Minutes of the Planning Board
October 25, 2005
The meeting was called to order at 6.45 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, James Nordstrom, Bob Furey; ex-officio Gordon Carlstrom; 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 Bill Weston, Roger Noonan Mark Anderson, Bob Todd, LLS, Pat Panciocco, Esq., Rick Martin, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Pat Golding, Kim Burkhamer, Jay Marden, David Craig, Roger Dignard, Dick Ludders, Janet White, Ray Shea, Scott and Robyn Elliot, William Lambert and his sister, Susan Woodward, Brandy Mitroff and Sara Hogan.
Discussion with Bill Weston-Chairman of Steep Slopes Committee
Bill Weston stated that the Steep Slopes Committee had done a lot of work regarding the Planning Board’s agreement five months prior with the Committee’s suggestion to take Steep Slope regulations from the Zoning Ordinance and see how they could be incorporated into the Planning Board’s Subdivision and Site Plan Regulations. He noted that an area of conflict recently encountered dealt with the fact that there was nothing in the Zoning Ordinance that defined dimensions or restrictions on Steep Slopes, therefore, there was nothing that could legally make a requirement for such a zone. Bill Weston stated that although it was not the intent of the Committee at the outset the current proposal was that Steep Slopes be removed from the Zoning Ordinance and the
restrictions of that zoning would be placed within the Planning Board’s regulations. He noted that the Committee now sought the Planning Boards opinion on this solution. James Nordstrom asked if this meant that the current Zoning Ordinance regarding Steep Slopes would need to be repealed. Bill Weston replied that would be the case and in turn a number of changes would need to be adopted into the Subdivision and Site Plan Regulations to replace what had been in the Zoning Ordinance. The Chairman asked if the reasoning behind this proposal was due to the fact that the Zoning Ordinance was currently too involved or if it was not working as intended. He noted that two applicants had successfully completed the application process by applying the Steep Slopes Ordinance to their plans since it was voted in by the Town. He asked if the Committee felt that by keeping the Ordinance in place as it was currently if it would not accomplish the tasks for
which it was intended. Bill Weston replied that he felt the Ordinance did accomplish those tasks and that its original intent was to protect against erosion on steep slopes, however, the restrictions of the Ordinance had been interpreted by some opponents as a “taking” of land by the Town. He added that what the Committee had since put together addressed these issues better and resulted in fewer “side effects”.
Bill Weston stated that if a proposal to eliminate the Steep Slopes Ordinance from Zoning did not pass a Town vote then no changes to the Subdivision or Site Plan Regulations would occur and what was in place now would remain. Bob Furey questioned why a measure of defining Steep Slopes could not be put into Zoning. Bill Weston replied that the Planning Coordinator had noted to the Committee that zones need setback dimensions and delineations and since the Ordinance would only define a Steep Slopes zone with no stipulations on what could or could not be done in that zone, there was, for example, no basis to use if an applicant wished to seek a variance.
Douglas Hill asked what the Steep Slopes Committee recommended at this point. Bill Weston replied that the Committee recommended that the Steep Slopes be removed from Zoning and incorporated into the Planning Board’s Regulations, however, they were concerned that if such a proposal did not pass a vote then nothing would be changed. Douglas Hill clarified that the Steep Slopes would accomplish the same things in the Planning Board’s regulations that they would have in Zoning if the recommendations of the Committee were instituted. The Chairman stated that in his experience on the Board, Board members found it helpful to have reference language available in support of their preferences when dealing with applicants. He asked how this could be accomplished if
the Steep Slopes were removed from the Zoning Ordinance. Bill Weston replied that the Board would be able to reference the same restrictions intended by the Steep Slopes Ordinance, however, they would appear in an expanded version in the Site Plan and Subdivision Regulations. The Chairman asked how these Regulations would be changed. The Coordinator replied that they would be able to have changes adopted through the Planning Board and a public hearing(s).
The Chairman stated that he would like to review the proposals of the Committee in comparison to how the Steep Slopes were reflected currently within Zoning and compare the differences and advantages of the two options. Bill Weston stated that he would submit copies of the current Regulations at a subsequent meeting and highlight the changes to language that their proposal would make.
James Nordstrom stated that he was concerned about how the voters would perceive the intentions of the Board as they had recommended the Warrant Article for Steep Slopes and would now be considering repealing that Article which had been passed very recently. The Chairman noted that it would be helpful if the Board could show how the adoption of the Steep Slopes into its rules and procedures rather than have it remain in Zoning would be a better option for the Town. Bill Weston stated that the Committee had discussed this issue and if this scenario came to pass they would work on instituting an education campaign to better explain the proposal to the public. Douglas Hill thought this was a great idea and stated that he would like to see publicity for other Town issues
handled in the same manner.
DONALD E. GARRETSON (APPLICANT/OWNER) Adjourned from 9/27/05
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC., RICK MARTIN (APPLICANT)
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/20 Lots
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 52
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, Pat Panciocco, Esq., and the applicant, Rick Martin. Abutters and interested parties present were Pat Golding, Kim Burkhamer, Jay Marden, Mark Anderson and Roch Larochelle.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that since the last meeting with the Board the documents had been added to the application file regarding bond estimates for construction costs and corrections had been made to the plan that reflected the wishes of the Piscataquog River Local Advisory Committee as reflected in the Site Specific application and permit. He recalled to the Board that because the CUP plans indicated that the driveways were going to be challenging the applicant had suggested changes in the driveway alignment for three proposed lots as he did not want to cut into steep slopes to provide access. Bob Todd, LLS, added that a common driveway had been proposed to serve 4 of the units and this had been an issue with the Board who did not want more than three residences served by one
driveway. He referred to a prior plan design that showed the extent of impact to Steep Slopes if each unit was serviced by its own driveway and noted that by altering this design slightly where three units were served by one driveway, a fourth unit in the middle by a single driveway off the shared driveway to the fifth and sixth units. Gordon Carlstrom asked why the middle unit was proposed to have a single driveway. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this was proposed to avoid accessing it by Steep Slopes. Rick Martin added that he also was trying to comply with the Town’s requirement that not more than three units be serviced by one driveway. Bob Furey asked if each cluster comprised two units. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that was correct and that there were a total of six units in this portion of the site. Douglas Hill thought that the driveway to the middle unit seemed to be poor planning. Bob Todd, LLS, asked what Zoning requirement
stated that no more than three dwelling units could be serviced by one driveway. The Coordinator clarified that this issue was more of a Selectmen item than a Zoning item as Gordon Carlstrom had mentioned at a previous meeting that the Numbering Ordinance had recently gone into effect and stated that more than three or more units on a driveway would make that driveway a road. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the Board’s concern at a prior meeting with the applicant regarded having six units serviced by one driveway, however, four units with one drive and two units with another should be more palatable. Gordon Carlstrom noted that at the previous meeting the applicant had combined access to a cluster with four units on the right and two on the left and that switching that order in the revised plan seemed more sensible. He added that proposing a driveway which would curve to the right and then turn left to access the middle unit seemed inappropriate. Bob
Todd, LLS, noted that if four units could be serviced by a shared driveway and two by another then it would allow for continuous vegetation between the two areas. The Chairman asked if four units serviced by one driveway would make the driveway a road. Gordon Carlstrom did not think this would be the case as the four units would be comprised of two structures with “A” and “B” extensions added to their address number. The Chairman felt that the applicant’s return to the Board with what he believed were bizarre design proposals only served to waste the Board’s time. He added that he felt a simpler approach was warranted in the design of the plan. Bob Todd, LLS, felt that this proposal of how to distribute the driveways for this portion of the plan seemed to be a reasonable approach to their design. He added that the applicant had returned for discussion with the Board many times in order to obtain their feedback and
move forward. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he felt the applicant had addressed the concerns of the Board to this point in the process and asked if it was the Board’s consensus that the driveway design to the units without the middle access seemed reasonable. He noted that a lot of effort had been put forth by the applicant given the constraints of the site and he felt the proposed plan would be the greenest development the Town would have. The Chairman stated that he did not see the difference in defining four units. Gordon Carlstrom clarified that if the structures were duplexes versus condexes the scenario of four separate units would apply. The Chairman asked if such a scenario existed presently in the Town. Kim Burkhamer noted that two duplexes with a long shared driveway existed on Beard Road. Gordon Carlstrom stated that John Bunting had been involved in the recent addressing issue which led to the Numbering Ordinance. He
noted that in Concord, NH, the passing of a numbering ordinance and its limitation on the number of houses that could be on shared driveways before that driveway was considered a road had resulted in twenty new roads in the town.
Interested party, Mark Anderson stated that it appeared that the Board was unsure of the legalities regarding driveways becoming roads and added that there should be no gray areas present as there were in this issue. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the only legality he knew of in similar scenarios was that fire protection regulations would come into play when more than three units existed on a road and a higher road standard for emergency access would be required. The Coordinator asked Gordon Carlstrom if he could confirm the stipulations that were presented by the Numbering Ordinance for the next meeting. Gordon Carlstrom replied that he would.
Jay Marden wished to note that he had built and owned the two residences on Beard Road that shared a driveway because it was deemed that having one access was better for the design and the Board had no regulations to require anything contrary to that choice at the time of that plan. He noted that the properties had originally been owned by the same party until two or three years ago and now there was an issue as to who would plow and maintain the driveway which he felt presented a similar scenario as to what could occur in the proposed condex development if shared driveways were constructed. The Chairman asked Gordon Carlstrom how the proposed condex units would be numbered if they were on a shared driveway. Gordon Carlstrom replied that an example of numbering for a
structure within the same physical envelope would be “1A” and “1B”. The Chairman felt that whether the structures were condexes or duplexes each unit would be under separate ownership and he did not believe that the Fire Department would condone, nor would the Board normally allow, four residences off of one driveway. Bob Furey thought that the Board’s concern dealt with the issue of emergency response for the Fire Department. The Chairman noted that this scenario was similar to the Board allowing a subdivision to have a long private drive with four homes off a 1,000 foot cul-de-sac. Gordon Carlstrom believed that the scenario presented by the applicant served two lots. The Chairman believed that in theory it was four and that two units, not four would better meet the intent of the Board. The Coordinator noted that the Board was not afforded the consideration of the number of units as RA lots could be single or
two family dwellings. She added that during subdivision a builder was not required to inform the Board which option he wanted and this information was usually divulged at the time the applicant applied for a Building Permit to the lot. She added that knowing this information earlier in the application process had never presented an issue in the past. The Chairman noted that the applicant’s issue did not deal with common curb cuts. The Coordinator replied that this was something the Board could consider.
Mark Anderson returned to the subject of the Fire Department and noted that the scenario was different when, for example, an apartment building was owned by one party who maintained the driveway. He added that in the applicant’s case there could be four separate owners sharing the maintenance responsibilities of one driveway and that was the issue he was concerned about.
Jay Marden asked if there were other areas within the proposed subdivision that had similar issues or if this was the only section. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the area of discussion was the only place where the subdivision would impact Steep Slopes with the proposed driveways to the lots and the only place with two units per driveway. Rick Martin noted that they could just as easily have single driveways to each unit in this area, however, he was attempting to minimize impacts to existing slopes and work with the land. The Chairman questioned if the lots were appropriate for building given the presence of Steep Slopes. Rick Martin replied that the slopes were in the acceptable range of 15% which allowed for construction and the proposed driveways would be at a
maximum 10% grade. He added that if the Board had a different opinion as to how he should approach the driveway issue he would appreciate their direction on the subject as he had come back before the Board many times with the application for their input. The Chairman stated that he would prefer to see single driveways to each unit.
Don Duhaime asked how many condexes were proposed on the initial plan. Rick Martin replied that 28 condexes were proposed, however, he had lost many of those lots due to the restrictions of the Steep Slope Ordinance. He reiterated that the current lots proposed met the requirements of the Steep Slopes Ordinance as they were on slopes no greater than 15% with proposed driveways of a maximum 10% grade. The Chairman noted that if the proposed driveways could not be designed at grades of 10% or less then according to the Driveway Regulations a lot would not exist.
Don Duhaime stated that he did not like the shared driveway design and would prefer to see single driveways on the plan. James Nordstrom noted that from a usage standpoint single driveways were a better option, however, from the environmental standpoint the applicant’s proposed design with shared driveways was a better situation. He further clarified that the applicant was seeking acceptance of the application this evening and the driveway issue had no bearing on whether or not acceptance should be granted. The Chairman asked if the plan could progress if a single driveway design was proposed. James Nordstrom replied that a single driveway design would mean that the applicant had to gain a CUP to construct the driveways in the area of the Steep Slopes and
obtaining a CUP was not guaranteed. The Chairman clarified that the applicant would need to secure a CUP before the plan could be approved by the Board. James Nordstrom noted that the Board had allowed common driveways in the past for plans in order that wetland crossings could be avoided, however, the applicant was required to obtain a Dredge and Fill Permit, therefore, the preferences of the Board regarding the issues of this plan might not be relevant in the larger scheme of things. Gordon Carlstrom agreed that many bigger issues existed on the plan than the three lots that had been the topic of discussion this evening. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the applicant had applied for a CUP but it had not yet been reviewed. James Nordstrom stated that he could appreciate the fact that the applicant wanted the Board’s input on design issues, however, the bigger issue this evening was the status of the application. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that
he felt the Board had offered good discussion and guidance this
evening and the applicant would move forward with those opinions in mind.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, asked if the application could be considered for the status of completeness this evening. Pat Panciocco, Esq., noted that this was also her question. She stated that the application originally proposed a cluster design and had evolved into a 20 lot subdivision with permitted use for duplex homes on individual lots. Pat Panciocco, Esq., added that three non-buildable lots had voluntarily been included into the subdivision as open space. She stated that in her opinion the applicant had met the requirements necessary to have the application accepted as complete by the Board and if so it would then be the applicant’s burden to show that access to the lots of the proposed subdivision was possible under the stipulations of the Subdivision and
Driveway Regulations. Pat Panciocco, Esq., added that if the applicant was unable to meet that burden and the Board was unable to grant waivers against it then this would be understood, however, the application sought a motion for completeness this evening so that the process could move forward. The Coordinator noted to the Board that they needed to consider a waiver submitted by the applicant for the submittal time of the Stormwater Management Plan.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waiver request for Donald E. Garretson (Applicant/Owner), and Right Way Builders, Inc., Rick Martin (Applicant), for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan where the applicant has agreed to supply same as the individual Site Plans are prepared. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Donald E. Garretson (Applicant/Owner), and Right Way Builders, Inc., Rick Martin (Applicant), Major Subdivision, 20 Lots, Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 52, Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, then stated that the road plans had been submitted to Dufresne-Henry, Inc. for review which generated the review letter of August 29, 2005, containing their initial comments on the plan and 36 items for the applicant’s review. He added that these items had been addressed although the applicant had not yet forwarded their responses back to Dufresne-Henry, Inc. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that there was ongoing discussion between the Town Engineer and the applicant regarding issues surrounding the proposed improvements to Beard Road. He noted the area of the plan that showed the proposed road networks and gradings and added that the first entrance off Beard Road into the proposed subdivision had no issues. He further added that the
secondary entrance which had been determined necessary at prior meetings did have issues to address such as having to work within an existing 50 foot right-of-way. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that sight distance at this entrance would be a problem and Beard Road already had sight distance issues due to an existing hump in the road near that proposed
entrance. He further noted that the applicant would like to improve the existing hump on Beard Road at that location in order to comply with the existing standards for sight distance and that the worst case scenario would involve Beard Road being cut down 3.8 feet and requiring steep side slopes. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, added that efforts were being made by the applicant to obtain and/or trade property in anticipation of making these improvements. He added that they hoped to work with the existing stone walls and also proposed a 1:2 slope shale/ledge embankment that would serve as a retaining wall which would allow the road to be dropped approximately four feet in the area of question. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that by doing so sight distance and drainage would improve, however, the cross-sectional requirements of
the Town would be challenged unless the applicant could acquire land outside of the existing right-of-way.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that if no improvements were proposed for Beard Road the sight distance in the area near the intersection of the proposed subdivision would be 165 feet. He explained that a measure commonly used to determine sight distance for a vehicle when entering onto a road is how far back that vehicle sits from the roadway. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that an AASHTO standard suggested 14.5 feet, while the New Hampshire Regulations for Highways and Bridges suggested ten feet. He noted that if a ten foot setback was suggested at the intersection of the proposed subdivision and Beard Road it would enhance sight distance. He further noted that the measures of 300 to 400 feet of sight distance for driveways was being assumed as the minimum
proper sight distance for safety which he felt was a misunderstood measure. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, explained that a safe stopping distance was based on factors of speed and reaction time. He noted that a 35 m.p.h. road required 165 feet of safe stopping distance which was far less than the Board was requiring and read several phrases from AASHTO: “…to achieve better traffic operations so that vehicles on controlled approaches do not need to stop or slow substantially to accommodate entering or crossing vehicles… intersection sight distance that exceeds stopping sight distances are desirable along the uncontrolled approaches….intersection sight distance that exceeds stopping sight distances are intended to enhance traffic operation but are not minimum design criteria that are essential to safety.” Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that based on AASHTO theory the stopping distance on the section of Beard Road near the
second entrance to the proposed subdivision was adequate without the applicant doing any improvements, therefore, any additional improvements to the sight distance could be considered an enhancement. He stated that the line of sight would be compromised if two foot snow banks were present on either side of the road and 14.5 foot setbacks were utilized, however, using 10 foot setbacks would aid that situation.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, summarized that he hoped that the Board’s decision on sight distance requirements on the proposed improved section of Beard Road would be based on good information. He noted that the Road Committee had submitted letters of recommendation to the Board that stated if full side slopes could not be offered on either side of the road improvements
then the improvements were not justified which he disagreed with.
Pat Golding asked what section of Beard Road on the plan was proposed to be lowered. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that that the section of road proposed for that improvement was Section AA on the plan. Pat Golding noted that Mr. Clapp’s driveway was off that section of Beard Road and asked what the case would be if he did not wish to have it impacted by these
improvements. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that because the entrance portion to the driveway was considered the Town’s right-of-way that portion of Mr. Clapp’s driveway could be legally lowered by the applicant. He added that the Road Agent had agreed with the proposed cross sections for the road’s improvements in that location. Pat Golding asked where the run-off would divert to off Beard Road once the improvements were made. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that the run-off would be ditched which was outlined in the rights of drainage easements. He added that no cross culverts were proposed. Rick Martin noted that the run-off from the proposed subdivision’s road would divert to a manhole. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, added that the water run-off from the proposed
subdivision road would be back-drained and treated on site, therefore, there would be no added drainage from the subdivision’s road onto Beard Road. Rick Martin noted that with the proposed improvements the current drainage scenario on Beard Road should be improved in the section discussed.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, submitted photos to the Board of a recent job he had done in Bedford, NH, that required 1:1 slopes. He added that the distance from the centerline of the road to the base of an existing stone wall was seven feet, a measure that was within six inches of the applicant’s cross section criteria. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, further added that the Bedford, NH, project did not have the luxury of the existing ledge present on Beard Road which would serve as a stabilized embankment.
Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, asked if a Traffic Impact Study had been done for the plan. Rick Martin replied that a Traffic Impact Study had been done nine months prior. Roch Larochelle asked what amount of traffic would be added to Beard Road as a result of the proposed subdivision. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that the number was in the Traffic Study report which he did not have available this evening. He noted that the approximate increase in traffic should be roughly ten times the number of units in the proposed subdivision. Roch Larochelle stated that the existing traffic volume on Beard Road was approximately 400 cars per day and the applicant was proposing an addition of 250-260 car trips per day from the subdivision. He added that he
believed the regulations Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, had referenced were based on a road with traffic of 400 cars or less and using relaxed standards. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that this was not the case. Roch Larochelle stated that Beard Road already had deficiencies including sight distance and as the applicant proposed to add more traffic improvements should be required including justification of improvements for all-season sight distance. He stated that he assumed the Bedford, NH project example given by Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, had two to four foot shoulders. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that in his example there was 24 feet of pavement width and the road curved to the right to avoid a ditch by having the drainage run to the edge of the road for 200 feet and off a curb to an existing road’s ditchline. Roch Larochelle asked about the maintenance of Beard Road regarding plowing and snow storage in the section of the proposed improvement. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied
that plowing and snow storage would be significantly enhanced as the proposed improvements would involve widening Beard Road. Roch Larochelle wondered if the Town should be willing to accept reduced road standards for the proposed improvements because the required cross sections could not fit properly within the limits of the existing stone wall.
The Board determined that a site walk of the site and the area of proposed road improvements should be conducted and that the Selectmen and the Road Agent should accompany the Board. The Coordinator asked if the centerline of the proposed road was staked and if the wetlands were properly flagged. Rick Martin replied that this was done a long time ago and he would confirm that the markings were still intact. A site walk was scheduled for Saturday, November 5, 2005, at 8:30 a.m.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Donald E. Garretson (Applicant/Owner), and Right Way Builders, Inc., Rick Martin (Applicant), Major Subdivision, 20 Lots, Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 52, Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, to November 22, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
NORTHERN SKY HOLDINGS by Adjourned from 10/11/05
DAVID CRAIG, MANAGER
Compliance Hearing/NRSPR/Law Office & Professional OFFICES
Location: 5 River Road
Tax Map/Lot #18/8
Commercial “COM” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. Present in the audience was David Craig, manager of Northern Sky Holdings. No abutters or interested parties were present.
The Chairman stated that the applicant had revised his plan to remove the trees as they were not required per the landscaping calculations done by Bob Todd, LLS. James Nordstrom added that the exterior lighting appeared to be adequate. Don Duhaime noted that there was no lighting on the wheel chair ramp to the first floor office. David Craig noted that a switch light was existing in this location at the time he purchased the property and that it was not turned on at the time of the compliance site walk by the Board. He added that he felt adding a second light in that location would be redundant. The Chairman felt that less lighting in that area was an asset to the plan and that Mr. Craig’s clients would dictate what was necessary, noting that he did not think clients in wheelchairs
would be visiting the office at night but if that was the case the ramp could be efficiently navigated. He added that if lighting did become an issue he felt that Mr. Craig had been educated on what the Board viewed as acceptable lighting. The Chairman stated that the criteria dictated by the plan had been satisfactorily met.
David Craig wished to note that before the initial compliance site walk he had been under the impression that his electrician had installed the exterior lighting required by the Board and
when that was found not to be the case the issue was immediately corrected.
James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm that Northern Sky Holdings, LLC, by David Craig, has complied with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan to operate a law office and professional offices from 1,940 s.f. of the existing building on
Tax Map/Lot #18/8, NH Route 13 a/k/a 5 River Road and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
DIGNARD, ROGER
Compliance Hearing/NRSPR/Architectural Home Office
Location: 146 South Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #13/50
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant, Roger Dignard. No abutters or interested parties were present
Douglas Hill stated that he viewed the site and saw no issues. The Chairman stated that the plan had been satisfactorily modified and Mr. Dignard appeared to be in compliance of his Site Plan, including the installation of his on-site directional signage.
James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm that Roger Dignard has complied with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan to operate an architectural home business from 1,056 s.f. of his home on Tax Map/Lot #13/50, South Hill Road and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
This will be a discussion with Dick Ludders and Janet White from the Piscataquog River Local Advisory Committee regarding application review process.
Janet White stated that it was the Piscataquog River Local Advisory Committee’s (PRLAC) wish to inform the Planning Board of their agenda and to discuss how they would like to work with the Board and local developers regarding how impacts to the Piscataquog River could be better avoided. Dick Ludders stated that he would submit a copy of the Piscataquog River Management Plan to the Board and explained that the PRLAC was created under RSA 483 because State legislation directed that such a committee should be established for towns in a watershed for a river designated under RSA 483 such as the Piscataquog River. He noted that the River Management Plan, dated 2000, had been accepted by the planning boards and towns involved including New Boston and was a very good resource. Dick Ludders noted that a
brochure with extracts from the River Management Plan was put together with the aid of the SNHPC and offered information regarding how to use best management practices to protect the
River and why that was an important issue. He added that he would supply the Board with copies which would be useful when the Board met with developers who proposed plans within a certain proximity of the Piscataquog. Dick Ludders stated that the Local Advisory Committee met once a month and reviewed plans forwarded by DES that dealt with areas within the corridor of the River that could cause impacts. He noted that the Committee thought that it would be a more proactive stance to supply the Board with their brochure in the hopes that some impact issues could be avoided earlier in the plan process.
Dick Ludders stated that Janet White was a new member and the New Boston representative of the PRLAC who was available to the Board if they ever had questions. He added that the PRLAC would be pleased to work with them if they ever needed them as a resource.
James Nordstrom asked if the entire section of the Piscataquog River that ran through New Boston was protected under RSA 483 or if there were certain sections that were not protected. Dick Ludders replied that the north branch, the middle and south branches to the Merrimack River in Manchester, NH were designated as protected under RSA 483, however, there were sections that were classified differently and not covered by the Shoreland Protection Act. He noted that there were times when development was proposed along the corridors of such rivers and if wetlands were not involved the LAC would not be notified, therefore they would depend on planning boards or other notifications to obtain those plans. Dick Ludders added that their reviews dealt with the drainage, erosion and impacting issues to rivers and
not planning board items.
Bob Furey thought that the brochure was very well done. He noted that some development proposals near the Piscataquog River had recently come before the Board and he asked if the PRLAC had information that supported the fact that clear cutting trees within 500 feet of the river would cause impacts. He added that the Board sought to remind developers of Steep Slopes and the impacts of sand and salt near rivers. Dick Ludders replied that information supporting the impacts of clear cutting in a river corridor were not in the brochure but were contained in the River Management Plan which offered more explanation that supported the issues of erosion, invasive species, fish habitats and a list of animals that could be affected. He added that while the brochure provided summarized best management
practices the PRLAC was a resource for such information and there were members of the LAC that specialized in different topics. Dick Ludders further added that the DES was another good resource.
From the audience, Jay Marden asked what sanctions or preventatives could be inflicted on a landowner or developer by the PRLAC if they violated any of the suggestions contained in their documentation. Dick Ludders replied that there were none as they were only an advisory committee whose power was persuasion. He explained that the PRLAC commented on plans which the NHDES then incorporated into their comments. Jay Marden asked how strict the enforcement tactics of the DES were. Dick Ludders replied that fines could be issued that reached into the thousands of dollars. Janet White noted that a local developer had recently been fined $225K of which the PWA received $60K. Gordon Carlstrom added that the particular developer was required to donate land in Raymond, NH, as part of the fine. Jay Marden asked who the contact person(s) was regarding enforcement issues. Dick Ludders replied that a contact was Ridge Mauck for Site Specific or Amy Clark who dealt with wetland issues.
He added that these individuals were responsible for visiting sites and addressing issues.
Bob Furey compared the terminology of RSA 483: “…for inland areas defined as the area within 250 feet of the reference line…” and the PRLAC: “…increased efforts to avoid impacts to the river and use the best management practices when developing within a quarter mile of the river…” and asked the reason for the difference in measurement. Dick Ludders replied that RSA 483 dealt with a quarter mile of protection on either side of the river plus the width of the river while the Shoreland Protection Act (SPA) required a 250 foot setback. The Coordinator clarified that in New Boston, the Shoreland Protection Act applied to the area of the Piscataquog River from Gregg Mill Road (the confluence of the south and middle branches of the
Piscataquog River) to the Goffstown, NH, line. James Nordstrom noted that this was the basis of his original question where there was a significant portion of the Piscataquog River in New Boston that was not covered under the Shoreland Protection Act. Dick Ludders stated that the Lull Road development proposal raised the issue of whether certain areas of the middle branch of the Piscataquog River should be afforded coverage under the Shoreland Protection Act as the location of the proposed development was behind a dam. James Nordstrom wondered if the presence of the Shoreland Protection Act on certain areas of the River would make a difference in how the Board viewed certain applications. He added that in his opinion it should not make a difference. Dick Ludders noted that in many ways protection of the River dealt with common sense topics such as sedimentation and development buffers, however, the brochure provided information about laws such as the
Shoreland Protection Act and other factors that could come into play. He noted that the Board, as a local entity, could apply the Shoreland Protection Act with a local ordinance voted on by the Town where voters could decide if all parts of the River should be protected. Dick Ludders added that such a vote recently passed for all water bodies in the town of Deering, NH. Gordon Carlstrom asked if certain areas of land along the River could be delimited if desired. Dick Ludders replied that if the Shoreland Protection Act was extended the Town could set the criteria.
Dick Ludders stated that another issue involved sludge and the top dressing of sludge which had been discussed at the State level but considered to be necessary at local levels. He noted that the towns of Deering and New Boston already had sludge restrictions in place within 250 feet of rivers. Douglas Hill asked Dick Ludders to define the term “sludge”. Dick Ludders replied that sludge was the resulting residue from waste water treatment but not qualified as agricultural manure. He added that some farm operations used sludge as fertilizer, however, the scientific support of what comprised sludge was not fully known as it could contain heavy metals, etc. He noted that this was an example of the type of awareness the PRLAC sought to raise along with the levels of protection
afforded to towns as at the State level they were trying to reduce the setback from designated rivers from 250 feet to 50 feet. Dick Ludders stated that he was unsure of what the Town ordinance on sludge set for restrictions, however, if the Board found it to be insufficient the PRLAC had a model ordinance that could be used as a template for revising it. Gordon Carlstrom did not think that New Boston had any ordinances regarding this matter.
Jay Marden asked if PRLAC’s brochure clarified that there was no protection
mechanism above the Shoreland Protection Act for sections of the River that did not have that status. Dick Ludders replied that best management practices as dictated by the DES and RSA 483 were in place and that the Town would need to determine if areas not protected by the Shoreland Protection Act such as the middle branch of the Piscataquog River should be afforded that classification.
ELLIOTT, SCOTT C. & ROBYN A.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: Pine Echo and Tucker Mill Roads
Tax Map/Lot #5/5-1 & 5/5-2
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Ray Shea of Sandford Survey and Engineering and the applicants, Scott and Robyn Elliott. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Ray Shea stated that the applicants proposed a lot line adjustment between two existing properties located at the corner of Tucker Mill and Pine Echo Roads. He noted that one lot was 2.1 acres in size and fronted on Pine Echo Road while the second lot was 2.0 acres and was on the corner of Tucker Mill Road. Ray Shea added that both lots had existing structures and that the proposal was to swap equal amounts of land with the lot line adjustment in order to accommodate a proposed addition to an existing garage on one property. He noted that the lot line adjustment would not affect the frontage or acreage of either lot, or existing septic areas and well locations. Bob Furey asked if the lots were owned separately. Ray Shea replied that the lots were under the same ownership. James
Nordstrom clarified that the lot line adjustment was being proposed because the future addition to the garage would have created a setback issue. The Chairman asked the frontage measurement on the left hand lot as one viewed the plan. Ray Shea replied that the frontage was 326 feet.
The Chairman stated that he was familiar with the property being discussed and had no issue with the lot line adjustment proposed. Ray Shea submitted a revised copy of the Subdivision Plan to the Coordinator. The Chairman noted that the waivers requested by the applicants on the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies needed to be acted upon by the Board.
Bob Furey MOVED to grant the waiver requested for Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies in the letter dated October 4, 2005, by Ray Shea of Sandford Survey and Engineering. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Bob Furey MOVED to accept the application of Scott C. and Robyn A. Elliott, Minor Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, Location: Pine Echo and Tucker Mill Roads, Tax Map/Lot #5/5-1 and 5/5-2, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Board determined that a site walk would not be necessary. James Nordstrom asked the number on driveways on Lot #5/5-2. Ray Shea replied that there was a looped access and a dirt driveway beside the existing garage. Scott Elliot explained that he and his wife had lived in a mobile home on the property while their house was being built and used the dirt driveway as an access. He added that when the house was constructed the paved loop driveway was permitted for the house. Gordon Carlstrom asked if an entrance also existed off Tucker Mill Road. Scott Elliott replied that an entrance off Tucker Mill had existed since the 1800’s and had formerly accessed a rock quarry.
Scott Elliott stated that he had building plans and new septic design plans relevant to the garage addition. He added that he had given the old garage on the property to Dan MacDonald and would be relocating it to his property. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the plan showed the existing leach field being altered. Scott Elliot replied that the leach field was not being altered as a result of the garage addition but because it was 20 years old and he thought it would be sensible to make these modifications all at once.
The Chairman noted that only one driveway to each lot was permitted. Scott Elliott noted that the dirt access road was not used as a driveway. Robyn Elliott added that the looped driveway which was paved was the main access to their house. The Chairman clarified that no additional driveways could be added to the site. Scott and Robyn Elliott replied that this was understood.
The Coordinator noted that there were waivers requested on items that were not required for lot line adjustments that the Board needed to act upon. She stated that these were checklist item #’s 35-38, 42-44, 49 and 50.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waivers on the requirements for checklist item #’s 35-38, 42-44, 49 and 50 as they were not required for this plan. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Scott and Robyn Elliott, Pine Echo and Tucker Mills Roads, such that Parcel A of 0.113 acres will be annexed from Tax Map/Lot #5/5-2 to Tax Map/Lot # 5/5-1 and Parcel B of 0.113 acres will be annexed from Tax Map/Lot #5/5-1 to Tax Map/Lot #5/5-2 resulting in no change to the existing acreage size of either lot, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDEDNT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) revised site plans that include all of the
checklist corrections and any corrections noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of the mylar for recording at the HCRD;
3. Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set, and the appropriate fee for recording same with the HCRD (if applicable);
4. Payment of any outstanding fees including the cost of recording the mylar at the HCRD.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be January 1, 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.
Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 9:00 p.m. the Planning Board took a 10 minute break.
LECLAIR, TIMOTHY AND VESSICCHIO, LYNN AND SUSANA LECLAIR REVOCABLE TRUST
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: Bedford Road
Tax Map/Lot #9/24, 9/24-1 and 9/24-12
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. No abutters or interested parties were present. In the absence of Mike Dahlberg, LLS, and the applicant the Board determined that the hearing should be adjourned.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of the Susana LeClair Revocable Trust, and Timothy LeClair and Lynn Vessicchio Minor Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, Location: Bedford Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/24, 9/24-1 and 9/24-12, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to November 22, 2005, at 8:30 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
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 the applicant William Lambert and his sister. No abutters or interested parties were present.
William Lambert stated that he proposed to construct a steel equipment storage and repair
building with three bays and three bathrooms. He noted that the measurement on the plan read 40’ by 75’, however, the correct proposed measurement was 50’ by 75’. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the proposed building would be comprised of office condominiums which were to be rented to separate individuals. William Lambert replied that was the case. He added that he
wished to use the unit on the right of the plan for his landscape supply, rent the middle unit to a granite supply company, and use the left unit for J&W Excavation which was his business. The Chairman asked if retail sales were proposed out of proposed shop space or if they would be handled out of the landscape yard. William Lambert replied that the landscape supply unit which as proposed to be located in the right hand unit would accommodate the retail sales. He noted that the two bays would remain closed until after hours when he would do equipment repairs as he would not be on site during the day.
James Nordstrom asked why the existing leach field was located on the upper slope of the site. Will Lambert replied that this was the only location for it as locating on the lower plateau would have taken up space in the contractors yard. He noted the location of the pump station for the leach field on the upper slope. James Nordstrom asked how the drainage situation was performing. Will Lambert replied that it was going well and that he had addressed some areas. He noted that the drainage shedded off to the left side of the site and eventually across NH Route 114. James Nordstrom recalled that the applicant had drainage issues in the past with run-off from Hemlock Drive. William Lambert replied that was correct and noted two areas on the plan that had been rerouted. He
added that the drainage now ran to a catch basin and headed away from the building. The Chairman clarified that certain material piles had been moved away from the runoff route such as the loam and stone piles.
The Coordinator noted that the applicant had stated that he would do repairs in the bays after hours, however, his hours of operation were listed on the Plan as between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. William Lambert stated that repairs would cease at 8:00 p.m. The Coordinator noted that the proposed building on the plan showed exterior lighting, however, note #11 stated there were no proposed lights, therefore, a revision to one of these items was needed. James Nordstrom added that the building footprint measurement also needed to be corrected on the plan. He asked if the outstanding fees were still due. The Coordinator replied they were. William Lambert then submitted a check for the outstanding fees to the Board.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of William Lambert, Major Site Plan, NRSPR, Equipment Storage & Repair Building, Location: Hemlock Drive & NH Route 114, Tax Map/Lot #3/52-26, Commercial “COM” District, as complete. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill asked if there were any designated parking spaces on the plan. William Lambert replied there were not. He noted that the business accommodated drive-in and drive-out traffic. Douglas Hill asked where employees parked. William Lambert replied that employees parked on the upper plateau of the site. Gordon Carlstrom asked if there were delineated fire lanes on site. The Coordinator replied that the Fire Department had not forwarded any comments. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the granite business noted for one unit would be a showroom or a warehouse. William Lambert replied that some carved granite items such as
mailbox posts, birdbaths, etc., would be available for purchase outside of the building and would be paid for at the building. Gordon Carlstrom stated that designated parking should be on the plan. The Chairman noted that there were parking spaces at the front entrance of the site and at the existing seasonal office trailer. He stated that the parking spaces at the road should be removed and placed at the proposed building.
Will Lambert stated that although Mike Dahlberg, LLS, had not added it to the plan there would be a fenced area for parking spaces of business trucks. Douglas Hill noted that all items proposed for the plan needed to be on the plan unless the applicant wanted to come before the Board every time the applicant wished to modify something. William Lambert stated that he preferred to modify his site in steps and assumed that he would return to the Board with amendments over time. Gordon Carlstrom reiterated that customer parking spaces would need to be designated on the plan. The Coordinator noted that one parking space was required for every 300 s.f. The Chairman asked how many parking spaces were currently on site. Will Lambert replied that although they were not formally designated he
had approximately three parking spaces currently. The Chairman stated that these should be added to the plan. James Nordstrom added that the plan should also indicate employee parking spaces in the upper lot.
William Lambert asked what the next step in the application process involved. Gordon Carlstrom replied that William Lambert would need to schedule another meeting with the Board once the revisions were made to the plan. Will Lambert asked how soon he could meet again with the Board as he was supposed to have ordered the new proposed building one month ago. Douglas Hill asked if the septic design had been sent to the State for approval. William Lambert replied that it had been. Douglas Hill asked if there was an existing well on site. William Lambert replied that there was and noted its location on the plan. James Nordstrom noted that the plan should be revised to reflect the existing well as it currently showed a proposed well. The Chairman stated that the applicant should
coordinate with the Planning Coordinator regarding her review of the revisions discussed tonight. The Coordinator explained to the applicant that the plan must be approved before a Building Permit could be obtained and that the construction must be completed according to the plan before a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is issued. William Lambert asked if the Board would be willing to grant him an exception so that he could begin operating his business before the plan was approved. Gordon Carlstrom replied that this was not an option. The Coordinator added that Mr. Lambert could speak with the Building Inspector ahead of time so that he could address any items required by him by the time the Board approved the plan. Douglas Hill noted that the applicant could not secure a Building Permit until the septic design was approved by the State. William Lambert asked if he was required to have bathrooms on the plan based on the usage as he did not plan on
installing the septic system now. Douglas Hill replied that that was a question for the Building Inspector. Gordon Carlstrom cautioned the applicant that whatever was on the plan at the time of the approval would need to be completed on site in order to get a CO. The Chairman noted that if the applicant’s business became more than a seasonal operation in the future and he wished to add office space to the building then bathrooms would be required
William Lambert asked if a special permit was required to sell road salt. Gordon Carlstrom replied that he believed a seasonal storage shed would be required. The Coordinator suggested that the applicant include temporary salt bins on his plan. Will Lambert asked if he would need to come before the Board in the event that he wished to extend any salt bins he might add to his business. The Chairman clarified that the applicant might periodically be required to come before the Board with amendments to his Site Plan as the landscaping business grew and evolved. James Nordstrom noted that an applicant should not substantially change their site without amending their Site Plan.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of William Lambert, Major Site Plan, NRSPR, Equipment Storage & Repair Building, Location: Hemlock Drive & NH Route 114, Tax Map/Lot #3/52-26, Commercial “COM” District, to November 8, 2005, at 9:45 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 2005
22. A copy of a letter dated October 24, 2005, from Susan and Frank Woodward, to the Board, Re: Greenfield Road construction, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Susan Woodward was present for this item. The Chairman recalled that the road width agreed upon for the Greenfield Road improvements was 20 feet paved and thought that this was proposed so that there would be minimum impacts to existing trees and stonewalls. He questioned why the trees were then cut down along the roadside at the Woodward’s property when the intent was to improve drainage and save existing daylily vegetation. The Chairman also wondered if the water runoff that was now pooling at the entrance of the Woodward’s driveway was a temporary issue or a permanent result of the recent cutting. The Coordinator explained that once the contractor began working on Greenfield Road he met with the Road Agent who went over the plan and made modifications
due to the work being done in the Town’s right-of-way. She added that the road base was currently being utilized instead of being moved nine to ten feet over per the Road Agent’s request as he felt it would be less disruptive. The Coordinator was unsure why the trees had been cut, however, Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., was due to meet with the Road Agent to discuss his modifications. The Chairman asked if the Road Agent had the authority to modify an approved plan without the Town Engineer’s review. The Coordinator replied that offsite improvements in the Town’s right-of-way were a different issue than a new road and although it could cause conflicts with the Town Engineer they saw it as the right of the Road Agent because it was a Town road, especially if his recommendations were based on lessening impacts. Bob Furey asked if the Road Agent had
asked that the right-of-way be moved or altered. The Coordinator replied that the Road Agent called for the road to remain in its existing location as he believed the drainage plan would still work. Bob Furey noted that it was doubtful that the trees were removed due to a sight distance issue. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the trees might have been removed so that their roots would not compromise ditchlines.
The Chairman asked Susan Woodward if the trees were cut from behind the existing stone wall or in front. Susan Woodward replied that the trees were cut in two areas but she first wished to discuss the topic of moving the road. She stated that Greenfield Road was currently 16 feet wide and was proposed to have four feet added on the north side, however, two feet was now being added to the south side into an existing ditch and two feet on the opposite side. Susan Woodward clarified that the plan never intended that the road be moved. The Chairman asked how many trees had been removed that directly impacted her property. Susan Woodward thought that approximately 10 trees had been removed, however, the major portion of cutting occurred in front of her property
which was across from the entrance to the new road. She noted that now she did not have any tree screening between her property and the entrance to the new subdivision. Susan Woodward stated that she did not understand the Road Agent’s role in this issue and the argument that they were now using the same road base. The Chairman stated that the Board was unsure how to answer Susan Woodward’s questions because they needed to wait for the outcome of a meeting between the Road Agent and the Town Engineer regarding the issue. Susan Woodward noted that the road packing and a culvert had already been installed, therefore, it appeared that the road was going to be modified more on the south side than the plan dictated.
Douglas Hill asked if the trees cut near Susan Woodward’s residence were on her property. Susan Woodward replied they were not and were in the Town’s right-of-way, however, the cutting had affected the rural look of the road. Bob Furey asked where the daylilies were replanted per the plan proposal. Susan Woodward replied that firstly the project was sold to a new developer who said he would be transplanting the daylilies on either side of the entrance to the new road. She added that it had been her understanding that the daylilies would be restored alongside Greenfield Road to their original density but in referencing the plan, station addresses were noted which were not even near these areas. The Chairman recalled in discussions with the applicant
that the daylilies would be replaced along the length of Greenfield Road from where they were removed in addition to the stations noted. The Coordinator stated that Todd Connors, PE, had read a note from the plan with the station addresses at the hearing at which the plan was approved. Susan Woodward stated that she was surprised by the outcome of the daylily planting as it had been a major issue of the plan. She added that there had been much discussion during site walks, Planning Board meetings, and later discussions with Reggie Houle as to where the daylilies could be stored for replanting, etc., and at no time did the topic of particular stations arise because in her opinion the developer knew that the replanting areas involved areas along the whole road. The Coordinator stated that she could only find reference to the stations read from the plan note in the minutes from the applicant’s final meeting with the Board and not any discussion that
stated the whole road would be replanted. James Nordstrom stated that he recalled that Todd Connors, PE, had identified on the plan areas that were likely to be disturbed as a result of road improvements along with areas along the road that were not intended to be impacted. Susan Woodward clarified that the resulting area of disturbance was the entire length of Greenfield Road and the major density of lilies had been at the corner of Cochran Hill to the entrance of the new road. The Chairman asked how a daylily was replanted and if it was a bulb or a seed. Susan Woodward replied that daylilies were hardy bulbs that were very easily transplanted. The Coordinator noted that initially, regardless of the plan, the developer was going to replant the entire length of the road. Since there had been some conflicts and issues with the abutters the developer now intended to abide by the note on the plan.
The Chairman stated that this issue should be considered under investigation and that the Board could remind the developer of the original intent surrounding the daylily discussions. He added that resolving the issue would not be a financial burden to the developer. The Chairman further added that the Board needed to find out where the improvements to Greenfield Road were going and if certain areas were being disturbed that were not intended to be on the plan. Susan Woodward stated that she felt these developments were a big issue and that the residents of Greenfield Road had been mislead by the developer. She noted that her neighbor Melanie Nixon now looked out onto the new road from her property which was almost at the same level as her roof. Susan Woodward further
noted that so much discussion was given to drainage considerations from the south side of the road at the time of the application and now with the changes being made to those approved proposals there now appeared to be water runoff impacting Greenfield Road from Cochran Hill Road as vegetation at that intersection had been removed.
Susan Woodward stated that the third point mentioned in her letter to her Board involved the south side of Greenfield Road and access to their barn for farm equipment. She added that the developer and her husband were not on good terms as a result of the issues at hand and they were told that the road in that location would be constructed at a steep grade. Susan Woodward added that the applicant’s engineer had mentioned the installation of a swale for icy days so that they could maneuver their driveway, however, a swale would limit the mobility of their vehicles. The Chairman stated that the Board would not allow the developer to leave a driveway in that state regarding its grade at its entrance onto the road.
Susan Woodward stated that she moved to Greenfield Road 37 years ago and it had always been considered a wet hilly area, therefore, she was concerned that due to these revamped road improvements the current drainage situation could worsen. The Chairman stated that once the Town Engineer had met with the Road Agent they would have more answers. Susan Woodward asked about the tree removal issue. The Chairman reiterated that the Board would wait for the Town Engineer’s opinions. Gordon Carlstrom suggested that Susan Woodward replant trees on her side of the existing stone wall to somewhat address this issue in the mean time.
Susan Woodward asked how she would be notified of the outcome from the Town Engineer and Road Agent’s meeting. The Chairman replied that the Planning Department would notify her when they had any new information on the subject. He explained that the Road Agent would need to justify to the Town Engineer why he suggested the changes he did. The Chairman noted that if that justification was made then the plan would need to be modified. Susan Woodward asked what the case would be if the road was improved and the drainage issues were not resolved on the south side. The Chairman replied that the Town Engineer would address that issue when she viewed the site as water on a roadway undermined the road bed and it was the
Town Engineer’s responsibility to assure that the Town’s road beds were acceptable.
Susan Woodward asked if burying stumps in wetlands or removing fill from wetlands was allowed. James Nordstrom replied that it was not. Douglas Hill was certain that the developer would not be removing fill from wetlands to build a road. He asked if the stumps were being buried or stock piled. Susan Woodward replied that she was unsure and that her husband Frank had tried to take pictures in that area, however, the developer had installed a “No Trespassing” sign.
1. Approval of minutes of September 13, 2005, with or without changes, distributed at the meeting of October 11, 2005. (No Copies)
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of September 13, 2005, as written. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. The minutes of September 27, 2005, were distributed for approval at the meeting of November 8, 2005, with or without changes.
3. Discussion: Re: amendment to New Boston Health and Wellness Center.
The Coordinator explained that the tenant that had moved into the Apple Barn needed to be classified as a “Personal Service Establishment” and that the applicant had not yet amended his Site Plan to reflect this as it currently read “Retail and Office”. She asked if a hand amendment would suffice and noted that the parking on the current Site Plan would not need to be revised with the new usage. James Nordstrom clarified that the applicant was currently in violation of their Site Plan Approval and that the conditions based on their request for septic system monitoring was supposed to be addressed on the amended plan also. The Chairman stated that he had no issue with a hand amendment as the applicant had no idea of who would be renting his space at
the time of the plan’s application. The Coordinator suggested that the plan could be amended to show the new usage and water monitoring and be stapled to the original plan. The Chairman recalled that at the time of the application the Board considered the most aggressive usage for the site as the future tenants were unknown. The Coordinator asked if the Board would act on the amendment once the revisions were received and if it needed a hearing or could be placed on the Miscellaneous Agenda. The Chairman thought that this could be handled under Miscellaneous Business.
4. Discussion: Re: extension of conditions subsequent deadline for Janet & David Nixon.
The Coordinator explained that the deadline had been extended to the end of October, 2005, for Lou Nixon’s house lot, however, work was not yet completed on the driveway, therefore, the applicants would need another extension as the Compliance Hearing was coming up. The Chairman felt that the applicants could not be compliant before June of 2006, because
nothing could be grown or stabilized in the upcoming season, therefore, he suggested an extension to that time period.
James Nordstrom MOVED to extend the Conditions Subsequent for Janet & David Nixon, Tax Map/Lot #7/58, Lyndeborough Road, to June 30, 2006. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
5. Endorsement of Site Plan Agreement for TRG Learning Center, LLC, Lynn O. Strong, 643 North Mast Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/49, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman endorsed the above noted Site Plan Agreement.
6. Driveway Permit Application for John & Natasha Benevides, 341 Twin Bridge Road, Tax Map/Lot #2/62-4, for the Board’s action. (Drive-by prior to meeting)
Douglas Hill stated that he had viewed the site. James Nordstrom stated that he also had viewed the area and did not think that there was 200 feet of distance between the two driveways. Gordon Carlstrom added that he believed a culvert would be necessary due to the water flow in that location. The Board determined that the Road Agent should confirm the distance between the driveways on the site.
7. Driveway Permit Application for Jason & Heather Frazier, Twin Bridge Road, Tax Map/Lot #’s 2/61-2, for secondary access, for the Board’s action. (Drive-by prior to meeting)
The Chairman asked if the proposed driveway had been marked for viewing. James Nordstrom replied that he noticed a small piece of flagging when he viewed the site and that the proposed area had already been cut. The Coordinator explained that when the property was subdivided in 1986, it was proposed to have the driveway to the lot in the center of the lot frontage, however, for reasons unknown it ended up being constructed to the right side of the house. She added that the owner of the duplex felt that the configuration of the driveway posed a safety hazard and that lights from cars entering to the other side of the duplex were shining into the windows on the right hand unit. The Coordinator noted that the owner proposed to add another driveway to the other side of
the lot but the issue was that 200 feet of distance did not exist between the two. James Nordstrom stated that other than the 200 foot requirement he saw no issues with the proposal. The Board determined that the applicant should be asked to evaluate alternatives such as moving the existing driveway or planting screening to shield his house from lights.
8. Driveway Permit Applications for Vista Road, LLC, Hutchinson Road, Tax Map/Lot #’s
6/40-5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14 & 5-15, for the
Board’s action. (Drive-by prior to meeting)
Douglas Hill stated that he had viewed the lots and assumed that the ones that appeared to have drop offs would be filled. James Nordstrom added that these lots always appeared questionable on paper but after viewing them he did not see how the developer could build driveways on the down slope portion of the road. Don Duhaime suggested that engineered plans be required for those lots. James Nordstrom agreed and added that he believed the driveways proposed for the remaining lots could be constructed without significant problems.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Applications for Tax Map/Lot
#’s 6/40-5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, for proposed driveways, with the Standard
Planning Board Requirements: the driveways 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 the proposed driveways for Tax Map/Lot #’s 6/40-5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14 & 5-15, will submit engineered driveway plans for review by the Board and subsequent As Built Plans. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
10. A copied article from New Hampshire Town and City, October 2005, edition was distributed for the Board’s information.
11. A copy of a letter dated October 12, 2005, from Clifton La Bree, to the New Boston Planning Board, Re: Thank you, was distributed for the Board’s information.
12. Daily road inspection reports for Vista Road, LLC, Hutchinson Lane, dated August 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 23rd, 26th and September 2nd, were distributed for the Board’s information.
13. The minutes of October 11, 2005, were distributed for approval at the meeting of November 8, 2005, with or without changes.
14. Endorsement of Condex Site Plan for Right Way Builders, Inc., Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/52-4, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Coordinator noted that because the Registry of Deeds refused to record a Condominium Site Plan without a development name this Site Plan was renamed “Condex Site Plan” even though it was only for a single lot.
Because the Site Plan required multiple signatures it was decided that the Site Plan would be endorsed at the end of the meeting.
15. Schedule a compliance site walk for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Conditional Use Permit, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-45.
A compliance site walk was scheduled for Saturday, November 5, 2005, at 9:15 a.m.
16. Schedule a compliance site walk for Paul Sizemore, Phase II & III, 150 Weare Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/29-1.
A compliance site walk was scheduled for Saturday, November 5, 2005, at 9:30 a.m.
17. Schedule a compliance site walk for Christine and Andrzej Pedzik, dog and kennel grooming facility, 762 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/20.
The Coordinator stated that the Pedziks had requested that their compliance site walk be scheduled for November 19, 2005. James Nordstrom noted that he had driven by the site and that a lot of site work still needed to be done. A compliance site walk was scheduled for Saturday, November 19, 2005, at 8:30 a.m.
18. Discussion at Bob Furey’s request, Re: Capital Reserve Fund for traffic studies for the Planning Board.
Gordon Carlstrom clarified that traffic studies would go under a Warrant Article as it would be a one time request that would not require a CRF. Don Duhaime asked if such a study would be done by SNHPC. Gordon Carlstrom replied that it could be and the Town would fund it. The Coordinator noted that although a Warrant Article for a Town-wide traffic study could be recommended by the Planning Board it was subject to the Selectmen’s timeline. Gordon Carlstrom stated that he would look into the matter. Bob Furey thought that a Town wide traffic study should be focused on Bedford, Byam and Wilson Hill Roads. Douglas Hill thought that a Town wide traffic study was a good idea. Gordon Carlstrom agreed noting that there were concerns regarding growth
and impacts on the Town.
The Coordinator explained to Bob Furey that he would need to put together his proposal with a monetary figure and a rational for his request. She added that the Board would then consider the request and if they were in favor, would forward it to the Selectmen. Gordon Carlstrom suggested that an estimate and time frame for the study could be gotten from SNHPC. Bob Furey asked when he would have to have his proposal in to the Board and if the Board would support such a proposal. The Coordinator thought that it would need to be submitted some time in November, 2005, but that she would check with Burton Reynolds. The Board’s consensus was that they would support a Town wide traffic study if it was proposed.
19. Discussion, Re: Goals for the Planning Board and Department for 2006.
Gordon Carlstrom believed that a reconciliation regarding the Steep Slopes issue was an important goal.
20. A copy of a memo dated October 25, 2005, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to the Board, Re: Planning Board Calendar and Zoning Ordinance Amendments, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Given the late hour, the Coordinator asked that the Board read and be prepared to discuss this item at the next meeting on November 8, 2005.
The Coordinator wished to make some comments regarding the Steep Slopes discussion with Bill Weston at the beginning of the meeting. She noted that his proposal meant that if the Steep Slopes Zoning Ordinance was eliminated that there would be no restrictions to building on Steep Slopes as long as an engineered plot plan was provided. She added that the reason Bill Weston was wary of this issue was because it placed the Planning Board in a precarious position politically since certain Town residents had voted in favor of the Ordinance. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the Ordinance could not remain in place as a definition of Steep Slopes and move the other restrictive portions to the Site Plan and Subdivision Regulations. The Coordinator replied that this was the issue as
a simple definition of Steep Slopes was not a Zoning District and therefore, may not belong in Zoning. Douglas Hill noted that the original intent of the Steep Slopes Ordinance was to prevent erosion control and that an applicant should have to prove to the Board that construction on Steep Slopes could be done reasonably using best engineering practices. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the Board could not be sure what was considered reasonable and unreasonable regarding building on Steep Slopes. Douglas Hill asked why the Board should instate a committee to address the Steep Slopes issue if they were going to be unhappy with the results of their research. The Coordinator replied that it was the Board’s right to either be satisfied or unsatisfied with those results and to assure that the Steep Slopes Committee did right by the Town. She added that the Zoning Ordinance had a valid public purpose and was not found to be illegal in any means. The
Coordinator noted that the issue regarded the philosophy behind what was adopted, what was in place and what was being proposed now. She further noted that under the old Ordinance every two acres in Town did not have to be built on while under the new recommendation every two acres in Town could be built on and this was what the Board needed to consider. The Coordinator stated that going to the Town with a ballot article to delete the Steep Slopes Ordinance was going to raise some eyebrows in the Town. James Nordstrom agreed that the Board’s endorsement to support and repeal the Steep Slopes Ordinance would create a bad perception.
Bob Furey asked for clarification as to why the Steep Slope Ordinance could not remain in Zoning. The Coordinator replied that the Zoning Ordinance was in place to restrict zoning of certain properties by giving lot sizing, setbacks, dimensions, etc. She added that if Steep Slopes were amended in the way the Committee suggested only a definition of it would be in Zoning and no language to allow a variance if sought would be available. Bob Furey asked why a Steep Slopes definition could not be further in Zoning. The Coordinator replied that the Committee concluded that hearing the debate from the adoption of the original Ordinance they did not think it should be as restrictive and that an engineered plan could allow for exceptions to those restrictions. She
noted that the Committee was meeting again on Thursday, October 27, 2005, if Board members were interested in attending. Gordon Carlstrom asked what Town Counsel had suggested regarding this issue. The Coordinator replied that the issue had not progressed to Town Counsel’s opinion as of yet. James Nordstrom noted that Town Counsel liked the language of the Steep Slopes Ordinance. Gordon Carlstrom stated that he felt the Ordinance was serving its purpose and should not be thrown out of Zoning. James Nordstrom noted that New Boston was not the first town to invoke a Steep Slope Ordinance and be subject to lawsuits.
21. Discussion, Re: Fire Department Capital Reserve Fund for Cistern Master Plan.
The Chairman asked if the Board had ever seen the Cistern Master Plan. The Coordinator replied that the Board had reviewed it some time ago and that this item had been placed in the CIP plan consistently, however, Dan MacDonald had Emailed the Planning Department to say that because this proposal regarded a Town wide improvement he felt that it would best be lead by the Planning Board. She added that if that were the case then there was a current proposal to have a Village cistern on the CIP. The Chairman recalled that during the time they were considering the recommendation of the Sprinkler Ordinance he had asked members of the Fire Wards if they preferred cisterns, sprinklers or both and only one member of the Fire Wards replied that he would prefer both although he knew
that this would not be taken favorably. He added that now the subject of requiring both mechanisms was arising.
The Coordinator explained that Town wide sites for cisterns had been discussed with the Board in the past with the first one proposed in the Village and with the Board’s support. She added that the question of voters favoring a Village cistern would decide whether other Town sites would be proposed in the future. Gordon Carlstrom noted that there was no dependable water source in the Village and certain other sections of the Town. The Coordinator stated that the question for the Board was whether they supported having their name behind the proposal. Don Duhaime noted that in the last couple of years it had been a joint recommendation of the Planning Board and the Fire Department. The Planning Assistant stated that Dan MacDonald thought the proposal would
look better with the Board’s backing. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the continued joint sponsorship of the proposal was acceptable. The Board agreed.
Douglas Hill recused himself from the Board as his item was up next.
9. A copy of a letter dated October 10, 2005, from New Boston Fire Wards, to the New
Boston Planning Board, Re: Douglas Hill Subdivision, was distributed for the Board’s
review and discussion.
The Chairman asked for Douglas Hill’s comments on the Fire Ward’s letter. Douglas Hill replied that he was disappointed in the Fire Wards’ recommendation of both a cistern and fire sprinkler systems for his proposed subdivision because he felt it discouraged developers to pursue cluster designs as they could be subject to additional costs of fire protection. He added that his open space concept seemed to be looked on less favorably than a standard grid subdivision. Douglas Hill stated that he would be agreeable to do sprinklers or a cistern and that he would also deed land for a future cistern, however, did not feel there was justification to ask for both. He added that he did not want to start a precedent in the Town by using both systems and that
he would be coming before the Board shortly with his application for more discussion on the issue.
James Nordstrom asked the opinion of other Board members on this subject. The Chairman thought that sprinklers should be the option as he recalled that the Fire Department had stated that sprinklers saved lives in consideration of the delayed response time of volunteer fire departments. He added that when this comment was made the Fire Department was aware that garages, attics and out-buildings were not part of the sprinkler networking of a home and they also had stated that they would not require both sprinklers and a cistern for a subdivision unless the possibility of extreme fire danger existed due to land formations, etc. The Coordinator stated that she did not disagree with the Chairman’s comment, however, the Subdivision Regulations allowed for a proposal from
a developer, recommendation from the Fire Wards and a decision from the Planning Board on what should be chosen. She added that the cistern/sprinkler combination was able to be instituted by the Board when a so called dire situation for fire danger existed.
The Chairman asked if Douglas Hill would propose sprinklers only for his subdivision. Douglas Hill replied that it made no difference to him and that although he personally preferred a cistern over sprinklers he would do what the Board asked as long both were not required. James Nordstrom noted that it was the developer’s option to propose their choice for fire fighting water supply and that the Board had not yet dealt with an issue where they needed to decide the choice due to a difference of opinion between a developer and the Fire Wards. The Chairman thought that one applicant had this issue before and he had offered that the Board would approve their application that night if they changed their proposal from a cistern to sprinklers.
Don Duhaime stated that the Fire Department could not fight a fire without water and he felt that sprinkler systems were weak performers. He added that he believed a cistern to be a better option because the issue of electricity was not a factor but was for sprinkler systems. The Chairman noted that the Fire Department’s argument for fire sprinkler systems was that they served to suppress a fire so that it did not become fully involved by the time the Fire Department could respond. He recalled that the Fire Department had also stated that only in rare circumstances were holding tanks located in the cellars of home with fire sprinklers and that a home’s well had enough reserve capacity to meet the requirements of the system. The Chairman clarified that
this was found to not be the case and that the sprinkler systems required in the homes of the Town today were not what was recommended to the Board at the time they were considering the Sprinkler Ordinance. From the audience, Sara Hogan stated that she believed
that fire sprinkler systems did good introductory work in suppressing a fire until the Fire Department could respond. Don Duhaime clarified that he believed both systems were necessary but just opting for sprinklers would not be sufficient protection. He added that this was an issue for the Town and both the Planning Board and Fire Department should reach some common ground together on what should be done. The Chairman noted to Douglas Hill that if he proposed a cistern for his subdivision it would be more in keeping with the theory that the Fire Department wanted to obtain a water source in that area of the Town. Don Duhaime asked if the Fire Department was responsible for maintaining cisterns. Douglas Hill replied that they were.
14. Endorsement of Condex Site Plan for Right Way Builders, Inc., Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/52-4, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman and Vice Chairman (in the Secretary’s absence), endorsed the above noted Condex Site Plan.
At 11:35 p.m. Travis Daniels MOVED to adjourn. James Nordstrom seconded the
motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien Minutes Approved:
Recording Clerk
| 
