to have the parking in the rear of the units to avoid any issues with driveway permitting etc., if that became the case. The Chairman asked if any fees remained outstanding on the application. The Planning Assistant replied that a check for the outstanding fee of $493.00 had been received. The Chairman noted that waivers had been requested by the applicant for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. Don Duhaime thought that it should be
noted that subsequent condexes would compound traffic in the future. The Chairman noted that the applicant would be required to do Traffic Studies for his larger projects that were planned in the vicinity, however, since this application involved an existing house he did not see it as a trigger to require that Study. Jay Marden asked if the proposed garages would be rented or assigned to the residents of the units. Rick Martin replied that each unit would own half of the garage area and this would be noted in the Declaration of Covenants. The Chairman stated that a waiver for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan was requested. He noted that there was no soil disturbance proposed with the exception of filling in an existing pool on the lot. The Chairman asked for clarification on the waiver request for State Subdivision Approval. Rick Kohler replied that the applicant had a verbal approval but needed to submit the condex documents
currently being reviewed by the Town. The Chairman noted that State Subdivision Approval was not generally waived. The Coordinator agreed. The Chairman stated that the
driveway issue still needed to be resolved and the application could not be accepted as complete this evening without State Subdivision Approval. Douglas Hill noted that the Board could address the waivers this evening.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waivers requested in a memo received November 28, 2005 by Robert Todd, LLS, for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies and the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked that the driveway locations be staked for the Board’s drive-by viewing. Rick Martin replied that he would have this information submitted to the Planning Department by Friday, December 16, 2005.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Right Way Builders, Inc., Subdivision and Non-Residential Site Plan Review, Condominium Conveyance, Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/29, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to January 10, 2006, at 8:00 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
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. He asked if the outstanding fees for
certified letters had been paid by the applicant. The Planning Assistant replied they had not been paid. The Coordinator noted that she had explained to the applicant’s secretary earlier that day that although the initially charged fees for certified letters had been paid once another fee for the same amount was now outstanding because certified letters to abutters needed to be resent after the As-Built plans were submitted. The Chairman asked that the meeting be adjourned to a timely date so that certified letters were not required to be sent out a third time which would generate additional fees.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of 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, to January 10, 2006, at 8:15 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
NISSITISSIT DEVELOPMENT, LLC (APPLICANT)
FREDERICK AND CELIA LORDEN, TRUSTEE, (OWNERS)
Compliance Hearing/Major Subdivision/14 Lots
Location: McCurdy Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/17, 18 & 19
Residential-Agricultural “R-A’ District
James Nordstrom stated that he had viewed the site and believed that it met the conditions of compliance.
James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of Frederick Lorden Revocable Trust’s Major Subdivision of 14 lots on Tax Map/Lot #’s 12/17, 18 & 19, McCurdy Road, and to reduce the financial security being held for the subdivision, to $7,550.00, which will be retained for two years as a maintenance security. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
12. Discussion, Re: Apple Barn
Dave Woodbury asked if the issue regarding the terminology of the usage at the Apple Barn was now resolved. The Coordinator replied that she wished to have the Board’s assurance that the two usages listed on the amendments to the Site Plan (Retail and Personal Service Business) were acceptable and noted that the parking requirements remained unchanged by listing such uses and that changes to the exterior were no different. Bob Furey thought that the usages listed were acceptable. James Nordstrom agreed. The Board’s consensus was that the uses listed on the amended Site Plan were satisfactory. The Coordinator noted that once the documents were submitted to the Planning Department the Board could sign them.
13. A copy of a letter received December 5, 2005, from Cyndie Wilson, Secretary, New Boston Conservation Commission, to the New Boston Planning Board, Re: Indian Falls, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #12/89, and Jacqueline M. Bussiere, Tax Map/Lot #12/88, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that the above noted letter was being submitted for the Board’s review based on the Conservation’s prior request that their letter’s to the Board be acknowledged at Planning Board meetings. The Board acknowledged this letter and the fact that the Conservation Committee appeared to be successfully working with this applicant.
14. A copy of a letter received November 30, 2005, from Morgan A. Hollis, Gottesman & Hollis P.A., to Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant, Re: Major Subdivision, Waldorf Estates, Phase III, Tax Map/Lot #8/84, Foxberry Drive, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
James Nordstrom MOVED to extend the conditions subsequent to June 30, 2006, as requested in Morgan Hollis, Esq.’s letter of November 29, 2005, for the Major Subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #8/84, Foxberry Drive. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
15. A copy of a letter received December 5, 2005, from Michael J. Castagna, Plan NH to NH Planning Boards, Re: Design Assistance for New Hampshire projects, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that if Board members had any suggestions for projects they could be brought up at the next scheduled meeting.
16. A copy of a letter from Cheryl Menard-Favreau, to the State of New Hampshire, DES, Re: Dredge and Fill Permit for Albert La Chance, Tax Map/Lot #2/112-2, Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
17. A copy of a memorandum received November 23, 2005, from Southern New Hampshire Planning, to Planning Boards, Re: Developments of Regional Impact, was distributed for the Board’s information.
18. Daily road inspection reports dated October 5th, 6th and 13th of 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Susan Road, were distributed for the Board’s information.
19. Daily road inspection reports dated October 3rd, 5th, 7th, 10th and 14th of 2005, from
Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Hutchinson Road, were distributed for the Board’s information.
20. Daily road inspection reports dated October 3rd , 12th and 13th of 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Highland Hills, were distributed for the Board’s information.
21. Daily road inspection reports dated October 4th, 5th, 6th , 7th, 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th of 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Daylily Lane, were distributed for the Board’s information.
22. Discussion, Re: Emile R. Bussiere’s petition to amend the New Boston Zoning Ordinance.
Addressed with item #24.
23. Discussion, Re: Bob Huettner’s petition to amend the New Boston Zoning Ordinance.
Addressed with item #24.
24. Discussion, Re: John and Denise Neville’s petition to amend the New Boston Zoning
Ordinance.
The Coordinator explained that when such petitions were filed the Board was required to schedule a Public Hearing. The Chairman stated that the petitions noted in item #’s 22-24 would be discussed by the Board at a Public Hearing on January 10, 2005.
26. A copy of a memorandum dated December 9, 2005, from Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, to the Board, Town Administrator and the Selectmen, Re: Master Plan Meeting-Housing and Economic Development, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that she would like the Board to consider attending the above noted presentation as it would deal with topics such as housing, growth management and tax base expansion and that January 31, 2006, was a date that the Selectmen were available if the Board was in agreement. The Board agreed that they could be available on this date.
27. A copy of a letter received December 8, 2005, from the New Boston Conservation Commission, to the New Boston Board of Selectmen, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator suggested that it might be more appropriate for a member of the
Conservation Commission to attend Planning Board meetings as a representative of the Commission rather than becoming a Planning Board member as the above noted letter inferred. The Board agreed. The Coordinator added that she felt there had been a miscommunication between the Planning Board and Conservation Commission who felt that the Board was not working well with them. The Coordinator stated that this was the second letter received by the Conservation Commission with such undertones and she thought that a response from the Board was warranted on the matter. She noted that because the Conservation Commission had written this letter to the Selectmen Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator had suggested that if a response was initiated from the Board it should be written on Selectmen letterhead. Dave Woodbury
agreed. The Chairman felt that the work the Board had done on Steep Slopes should enforce the fact that the Planning Board valued the Conservation Commission and was willing to work on their behalf.
28. Daily road inspection reports dated October 19th, November 3rd, 4th, 7th, and 9th of 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Susan Road, were distributed for the Board’s
information.
29. Daily road inspection reports dated October 18th, November 3rd of 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Highland Hills, were distributed for the Board’s
information.
30. Daily road inspection reports dated November 1st, and November 9th of 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Forest View, were distributed for the Board’s
information.
31. Daily road inspection reports dated October 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 24th, 26th, 27th, 28th, November 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 10th and 11th of 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Huthcinson Road, were distributed for the Board’s information.
32. Daily road inspection reports dated October 17th, 18th, 20th, 24th, 26th, 27th, 28th, November 1st, 2nd, 7th, 8th, 9th and 11th of 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Daylily Lane, were distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the plans previously noted earlier on the Miscellaneous Business agenda.
At 10:25 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted, Suzanne O'Brien
Recording Clerk Minutes Approved:
|