The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, James Nordstrom, Bob Furey, Travis Daniels; ex-officio Dave Woodbury; and, alternate Don Duhaime. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nicola Strong, Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting, were Bob Todd, LLS, Roch Larochelle, Jane Carr, John Palmer, Tom Welch, Esq., Rick Martin, Kim DiPietro, Paul Carideo, PE, Dave Elliot, Ray Shea, LLS, Mark Anderson, Harlen Hadley, Larry Pothier and Matt Reed.
CARR, JANE
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Site Plan Review/Home Business/Glass & Goods Store
Location: 120 Christie Road
Tax Map/Lot #9/43
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant, Jane Carr. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Jane Carr stated that she imported Bristol Blue Glass from England which she sold out of a barn located on her property. She added that she also sold the glassware on her website and on EbayTM.
The Chairman asked how much traffic was generated by customers who visited the applicant’s home shop. Jane Carr replied that her items were more often sold and shipped to customers rather than being sold directly from the shop. The Chairman concluded that customer traffic was not an issue of the Site Plan. He then asked if the shop was located on two floors of the barn. Jane Carr replied that it was. The Chairman asked if the applicant’s property was located in the “R-A” district. The Coordinator replied that it was. The Chairman further asked if the applicant was aware of the corrections that were needed on the Site Plan based on the Planning Department’s review. Jane Carr replied that all noted corrections had
been made to the Site Plan. The Coordinator stated that because the revisions were submitted by the applicant this evening she had not yet had a chance to review them.
The Chairman asked how many individuals were employed at the shop. Jane Carr replied that she worked at the shop and a friend helped her occasionally during busier holiday times. The Chairman noted that per the Site Plan Regulations the applicant was allowed two employees in addition to those individuals who lived on the property. He asked if any items for sale were located outside the barn on the property. Jane Carr replied there were not. The Chairman explained that the Regulations required that the home business was carried on within a structure, therefore, no items should be advertised outside. He added that outside storage was also prohibited. Jane Carr replied that she did not have any outside storage related to her business.
Dave Woodbury noted that the applicant had signs posted along Christie Road that directed potential customers to her address and asked if she also posted business signs on her property. Jane Carr replied that, currently, the only business sign on site was located on a tree at the base of her property. She added that she wished to install a sign on the barn eventually and sought the Board’s guidance on what steps would be necessary to do this. The Chairman indicated that the Building Inspector was the person to see regarding signage.
The Chairman stated that the Site Plan Regulations stipulated that traffic generated by a home business could not exceed what was considered the norm on the roadway it was located on and that customer parking was not allowed on the roadway. He then asked if parking spaces were notated on the revised plan. Dave Woodbury stated that the plan submitted showed three spaces on site for customer parking. The Coordinator noted that the applicant had revised this number to two parking spaces in order to comply with the requirements of the minor Site Plan. The Chairman added that if the applicant had employees their parked vehicles on site should not be visible to neighbors.
The Chairman explained that once the location of proposed signs to advertise the business was approved by the Board the Building Inspector would authorize the size of the business sign. He added that the applicant’s business was not located on a State road but if it was the State would also be involved in stipulating the size of the business sign. He added that an obvious customer parking sign should also be on site. Jane Carr replied that she presently had a customer parking sign on the property that clearly noted the location of two parking spaces.
Bob Furey asked if the leach field shown on the plan only serviced the residence on site. Jane Carr replied that was the case as there was no plumbing installed in the barn.
James Nordstrom asked how the applicant’s business was going. Jane Carr replied that her internet sales were good at year-end, however, business had since become slower. James Nordstrom asked approximately how many customers Jane Carr dealt with on a daily basis. Jane Carr replied that she had five customers in the store over the recent holidays of 2004, and two in January, 2005. James Nordstrom clarified that the applicant’s sales were more likely to peak during the holidays. Jane Carr agreed.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to accept the application of Jane Carr, Site Plan Review, Home Business, Glass and Goods Store, Location: 120 Christie Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/43, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked what exterior lighting was proposed for the home business. Jane Carr replied that there was existing lighting on the barn. A site walk was scheduled for March 5, 2005, at 8:30 a.m. The Chairman noted that because the business was already established the site walk would also cover the details for compliance. Jane Carr asked if the site walk would be held outside of the shop on the property or if the Board would need to view the inside of the shop also. The Chairman replied that the site walk would be held outside on the property.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Jane Carr, Site Plan Review, Home Business, Glass and Goods Store, Location: 120 Christie Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/43, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to April 12, 2005, at 8:30 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 8, 2005
1. Approval of the minutes of January 25, 2005, with or without changes. (Distributed at the February 8, 2005, meeting.)
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of January 25, 2005, as written. Bob
Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. The minutes of February 8, 2005, were distributed for approval at the meeting of March
22, 2005, with or without changes.
3. Compliance drive by’s on driveways for Indian Falls, LLC, Indian Falls Road, Tax
Map/Lot #’s 12/89-4, 89-7, and 89-12. (Drive by prior to the meeting)
Don Duhaime stated that Tax Map/Lot #12/89-7 appeared satisfactory, however, Tax Map/Lot #’s 12/89-4 and 89-12 seemed to have grade issues. He added that the entrance grade on the driveway for Lot #89-4 appeared too level and he believed run-off could travel into the roadway. Don Duhaime thought that this issue could be addressed by reconfiguring the driveway’s apron. He added that the same scenario existed for the driveway of Tax Map/Lot #12/89-4 but was more exaggerated. James Nordstrom agreed that the entrance grade of Lot #89-12’s driveway had no negative grade and that any run-off from that driveway would end up on the roadway. The Chairman clarified that the driveway for Tax Map/Lot #12/89-7 appeared to be in compliance while the
driveways for Tax Map/Lot #’s 12/89-4 and 89-12 did not. James Nordstrom replied that was correct.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to confirm compliance for the driveway for Tax Map/Lot
#12/89-7 located on Indian Falls Road. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it
PASSED unanimously.
The Coordinator clarified that it appeared there was no 3% negative grade on the above noted non-compliant driveways. James Nordstrom replied that was the case and that this was visually obvious for Lot #89-12, and while the absence of the negative grade for Lot #89-4 did not seem as obvious the entrance grade appeared to be flat. Don Duhaime agreed.
4. A copy of a faxed letter received February 15, 2005, from William R. Drescher, Drescher & Dokomo, Attorneys at Law, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Document
Review, Martin Subdivision, Tax Map/Lot #14-1, South Hill Road, was distributed for
the Board’s information.
The Planning Coordinator stated that she had not yet reviewed the above noted letter and asked if this item could be addressed later in the evening. The Chairman concurred.
5. A copy of a letter received February 15, 2005, from William R. Drescher, Drescher & Dokomo, Attorneys at Law, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Document
Review, Downing Subdivision, Tax Map/Lot #1/12-1, Saunders Hill Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Planning Coordinator stated that she had not yet reviewed the above noted letter and asked if this item could be addressed later in the evening. The Chairman concurred.
6. A copy of a letter received February 18, 2005, from George Olmstead, to Susan Martin,
Re: Declaration of Protective Covenants & Restrictions for South Hill Farm, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman commented that upon reading the above noted letter it appeared that Mr. Olmstead was not as aware Susan Martin’s proposed subdivision as the Board was led to believe. This item was postponed for discussion until later in the evening.
8. A copy of a letter received February 9, 2005, from Louis P. & Gail L. Gallerani, to New Boston Planning Board & Conservation Commission, Re: Steep Slopes, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that he was pleased by the Gallerani’s letter of support for the Steep Slopes Ordinance. He added that he questioned the point they made in their letter regarding declining land values and thought that if 25% of buildable lands were eliminated as developable the value of remaining properties would be greatly increased rather than decreased. Dave Woodbury asked where the Gallerani’s 88.7 acres were located on McCurdy Road as he was unfamiliar with their name and the fact that such a large amount of property still existed on McCurdy Road. The Coordinator replied that she believed the Gallerani’s property was located in the vicinity of the recent Nissitissit Development project. She added that she believed the Galleranis had a
Society for the Protection of the New Hampshire Forest Easement on their property. The Coordinator further added that the Galleranis resided in Massachusetts. Bob Furey wondered how the Galleranis would have heard of the Steep Slopes Ordinance if their primary residence was not in the Town. The Coordinator noted that the Galleranis might be subscribers to the New Boston Bulletin.
9. A copy of a letter received February 15, 2005, from John & Kathy Bradfield, to Mr. Peter Hogan, Chairman of Planning Board, Re: Vista Road, LLC’s 2 Lot Subdivision, Inkberry Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that Kathy Bradfield was requesting a meeting with the Board regarding the above noted subdivision. She added that she had informed Kathy Bradfield that this subdivision had been approved and recorded and how the 30 day appeal process worked, however, she was still insistent on a meeting with the Board. The Coordinator went on to explain that Kathy Bradfield preferred the subdivision’s former configuration of a roadway that abutted her lot with many lots on that road rather than the subsequently approved plan which instead showed a driveway with one lot. She added that Kathy Bradfield felt this backlot would be less appealing in the neighborhood than a new road with several homes. Dave Woodbury thought Kathy Bradfield should have been
in attendance at the meetings held for Vista Road, LLC, where her concerns could have been discussed. The Coordinator stated that she herself had not been at these meetings, however, the Planning Assistant had recalled Kathy Bradfield’s
attendance at a hearing for Vista Road, LLC, during which she offered no comments. She added that if it was preferred by the Board a letter could be sent to Kathy Bradfield that reviewed the chronology of the application, abutters’ rights, etc. Dave Woodbury thought this was a good idea and added that the letter could considerately note the course of action Kathy Bradfield could have assumed during Vista Road, LLC’s application process. James Nordstrom noted that Kathy Bradfield had approached him after a meeting to ask what steps she could take as an opposing abutter of the Vista Road, LLC, subdivision. He added that he explained to Kathy Bradfield that under State statute an abutter had 30 days to appeal the approval of a subdivision and thought she was satisfied with that advice. Bob Furey
noted that Kathy Bradfield also had drainage concerns regarding this subdivision and wondered if she had expressed these concerns to Brian Holt of Vista Road, LLC. James Nordstrom thought the Coordinator’s suggestion to send a letter of explanation to the Bradfields was appropriate. The Chairman noted that if Kathy Bradfield persisted in meeting with the Board regarding the issue she should be told that was not possible.
10. Daily road inspection reports, dated, January 3rd, and 5th, from Dufresne-Henry, Re: Indian Falls, were distributed for the Board’s information.
LYONS, SUSAN & DAVID
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: Laurel Lane
Tax Map/Lot #12/106
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, who represented the applicants. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Bob Todd, LLS’s, presentation was as follows:
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
FOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION OF DAVID LYONS AND SUSAN CHAREST-LYONS
MAP 12, LOT 106
February 22, 2005 Planning Board Meeting
Final Plat Review Hearing
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Robert Todd presenting on behalf of the owners;
1.2 Proposal involves one tax parcel, 12/106, located on the westerly side of Laurel Lane about 1500 feet southerly of the junction of Laurel Lane and McCurdy Road containing 11.325 acres.
1.3 Property is the homestead property of the owners.
2.0 Community Context
2.1 Property is situated in a matrix of low density residential lots. The lot to the south is vacant and subject to a conservation easement held by the NB Con. Comm.. The land across the street to the east is also subject to a conservation easement held by NB Con. Comm.
2.2 Site located in southeasterly portion of town and is about 2.8 miles from the NBFD;
2.3 Access to the proposed lots is by a proposed common curb cut on an existing driveway. Proposed lot 106 is suitable for construction of an exclusive driveway and a permit application has been submitted.
2.4 The property is in the RA zone with a wetlands conservation district overlay.
2.5 There are no flood prone areas on the property
3.0 Land Characteristics
3.1 Soils: The soil series on the property are predominantly group 3 soils including, Paxton Fine Sandy Loam and Woodbridge Loam. Ridgebury Stony Loam, a group 5 soil, is found on the westerly portion of the property. The test pit interpretation on lot 106-1 is consistent with the Paxton Soil Series definition. A perched seasonally high water table at 30 inches was observed at pit number 6 and the percolation rate of 4 minutes per inch was observed in the vicinity of the test pit. Test pits were dug in random locations over Lot 106 were shallow to bedrock (range from 8” to 30”). The test pit used as the basis of design for the septic system serving the existing dwelling was used in the subdivision application approved by the NHDES. This test pit was
excavated to 96” and had a perched water table 20”.
3.2 Slope: The topography over the entire subdivision meets the “flat land” definition in the proposed steep slope overlay district amendment to the zoning ordinance. The topography has been mapped by instrument survey.
3.3 Landform: The property rests on ground moraine between a small drumlin to the west (on which Summit Road development is situated) and a second drumlin about 500 east of Laurel Lane. Beaver Dam Pond is situated about 600 feet down gradient of the property.
3.4 Vegetation: The property is mostly woodland with clearing limited to the curtilage around the existing house.
3.5 Wetlands: There are two wetlands (drainage swales) running north to south across the property and a driveway crossing is proposed at each of these locations.
3.6 Easements: An easement of access is proposed relative to the construction, use, and maintenance of the portion of the driveway to be used in common.
4.0 Project Objective
4.1 The purpose of this major subdivision application is to create one new residential lot containing 9.230 acres to be served by a common driveway, leaving 2.095 acres with the existing house served by the same common driveway curb cut.
4.2 The existing house is served by an on-site septic system and well. Proposed lot 106 will be served by an on-site septic system and well.
5.0 Other permits:
5.1 NH DES Subsurface Systems Bureau subdivision approval has been granted for lot 106.
5.2 A driveway application has been submitted for proposed lot 106.
5.3 A fire fighting water supply in the form of sprinklers is proposed for buildings on lot 106-1. The proposed deed language has been furnished.
5.4 A conditional use permit has been submitted for the driveway crossings. These crossings have been approved by the Wetlands Bureau.
6.0 Waivers requested
6.1 The usual waivers to the requirement for fiscal, traffic, and environmental studies have been requested along with several others in a memorandum to the board dated January 7, 2005;
6.2 The erosion and sediment control plan requirement of checklist item 49 is also a waiver request.
6.3 Checklist item 50 requires a site specific soil survey and a waiver is requested for this item.
6.4 Checklist item 52 requires drainage area outlines and calculation of pre and post development runoff and a waiver is requested for this item.
7.0 Boundary markers- all corner markers have been set as shown on the plan and the property is ready for inspection;
Bob Todd, LLS, added that a reference to the Conservation Commission easements needed to be added to the plan relative to Tax Map/Lot #’s 12/103 and 12/105. He noted that it was previously assumed that the Piscataquog Watershed Association would hold these easements, however, he had located an easement on file earlier today which was held by the Conservation Commission and had concerns that they had not been notified at the time notice letters were sent regarding the application.
The Chairman asked if each lot could support its own driveway even though a common driveway was proposed. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that was correct and noted that the proposed common driveway entrance allowed for more adequate sight distance. He stated that the proposed easement area was noted by a triangle on the plan. Bob Todd, LLS, added that the driveways diverged a few feet beyond the entrance point. The Chairman clarified that while each lot was capable of supporting its own driveway that was not the optimum design for the plan. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that was the case.
Dave Woodbury stated that he understood that the Lamontagnes who lived north of the site vigilantly protected their privacy and asked if any issues had arisen with them concerning this plan. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that there had been some contention between the two parties due to a questionable lot line between their properties, however, the applicant had since had the lot lines re-staked by Bob Todd, LLS’s office and had not heard from the Lamontagnes. Dave Woodbury asked how close the Lamontagne residence was to the site. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that two sheds on the Lamontagne property were located within the 200 foot distance of the site’s perimeter, however, their residence could not be located without entering the Lamontagne’s property, therefore, it
was assumed to be beyond the 200 foot measure.
Bob Furey asked if the two wetland crossings noted on the plan, with the larger of the two measuring 60 feet, would require a series of culverts. Bob Todd, LLS, showed the plan view and profile submitted to the Wetlands Bureau that proposed two culverts to replace the one existing which currently carried the run off load. He added that by installing two new culverts the issue of seasonal “ponding” on the inlet end should be rectified. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the first crossing was 2,060 s.f. and the second was 2,400 s.f. with 12 inch culverts proposed. He noted that these crossings would be of considerable expense to the applicant. James Nordstrom clarified that the construction estimate for the crossings was $21,000.00. Bob Todd, LLS,
stated that was correct.
Dave Woodbury asked if the four waivers listed in Bob Todd’s presentation outline were replicated in his recent memo to the Board. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that he had considered the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies as one waiver but realized they were three separate requests. Dave Woodbury added that he assumed waiver requests were made for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies because the subdivision was proposed on an existing road. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that was correct. He added that it was presumed that one new residential lot on a road that was already subject to traffic from other existing lots further south would not put heavy demands on Laurel Lane. Bob Todd, LLS, noted another waiver request made in his memo to
be for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. He believed that the highest risk for erosion would stem from the construction of the proposed wetland crossings which had been addressed on the plan. Bob Todd, LLS, added that the subsequent erosion relative to the construction of a house on the subdivided lot would be no greater than what was generated for any single home’s construction. He noted that the slopes on the site were under 10% and the soils were not found to be highly erodible as they were less than the 0.43 “K” value cutoff for qualified high risk erosion. Bob Todd, LLS, reiterated that areas of potential erosion risk had been addressed on the plan. He continued with checklist item #50, Site Specific Soils Mapping, for which a waiver was also requested. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the soils on the proposed lot for subdivision were found to be consistent with the soil series projected from a survey done
previously on the site and he believed a Site Specific would not add more value. He went on to add that a waiver was requested for checklist item #52 for a drainage outline and calculation of pre- and post-development run-off. Bob Todd, LLS, believed that this requirement was more appropriate for larger subdivisions and greater changes in land use. He believed that requiring this item would result in additional costs to the applicant for little public benefit.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to grant the waivers requested by Bob Todd, LLS, in his memo dated January 7, 2005, and reviewed at tonight’s hearing. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to accept the application of Susan and David Lyons, Major Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Laurel Lane, Tax Map/Lot #12/106, Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
A site walk was scheduled for March 5, 2005, at 9:00 a.m.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Susan and David Lyons, Major Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Laurel Lane, Tax Map/Lot #12/106, Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, to April 12, 2005, at 8:45 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
PALMER, JOHN & HEIDI
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: Hooper Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #11/18
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, and applicant, John Palmer. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Bob Todd, LLS’s, presentation was as follows:
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
FOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION OF HEIDIMARIE AND JOHN W. E. PALMER
MAP 11, LOT 18
February 22, 2005 Planning Board Meeting
Final Plat Review Hearing
8.0 Introduction
8.1 Robert Todd presenting on behalf of the owners;
8.2 Proposal involves one tax parcel, 11/18, located on the easterly side of Hooper Hill Road about 400 feet southerly of the junction of Hooper Hill Road and Bradford Lane containing 4.676acres.
8.3 Property is the homestead property of the applicants.
9.0 Community Context
9.1 Property is situated in a matrix of low density
residential lots. Five of the abutting lots are
vacant.
2.6 Site located in central portion of town and is about .6 mile from the NBFD;
2.7 access to the property is via Hooper Hill Road, a 21 foot wide paved road;
2.8 there are two other adjacent parcels owned by the applicants that are forest and field land, encumbered by a conservation easement, namely lots 8/104 and 105 on the westerly side of Hooper Hill Road.
10.0 Land Characteristics
10.1 Soils: Paxton Fine Sandy Loam(a group 3 soil) over the entire property. The test pit interpretation on lot 18-1 is consistent with the Paxton Soil Series definition. A perched seasonally high water table at 24 inches was observed at pit number 1 and the percolation rate of 20 minutes per inch was observed in the vicinity of test pit 1. A test pit was excavated and interpreted on lot 18 in 1998 and was used as the basis of design for the septic system serving the existing dwelling.
10.2 Slope: The topography over the entire subdivision meets the “flat land” definition in the proposed steep slope overlay district amendment to the zoning ordinance. The topography has been mapped by instrument survey.
10.3 Landform: The property rests on the northwesterly aspect of a small drumlin, one of three that surround Bailey Pond.
10.4 Vegetation: The property is mostly old agricultural field land, once part of the old Mansfield farm. Forestland is invading the open land from the east side.
10.5 Wetlands: No wetlands were observed on the property.
10.6 Easements: Public Service Co. of N.H. holds an easement for underground utilities that serve the property. A concrete cistern on proposed lot 18 is a water supply for lot 11/15 owned by Rhoda Shaw Clark and there is an easement encumbering the applicants’ property.
10.7 Zoning district is RA over entire property.
10.8 No Flood Prone areas mapped on the property.
11.0 Project Objective
11.1 The purpose of this minor subdivision application is to create one new residential lot containing 2.012 acres to be served by a new driveway, leaving 2.664 acres with the existing house served by an existing driveway.
11.2 The existing house is served by an on-site septic system and proposed lot 18-1 will be served by an on-site septic system and well.
12.0 Other permits:
12.1 NH DES Subsurface Systems Bureau subdivision approval has been granted.
12.2 A driveway application has been submitted for proposed lot 18-1.
12.3 Is this subdivision subject to the fire fighting water supply provisions of the Building Code (I am losing track of changes)?
13.0 Waivers requested
13.1 The usual waivers to the requirement for fiscal, traffic, and environmental studies have been requested along with several others in a memorandum to the board dated January 18, 2005;
13.2 The erosion and sediment control plan requirement of checklist item 49 is also a waiver request.
13.3 Checklist item 50 requires a site specific soil survey and a waiver is requested for this item.
13.4 Checklist item 52 requires drainage area outlines and calculation of pre and post development runoff and a waiver is requested for this item.
14.0 Fire Protection
14.1 A declaration of covenants has been prepared to require sprinklers and a copy provided.
14.2 Proposed deed language acknowledging fire sprinkler installation has been provided.
15.0 Boundary markers- all corner markers have been set as shown on the plan and the property is ready for inspection;
9.0 A driveway permit application has been attached.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the waivers requested were supported by the same reasons given in the Lyons hearing prior to this one.
John Palmer wished to note that a cistern was located 200 feet from the site. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that was correct.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to grant the waivers requested by Bob Todd, LLS, for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, soils mapping, drainage calculations and Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of John and Heidi Palmer, Minor Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Hooper Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #11/18, Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
A site walk was scheduled for March 5, 2005, at 9:30 a.m.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of John and Heidi Palmer, Minor Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Hooper Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #11/18, Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, to April 12, 2005, at 9:00 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC.
Compliance Hearing/Personal Wireless Service Facility
Location: NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/21-1
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Tom Welch, Esq., who represented the applicant. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Tom Welch, Esq., stated that the only outstanding items were the completion of the bond to be signed by the two parties, which had been taken care of, and the $35.00 fee for notice letters. Tom Welch, Esq., then submitted payment of this fee to the Planning Assistant. The Chairman stated that the site appeared to be in compliance.
James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm that James W. Dodge has complied with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan to operate a personal wireless service facility from property located on NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/21, 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.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
11. Approval of Driveway Permit Applications for Susan B. Martin, South Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #14/1 & #14/1-2, for a proposed driveway, for the Board’s action.
(no copies)
The Coordinator noted that she had neglected to have the Board act on these permit applications at the time of the hearing.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Applications #04-122 & 04- 121, Tax Map/Lot #14/1 and 14/1-2, for proposed driveway, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the driveway shall have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft) from the centerline of the road; the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of twenty foot (20’) radii minimum; and, the driveway shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED
unanimously.
13a. A copy of a letter dated February 22, 2005, from Nicola Strong, Planning Board Coordinator, to Andrew Sullivan, Esq., Re: Juniper Hill Subdivision, Tax Map/Lot #6/41, was distributed for the Board’s information.
13b. A copy of a letter dated February 18, 2005, from Andrew Sullivan, Esq., to the Board, Re: Juniper Hill Subdivision, Tax Map/Lot #6/41, was distributed for the Board’s information.
12. A copy of a letter dated February 22, 2005, from Dahlberg Land Services, LLC, to the Board, Re: Karin Morin Revocable Trust, Tax Map/Lot #7/74, Greenfield Road, Plan Review by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that because available Board meetings were scheduled ahead to April, 2005, the applicant had requested that his plans be forwarded to Dufresne-Henry, Inc., for review prior to them being accepted as complete by the Board. She added that it was understood by the applicant that additional review costs could be incurred if any changes were warranted by the Board at the applicant’s next scheduled hearing. The Chairman stated that he was not agreeable to the applicant’s request. James Nordstrom stated that he was not in favor or opposed to the applicant’s request but would be willing to have the plans forwarded to Dufresne-Henry, Inc., based on the fact that the applicant understood they could incur additional review costs. He
noted that the Board’s policy in past situations when this request was made was to not forward plans to the Town Engineer until they were accepted as complete. The Chairman concurred and noted that reversing the order as suggested could cause confusion and that he would like to maintain the precedent set in place. Bob Furey agreed. He added that the Board’s meeting schedule had been busier in the past than it was presently and similar requests had not been granted based on the timing of meetings. The Board’s consensus was to not grant the applicant’s request.
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/52 & 52-1
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, and the applicant, Rick Martin. Interested parties present were Kim DiPietro, Mark Anderson and Harlen Hadley.
Bob Todd, LLS’s, presentation was as follows:
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
FOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION OF RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC.
MAP 5, LOTS 52 & 52-1
February 22, 2005 Planning Board Meeting
Final Plat Review Hearing
16.0 Introduction
16.1 Robert Todd presenting on behalf of the owner;
16.2 Proposal involves two tax parcels, 5/52 and 52-1, located on the southerly side of Beard Road about 900 feet easterly of the junction of Beard Road and N.H. Route 77.
16.3 Property is not the homestead property of the owner and there are no structures on the land.
16.4 This application is structured so as to facilitate implementation of the owner’s major subdivision plan (for a residential retirement community) now being prepared.
16.5 The owner’s need to remain employed while his major subdivision is being reviewed is the reason for this application. The building proposed for lot 52-1 on the attached plan will not be part of the future residential retirement community.
17.0 Community Context- this testimony has been heard by the board twice before, therefore, except for the following, I will pass over the subject and only answer questions that you may have.
17.1 Access to the proposed lots is directly from Beard Road. Proposed lot 52-1 will have a 50’ wide driveway strip in accordance with the backland lot provision of the zoning ordinance.
2.9 Access to the proposed lot 52 will be over an approved driveway location.
2.3 The access to proposed lot 52 shall be over the
proposed road shown on the plan and the approved
driveway location superseded and it is unlikely that
it will be constructed.
18.0 Land Characteristics
18.1 Soils: The soils have been mapped in accordance with Site Specific Survey standards and a plan showing the soil series along with the Soil Scientist’s report have previously been presented to the Planning Board. Lot 52-1 is predominantly a Peru fine sandy loam (a group 3 soil) with a perched water table and a slowly permeable receiving layer. Test pit 23 reflects the description with a perched water table at 30 inches and a percolation rate of 12 minutes per inch. There is a poorly drained soil area on the lot as shown.
A proposed building site on proposed lot 52 is also a Peru soil with a perched water table at 22 inches and has a percolation rate of 10 minutes per inch.
18.2 Slope: The topography over proposed lot 52-1 meets the “flat land” definition in the proposed steep slope overlay district amendment to the zoning ordinance. The topography has been mapped by instrument survey and by aerial survey.
The slope over the proposed building site on lot 52 also meets the “flat land” definition.
18.3 Landform: The property rests on a ground moraine between the southwesterly toe of a drumlin running northwesterly toward Route 77 and the northerly toe of Pin Ball Hill at the southerly boundary line.
18.4 Vegetation: The property has a small field on the north and the remainder is forestland.
18.5 Wetlands- the wetlands shown on the lots represent the limits of the wetlands conservation district on the property and there will be no impacts to those areas by this proposed subdivision.
18.6 Zoning district is RA over entire property.
18.7 No Flood Prone areas mapped on the property.
19.0 Project Objective
19.1 The purpose of this major subdivision application is to revise the configuration of Lot 52 and 52-1 that were formally approved by the Planning Board. In that subdivision, Lot 52-1 was a conventional two acre lot with frontage on Beard Road and lot 52 was a back lot with 50 feet of frontage on Beard Road containing 27.745 acres.
At the request of the Planning Director, the lot numbering system is to change and I hope that the plan clearly communicates the change so that the land records are not misinterpreted in the future. The former lot 52-1 is to become lot 52 to which parcel A is to be annexed.
19.2 Any building construction on this subdivision shall comply with the future building setback line shown hereon so that when a road is constructed the proposed lots will be in conformance.
20.0 Other permits
20.1 This subdivision is subject to the fire fighting water supply provisions of the Building Code. The proposed covenants and deed language have been provided.
21.0 Waivers requested
21.1 The usual waivers to the requirement for fiscal, traffic, and environmental studies have been requested along with several others in a memorandum to the board dated January 28, 2005;
21.2 The erosion and sediment control plan requirement of checklist item 49 is also a waiver request.
21.3 Checklist item 50 requires a site specific soil survey on the plan and a waiver is requested for this item because the same information is available on plans previously submitted.
21.4 Checklist item 52 requires drainage area outlines and calculation of pre and post development runoff and a waiver is requested for this item.
21.5 Checklist item 12 requires boundary markers. Markers have been set except for seven that fall on points of curvature and tangency on the proposed road. A waiver request is attached for this requirement because of the risk of obliteration of these by road construction. In lieu of setting these markers the owner would bond the cost involved in setting them.
22.0 Fire Protection
22.1 A declaration of covenants has been prepared to require sprinklers and a copy provided.
22.2 Proposed deed language acknowledging fire sprinkler installation has been provided.
23.0 Boundary markers- all corner markers have been set as shown on the plan except for the seven granite bounds that would be required at points of curvature and tangency along the proposed road.
Bob Todd, LLS, then requested an additional waiver for the seven remaining monuments where the cost of their installation would be bonded until the road for the applicant’s proposed retirement community was approved and constructed. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that monuments installed prior to the proposed road’s completion could be compromised during road construction and the excavation that would ensue on that site.
Dave Woodbury asked if a structure was proposed on each of the two lots. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that, at this time, a building was proposed for Lot #5/52-1 only. Dave Woodbury then asked if the proposed single dwelling was noted on the applicant’s other current plan for a proposed retirement community. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that a dashed line through the former Lot #5/52 coupled with proposed boundary lines for the new lot would either be conveyed to the potential land owner or become open space or an entrance to the proposed retirement community project. He added that the tail of land noted on the plan was formerly proposed as open space for the applicant’s retirement community plan while on this plan it was part of the five acre backlot. Dave
Woodbury then asked if the proposed driveway for the backlot would be constructed between the stone walls to the east of the site. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that he believed the proposed driveway would temporarily enter from Beard Road and later be relocated to the proposed road of the retirement community plan once that road was accepted. Dave Woodbury asked if Lot #5/52-1 was currently considered a backlot that would then become a front lot once the proposed road of the retirement community plan was accepted. James Nordstrom thought this scenario would violate a Zoning Regulation. Rick Martin stated that he had not intended to move the driveway from the fifty foot right-of-way as presented. The Chairman asked if the applicant intended to further subdivide Lot #5/52-1 if the proposed road of the retirement community was constructed. Rick Martin replied that he did not intend to further subdivide Lot #5/52-1 and was merely readjusting lot lines to
create another conforming lot on which to build. He added that once the proposed road for the retirement community project was constructed there would be remaining land that traversed the edge of Lot #5/52-1. Rick Martin stated that he intended to put an easement on that portion of land to satisfy the requests of the 4H Foundation for their trail. Dave Woodbury asked James Nordstrom to review what type of zoning violation this proposed lot could incur. James Nordstrom replied that if Lot #5/52-1 was permitted as a backlot and the proposed road for the retirement community plan was also permitted as designed, the frontage for the newly created five acre lot would then revert to the new road. He added that inversely, if the proposed road’s configuration changed to not afford proper frontage to Lot #5/52-1, it could lose its backlot status. James Nordstrom noted that he questioned how Lot #5/52-1 qualified as a backlot currently. Bob
Furey asked if Bob Todd, LLS, could trace the boundary of Lot #5/52-1 on the plan. Bob Todd, LLS, then traced this area. James Nordstrom asked where the front lot of the backlot was located. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that area as a rectangle on the plan. Dave Woodbury thought if no other development in the area of the site were to occur Lot #5/52-1 would be a backlot. James Nordstrom noted that according to the plan once the boundary lines were superceded Parcel A would have frontage on Beard Road and would be adjacent to Lot #5/52-1. Bob Todd, LLS, added that the two lots would then both be front lots.
The Chairman asked if a site walk would help clarify this issue. James Nordstrom thought the scenario was evident on the plan. The Chairman stated that the applicant needed to better clarify the evolution of the lots knowing that the proposed road for the applicant’s other plan was involved. James Nordstrom added that he wished to see a clearer iteration of the plan as the lot configuration was difficult to understand. Dave Woodbury asked if the resulting driveways for the lots both entered from Beard Road if their distance from one another would be an issue. Bob Todd, LLS, asked Rick Martin if he would be willing to put the driveway to Lot #5/52-1 off the proposed road of the retirement community due to the impacts that could be created if they entered
from Beard Road. Rick Martin replied that he did not want to violate any zoning ordinances but could have the driveway enter from the proposed road if the Board preferred. Bob Todd, LLS, thought that would be a better design alternative. James Nordstrom agreed. Rick Martin noted that the proposed road for the retirement community was originally in the location of the currently proposed driveway for Lot #5/52-1 which he had to relocate for better sight distance. Dave Woodbury felt that the applicant wanted to gain a buildable lot quickly and when he sold the property he would then lose control of the 50 foot strip. Rick Martin noted that he was swapping the formerly proposed road location for a driveway and did not see an issue as this proposal was similar to what was approved one year prior when Lot #5/52 was originally subdivided. Dave Woodbury stated that if time was not an issue this proposal should be combined with the proposed
retirement community plan. Rick Martin wished to clarify that Sandford Survey had done work on the road entrance design for the proposed retirement community plan and he assured the Board that the road’s entrance would not be changed. Dave Woodbury thought that the worst case scenario would be a driveway adjacent to a road and that the distance between the two seemed close on the plan, however, might not be an issue. Rick Martin noted other existing driveways on Beard Road as they related to the proposed driveway’s location. He added that he saw no issue with the proposed location of Lot #5/52-1’s driveway. The Chairman stated that the plan posed potential conflicts that, in the interest of time, would need to be addressed at a subsequent meeting. He asked the Coordinator if there were any other issues with the plan. The Coordinator replied that there were not.
Kim DiPietro stated that she had been present at a prior meeting for the applicant on December 9, 2005, at which time she had discussed the 4H Foundation’s request for a trail easement on the applicant’s site. She stated that she had presented a new letter of request to the Board this evening that asked for continued cooperation between the applicant, the Board and the Townes who were abutting landowners.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to grant the waivers requested in Paragraph 6.0 of a letter by Bob Todd, LLS, dated February 2, 2005. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waiver requested this evening for the seven
remaining boundary markers to be bonded and set after the proposed road of the applicant’s retirement community was completed. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to accept the application of Right Way Builders, Major Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/52 & 5/52-1,
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Right Way Builders, Major Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/52 & 5/52-1, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to April 12, 2005, at 9:15 p.m. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
HARVEY DUPUIS FAMILY TRUST Adjourned from 2/08/05
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/ 8 Lots
Location: Carriage Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/93 & 12/93-22
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Paul Carideo, PE, Dave Elliot and Larry Pothier. Interested party Ray Shea from Sandford Surveying and Engineering was present.
Paul Carideo, PE, stated that at the last meeting with the Board there was discussion that dealt with the original proposals of the plan and what had been approved in the preliminary phase of the application. He added that the applicant understood that the Planning Department would be reviewing the minutes of prior meetings to clarify this information with the Board. Paul Carideo, PE, stated that in the interim a revised version of the plan was drafted that now showed four new lots in place of the existing two. He noted that the proposed road now met the Town’s required length of 1,000 feet or less to the cul-de-sac. Paul Carideo, PE, clarified that it was the applicant’s intent to proceed with the overall plan once abutting land owners provided their
plans for proposed road connections in this area. He stated that the applicant sought the Board’s acceptance of the application’s current design plan with the understanding that further details would be addressed as the project proceeded. Paul Carideo, PE, noted that the present design met the intention of the subdivision’s proposed first phase and allowed for a 50 foot continuation for further development from Lot #12/93 per the plan’s preliminary approval. He added that in addition to the 1,000 foot cul-de-sac an existing lot was being eliminated from Carriage Road and three new lots were being created in addition to the existing lot. Paul Carideo, PE, explained that the backlot (Lot #22) was being subdivided with a coinciding lot line adjustment to allow the new road design.
The Chairman asked if the proposed cul-de-sac could be moved to the end of Lot #’s 34 and 37 by a waiver request for an extension beyond 1,000 feet. Paul Carideo, PE, replied that this could be done if the Board preferred noting that this design was presented to stay in conformance and keep easements in place. He added that the applicant would be very agreeable to extend the cul-de-sac length but did not want to present this design at the outset and risk losing two lots. The Board was in agreement that extending the cul-de-sac to the end of Lot #’s 34 and 37 was a good idea. Don Duhaime asked if the cul-de-sac was then being eliminated. The Chairman replied that the cul-de-sac was temporary and would be eliminated when the road connected through to abutting land in the future. Don Duhaime
stated that he asked his question out of concern for winter plowing. The Chairman stated that by requesting a waiver for a 200 foot extension to the proposed cul-de-sac much work would be saved as the project progressed. Paul Carideo, PE, clarified that the waiver request would be for a 202 foot extension of the cul-de-sac which would add 332 feet to the overall proposed road length. The Chairman stated that the applicant intended to add onto the road at some point anyway. Paul Carideo, PE, replied that he merely wanted to note for the record that the proposed road length to the throat of the cul-de-sac would then be 1,300 feet+/-. The Chairman stated that the revised length made better sense, however, he understood why the applicant presented the 1,000 foot design first. He then asked what easements would be required for the proposed cul-de-sac. Paul Carideo, PE, replied that temporary easements would be best served by a 50 foot box 130
feet long and deeded to the Town. He noted that the applicant did not have a permit to fill a nearby wetland and therefore, wanted to avoid disturbing it. Don Duhaime thought that a hammer head design could alleviate this issue. The Chairman suggested that the Road Agent be contacted for his opinion. Paul Carideo, PE, suggested that the road length could also be extended further. Dave Woodbury noted that doing so would not be a wasted effort relative to the future plans for road connections. Paul Carideo, PE, agreed but added that the applicant was aware that the road length would still need to be approved by the Board.
Dave Woodbury asked if the proposed right-of-way’s location west of the area just discussed was consistent with conceptual sketches that were previously provided to the Board. Paul Carideo, PE, replied that it was and showed the plan sheet that noted its location along the lot line of Lot # 34. Dave Woodbury thought that the right-of-way was located through significant wetlands and wondered if it too should be moved. Paul Carideo, PE, replied that this location was chosen to aid in land negotiations with the Lorden family but primarily because the Board required it. He added that the Lordens were not at the point in their plans to pinpoint the location for the right-of-way. Dave Woodbury noted that the Lordens were likely to be guided by the Board’s
preference and believed that the right-of-way was better served by running along the southerly edge of Lot #34. He added that the Board was more interested in promoting east to west travel than whether the Lordens liked the location chosen. Dave Woodbury felt that moving the right-of-way would also alleviate engineering issues presented by the proposed right-of-way location. Paul Carideo, PE, stated that on the overall plan presented two weeks prior the right-of-way location was not shown as the applicant wanted to hold Lot #34 from development in order to reach an agreement with the Lordens for its location and possibly obtain an additional piece of land from them. He went on to explain that the revised plan presented tonight showed a road the Board could work with and the required right-of-way location in order that the application could proceed and net viable lots to build on. Dave Woodbury commented that Note #19 of the plan referenced the deeding
of the right-of-way to the Town. He asked who would be responsible for building the connector road to the subdivision, for example, if five years from now the Lordens were to come before the Board with their plan. Paul Carideo, PE, replied that the burden of that construction would be on the Lordens as they would need to connect to the applicants’ road. He added that this example was similar to the scenario of the Inkberry Road right-of-way into the Vista Road parcel. He further added that it behooved the Town to own right-of-ways in order that developers such as the Lordens could collaborate on efforts for road connections rather than another developer retaining ownership and holding it as property. The Chairman thought that the applicant should be able to ascertain within a 50 foot measure, the most cost effective location for the proposed road connection while maximizing lot density. Paul Carideo, PE, replied that this was theoretically
true, however, the Steep Slopes Ordinance needed to be considered because if it passed at the March, 2005 vote, the proposed road may need to be moved in order to facilitate conforming lots. The Chairman asked if the Lorden family had been informed that they could not develop their land further until a road connection was established between them and the applicant. The Coordinator replied that the Lordens had not yet approached the Board with any proposals. Paul Carideo noted that the Lordens were aware of the road connection requirement and had asked the applicant to provide them information that would better direct them in choosing road connection points. He added that Dana Lorden had attended one of the applicants’ initial meetings with the Board and had also met with the applicant, Ray Shea and Mr. Bussiere at Mitch Larochelle’s office to discuss this issue. Dave Woodbury noted that the Board would not want to inadvertently approve a
connection point that would be unusable for the Lordens. Paul Carideo stated that he could not design Mr. Lorden’s project for him. Don Duhaime thought the location chosen was one of the poorest available on the site being 2/3’s wetlands and did not see how a road could be constructed through that area. James Nordstrom wondered if a Dredge and Fill Permit could even be obtained for that location. Paul Carideo, PE, stated that this was the result of having to redesign the road based on the Board’s issue with suitable road connections. He added that the applicant would have preferred the prior design that showed a road connection 20 feet from their property line without losing a lot. The Chairman stated that the applicant needed to come up with a suitable area for connectabilty and stressed that the Board would not be inflexible in its considerations if the applicant lost a lot as a result. He added that a bridge over a
swamp could not be considered as an acceptable road. Paul Carideo, PE, stated that they wanted to work out a better deal with the Lordens for the road location and were willing to do so if they could be assured that they would regain their lost lot at some point. The Chairman felt the proposed road connection would not be feasible in that area. Paul Carideo, PE added that the wetlands noted in the area of the proposed future connection were classified as wetland fingers and a road could be designed in that location. He noted that Neil Smith had derived alternatives such as holding Lot #34 out of development until a deal could be reached with the Lordens. The Chairman clarified that,
regardless, the road connection was proposed somewhere in that area. Paul Carideo, PE, stated that was correct. The Chairman further clarified that if the proposed road connected through the middle of Lot #34 it would be lost as a buildable lot. Paul Carideo, PE, replied that, in that case, a lot line adjustment could be made with a deed to Mr. Lorden for the 50 foot right-of-way easement or two new lots could be created from abutting property with negotiated ownership. He noted that because the Lordens were so far behind the applicant in their development plans it was not possible to provide qualified decisions on this issue to the Board but that the latter examples were part of their ongoing negotiations. The Chairman thought that it was a good idea to leave Lot #34 vacant as it could result in two
frontage lots for the applicant and the Lordens would be responsible for construction of the connecting road. Paul Carideo, PE, stated that the applicant understood the desires of the Board and was willing to proceed with the alternatives discussed in order to proceed. James Nordstrom thought that holding off on Lot #34 was a better alternative than showing and platting a right-of-way as the plan illustrated. The Chairman liked the flexibility that would result from extending the cul-de-sac length as it would afford time for the optimum road location to be addressed. James Nordstrom stated that he would have no issue waiving the cul-de-sac length as the long term objective was a through road.
Dave Elliot wished to confirm that the Board was supportive of the applicant’s intent to regain another lot in place of the one they would opt to hold out. The Chairman stated that he considered the scenario to be a trading of lots. James Nordstrom clarified that five lots would be platted with four being usable. The Chairman noted that this alternative would be beneficial to the Town and the subdivision. He added that the applicant should be able to pinpoint the optimum road location within 200 feet. The Chairman was pleased with this proposal as it would accomplish the Board’s requirements and meet the applicants’ needs.
Dave Woodbury wished to establish for the record that no representatives for the Lordens were present at tonight’s hearing. He added that it should also be stated who was present to represent the interests of Indian Falls and/or the Bussiere family. Ray Shea, LLS, of Sandford Survey stated that the applicant had asked him to attend tonight’s hearing as a representative of Indian Falls and the Bussiere family. He stated that the proposed road design for Indian Falls would be able to intersect with the applicant’s proposed Harvey Lane and that he had shown preliminary designs to the Coordinator. Ray Shea, LLS, stated that his clients wished to wait until the March, 2005, Town vote on the Steep Slopes Ordinance before establishing potential lot
configurations for their preliminary plans. Dave Woodbury asked if Indian Falls and the Bussiere family were to be considered as one applicant. Ray Shea, LLS, stated they represented separate parcels and might submit individual applications simultaneously, but were not partners but were attempting to work together on the overall project.
Bob Furey asked if Lot #34 would be considered a buildable lot if the proposed right-of-way was moved to its southerly edge. Paul Carideo, PE, replied that it could be although State approval would be required if the acreage dropped below 5 when contiguous dry land was calculated. He added that Lot #34 backed up to the Lorden’s back lot line and it was the applicant’s intent to afford him room for both a 200 foot building square and a road connection point. The Chairman commented that having the proposed road cut through the middle of Lot #34 would create an ideal scenario for the applicant. Paul Carideo, PE, stated that topography would still need to be studied off the site as current information could not confirm that two other buildable lots would be
possible. He added that other alternatives could result where the Lordens would gain a parcel and a right-of-way or the applicant would obtain more land. The Chairman clarified that a plan should be created that paralleled tonight’s discussion for the applicant’s next hearing. Bob Furey thought this seemed appropriate. Paul Carideo, PE, asked if it was possible
to forward the plans to Dufresne-Henry, Inc., with the revisions discussed but before the Board procedurally accepted the application as complete at the next scheduled hearing. He added that the revised plan would be similar to the one reviewed by the Board at the meeting held two weeks prior. The Chairman replied that the plans could not be forwarded to the Town Engineer before they were accepted as complete and noted that a similar request by another applicant had been denied earlier in the evening. He stated that he understood the applicant did not want to delay the application but noted that it would most likely be accepted as complete at the next hearing and could then be forwarded for review by the Town Engineer. Paul Carideo, PE, asked if the next available meeting date was in one month. The
Coordinator replied that the next available meeting date was April 12, 2005. Paul Carideo, PE, stated that because that date was six weeks out he would like to ask the Board to accept the plan presented two weeks prior as it more closely resembled the design the Board had discussed tonight. He then showed the plan to the Board and noted that the proposed road from this evening’s discussion would only be 75-100 feet shorter and less two lots. Dave Woodbury added that this version of the plan did not illustrate the right-of-way which was discussed this evening. Paul Carideo, PE, replied that a lot would still be noted reserved for a right-of-way. He added that at the meeting two weeks prior the only issue raised was on the road length, therefore, the road profile would be unchanged and only have revisions made to the temporary cul-de-sac and the elimination of two lots. Paul Carideo, PE, stated that he could modify the plan and submit it to
the Board in a week’s time rather than have the application stalled for six weeks. Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, stated that all comments provided by the Road Committee to the Board in their letter dated December 16, 2004, would remain the same other than the deletion of Harvey Lane and the addition of the proposed cul-de-sac. Paul Carideo, PE, asked if the applicant had received a copy of the Road Committee’s comments. The Coordinator stated that they had not as they were based on an old version of the plan, however, she could forward a copy to them.
Dave Woodbury stated that although the Board’s policy was not to forward plans for review before they were accepted as complete, in this case, the revisions were clear and a six week delay to accept the application seemed excessive. He added that it appeared the Board and the applicant were clear on what was expected of the plan and suggested that the Board could accept the application given its unique circumstances. The Chairman clarified that these expectations involved the termination of the proposed road at the point noted on the plan and the elimination of two lots. Paul Carideo, PE, added that by terminating the road at the noted point he could eliminate three lots to afford frontage for the remaining parcel. The Chairman agreed that a third lot could be
set aside for future road use. The Chairman asked the Board if they were agreeable to the acceptance procedure suggested. James Nordstrom replied that based on the
information submitted by the applicant and what the Planning Department had received already he believed the application could be considered complete. Paul Carideo, PE, noted that a waiver request for the maximum cul-de-sac length was required. The Chairman stated that the waiver could be requested verbally and followed up in writing. James Nordstrom stated that the items of exception on the plan were the proposed road name, bond estimate and suitability of erosion control. The Coordinator noted that a bond estimate was received by the Planning Department today which would only need revisions for the proposed road length.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Harvey Dupuis Family Trust, Major Subdivision, 8 Lots, Location: Carriage Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/93 and 12/93-22, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Travis Daniels seconded the motion.
The Chairman stated that the application no longer involved 8 lots. Paul Carideo, PE, replied that the application involved six lots and a remainder which was the lot line adjustment lot. Dave Elliot stated that because one lot needed to be held out and another was an existing permitted lot four new lots would be netted. Bob Furey wished to note that although the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies were based on the previous plan version the revisions expected would not alter their results. The Chairman stated that as soon as the revised plans were submitted to the Planning Department they could be forward to Dufresne-Henry, Inc., for review. The motion PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Harvey Dupuis Family Trust, Major Subdivision, 8 Lots, Location: Carriage Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/93 and 12/93-22, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to April 26, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman explained to Paul Carideo, PE, that the Board scheduled the next meeting for April 26, 2005, versus the earlier available date of April 12, 2005, to assure that ample time was allowed to address any issues that might further delay the application.
VISTA ROAD, LLC
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/14 Lots
Location: Inkberry and Wilson Hill Roads
Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. An interested party present was Matt Reed. The Chairman then read a letter submitted by Brian Holt of Vista Road, LLC to the Board that requested tonight’s hearing be rescheduled to the next meeting date in March, 2005, as they wereaddressing changes needed to the plans according to Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s, review. He then read a letter submitted by Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc.: “We reviewed the most recently revised plans and Stormwater Management Plan in a review letter dated February 4, 2005, then met with Brian Holt of Thibeault Corporation and Jeff Kevan of T.F. Moran at the New Boston Planning Department on February 8, 2005, to discuss 39 outstanding comments. At
that meeting the design engineer and developer’s representative indicated that the substantial plan changes precipitating many of our comments were at the direction of the New Boston Road Committee and were identified during a meeting between the Road Committee and the project developer and design engineer. At the time of our last review we were unaware that the meeting had occurred and at this time we have not received any documentation of the issues discussed or direction given by the Road Committee in that meeting. We are requesting direction from the Planning Board with regard to how to proceed and resolve our outstanding engineering and constructability review comments.”
Roch Larochelle asked the date of the meeting to which Amy Alexander referred. The Chairman and Coordinator replied that they did not know the date. The Coordinator stated that she and Amy Alexander had met with Brian Holt and questioned the changes made to the plan as a result of input from the Road Committee. She added that she and Amy Alexander were unaware of the meeting the applicant had with the Road Committee which resulted in a major change made to the plan which in turn resulted in the addition of a 23 foot deep catch basin. The Coordinator explained that the Road Agent had requested better maintenance access to drainage pipes on the site, however, he did not foresee a 23 foot catch basin as the solution. She added that a more shallow catch
basin could have been accomplished by placing easements through a lot line at an alternate location on the plan. The Coordinator noted that applicant had, hence, made this design change at great expense and it was unknown who had dictated the revision. She added that Amy Alexander did not favor the new plan because of the 23 foot catch basin and the question remained as to how to proceed and whether the applicant should have approached the Board before their revisions were made.
Roch Larochelle stated that the Road Committee had composed a letter that requested three detention ponds on the site be reconfigured in order that they could be better accessed for maintenance purposes. He added that an informal meeting was held with several members of the Road Committee, Brian Holt and Jeff Kevan to review the Road Committee’s letter which had also been sent to Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry, Inc. Roch Larochelle noted that the applicant’s next submission reflected their solutions to the reconfigurations requested. The Chairman thought that all parties involved in this issue should come before the Board so that this issue could be better clarified. Roch Larochelle stated that the Road Committee’s main concern had been access to the
detention ponds on the site which were on easements with slopes of 25% and greater with catch basins or drop structures located on the downhill portion of those easements. He added that based on the gradings and lot configurations provided by T.F. Moran the easements created valleys between the proposed lots which they felt could cause drainage issues in the future and this prompted the Road Committee’s request for a reconfiguration of the
detention ponds. Roch Larochelle stated that the applicant then proposed an access road which the Road Committee felt was too wide and too steep at a 10% grade. He added that this too had been outlined in a letter provided to Amy Alexander. Roch Larochelle summarized that the informal meeting held with members of the Road Committee and the applicant highlighted those concerns.
Dave Woodbury questioned whether this issue involved a dispute between engineers or of the role of the Road Committee versus that of the Town Engineer. He added that if the latter was the case then the Selectmen should possibly mediate what participation each party should have. The Coordinator stated that the crux of the issue involved the applicants’ design engineer making a revision to the plan based on the Road Committee’s request that did not meet Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s constructability standards or the Town’s maintenance standards. She added that the applicant acted upon the Road Committee’s request but should have contacted the Town Engineer before the revisions were made because now no one was satisfied with the plan. Roch
Larochelle noted that the Road Committee acted in an advisory capacity only and always forwarded their comments to the Town Engineer. The Coordinator stated that Amy Alexander may have received these comments, however, she was surprised to see a revised plan not prefaced by discussions with her office. Roch Larochelle asked if the catch basin depth was the only major issue of this conflict. The Coordinator replied that to her knowledge it was. Dave Woodbury wondered if the applicant had misinterpreted the Road Committee’s authority in this case. The Coordinator replied that was possible. Dave Woodbury noted that the applicant should have confirmed this authority before acting upon it. The Coordinator agreed but noted that the question of how the Road Committee, Town Engineer and Planning Board worked together needed to be addressed as detailed comments from the Road Committee could lead the applicant to believe that changes were
warranted rather than suggested. The Chairman added that he felt the applicants’ misinterpretations were related to their request for direct access to the Road Committee in the interest of time rather than operating through the Board’s guidance. Roch Larochelle stated that comments from the Road Committee are always provided to the applicant and the Town Engineer. The Chairman replied that such comments were only points of information for the Town Engineer, however, the applicant took the same comments and made modifications which Amy Alexander then questioned. Dave Woodbury suggested that if this scenario occurred frequently or was a concern of the Board a letter should be forwarded to the Selectmen from the Planning Department so that they could discuss it with the Road Committee, Road Agent and the Board in order to reach a resolution. The Chairman thought that the matter could be resolved easily if comments from the Road Committee were
forwarded to the applicant through the Board. Roch Larochelle added that any questions from the Road Committee could be filtered through the Town Engineer. The Coordinator added that the roles of the Road Committee and the Town Engineer needed better clarification as both are comprised of professional engineers performing similar reviews. Roch Larochelle agreed. The Coordinator added that, historically, the Road Committee was known by the Board as a local group who provided generalized comments on plans. She added that if the Road Committee wished to give more specific comments on plans going forward that needed clarification. Roch Larochelle apologized for any confusion this issue created and noted that the Road Committee’s intent was to protect the interests of the Town. The Coordinator noted that Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s input regarding what they addressed in plan reviews would be helpful if a meeting between the parties was
held. James Nordstrom stated that there was no point for an applicant to pay the Town Engineer to perform a review if the Road Committee was doing the same type of review. Roch Larochelle did not think that type of review service could be provided to an applicant by an entity that operated on a volunteer basis. James Nordstrom clarified that the simultaneous services of both entities could be considered wasted energy. Dave Woodbury believed that the Town Engineer would always carry the responsibility for plan reviews. Roch Larochelle stated that the Road Committee would gladly take a less intensive role in plan review if it pleased the Board. Dave Woodbury thought that it was important to have all parties involved present for a meeting and in full attendance to resolve this issue.
Bob Furey stated that, as a civil engineer, he understood that two engineers reviewing a plan could have different comments that were both acceptable. He added that the applicant, in this case, should have known that a 23 foot catch basin was unacceptable. James Nordstrom agreed and added that he would question the applicant’s defense of being forced into that type of solution if it was presented in that way. He added that a 23 foot catch basin was well beyond good engineering practices for the Town or any municipality.
The Coordinator stated that she would arrange a meeting between all parties involved and inform Amy Alexander that she should review their drainage design for constructability and maintenance.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Vista Road, LLC, Major Subdivision, 14 Lots, Location: Inkberry and Wilson Hill Roads, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5, Residential-Agricultural “R-A’ District, to April 26, 2005, at 7:45 p.m. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
An interested party, Matt Reed, asked if the Board would be discussing the intersection of Wilson Hill Road and Bedford Road as it related to the applicant. Dave Woodbury asked if Matt Reed was the property owner of the corner lot at that intersection. Matt Reed stated that he was and that he and John Riendeau, Road Agent, had viewed the sight distance from the intersection looking down Bedford Road. He added that it appeared the road curved down and to the left which contributed to the limited sight distance along with a stone wall located on his property. Matt Reed stated that if sight distance could have been improved by the removal of some trees on his property he would be willing to have this done, however, he and his wife did not want portions of their stone
wall removed as suggested because they felt in would devalue their property. He noted that he had suggested an alternative solution of a three way stop at the intersection. Dave Woodbury did not think the Police Chief and the Road Agent would favor a three way stop at this intersection as Bedford Road was an important artery road within the Town. He added that he was aware that Matt Reed, as the property owner, was willing to make some concessions but not others. Matt Reed added that their stone wall provided a barrier of safety for their children and pets and also a buffer for noise from traffic. Bob Furey asked on which corner of the intersection Matt Reed’s property was located. Dave Woodbury replied that Matt Reed’s property was on the left as one turned left onto Bedford Road from Wilson Hill Road. The Chairman clarified that Matt Reed was not agreeable to moving any portion of the stone wall on his property. Matt
Reed replied that was correct. The Chairman stated that this
was information that was needed by the Board and stressed that no one could make Matt Reed modify his property. He thanked Matt Reed for coming before the Board.
Dave Woodbury noted that John Gingrich had given land to the Town at the point on Wilson Hill Road where the road cornered and had limited sight distance. He noted that Vista Road should be asked to view that location for possible improvements.
THIBEAULT CORPORATION OF N.E. Adjourned from 1/25/05
Compliance Hearing/Major Subdivision/Inkberry Road
Location: Byam Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/41
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He then read a letter submitted by the applicant that requested tonight’s hearing be postponed to the next meeting date in March, 2005.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Thibeault Corporation of N.E., Compliance Hearing, Major Subdivision, Inkberry Road, Location: Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to April 12, 2005, at 8:00 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
4. A copy of a letter received February 15, 2005, from William R. Drescher, Drescher & Dokomo, Attorneys at Law, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Document Review, Martin Subdivision, Tax Map/Lot #14-1, South Hill Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that Bill Drescher, Esq., noted that Sue Martin’s driveway had an entrance and an exit point but an easement that covered only one leg of the driveway which implied a maintenance concern. She added that Bill Drescher, Esq., suggested that the Board incorporate language in the easement that only one leg be used. The Coordinator noted that this was not a concern of the Board during the subdivision review because the driveway was pre-existing with two entrances. She further noted that the other comments in Bill Drescher, Esq.’s letter were appropriate. The Coordinator thought a summarized version of Town Counsel’s letter sent to Sue Martin was appropriate. The Chairman agreed.
5. A copy of a letter received February 15, 2005, from William R. Drescher, Drescher & Dokomo, Attorneys at Law, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Document
Review, Downing Subdivision, Tax Map/Lot #1/12-1, Saunders Hill Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that Bill Drescher, Esq., had one comment in the case that sprinklers were to be on both lots which they were not, therefore, there were no comments for this review.
6. A copy of a letter received February 18, 2005, from George Olmstead, to Susan Martin,
Re: Declaration of Protective Covenants & Restrictions for South Hill Farm, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that this issue was now a civil issue and now a problem existed. The Coordinator noted that the problem was Mr. Olmstead’s and that he would need to decide how he wished to deal with this issue before the plan was recorded. Don Duhaime asked if covenants were legal. The Chairman and Coordinator replied that they were. The Coordinator added that covenants were enforceable by the declarants only. Don Duhaime asked what the status of the subdivision would be if Mr. Olmstead decided to enforce his covenants. The Coordinator explained that the status of the application would be no different as the Board could have approved the subdivision regardless of the covenants and once the plan was recorded the declarant could do nothing.
She added that the Board could take no position on covenants and if Mr. Olmstead wished to pursue this issue he would need to approach it on his own legal terms. Dave Woodbury thought that Mr. Olmstead could take Ms. Martin to court to have the subdivision declared invalid. Don Duhaime asked if the Board had any jurisdiction in the matter. The Coordinator replied that the Board would only have jurisdiction if the covenant was related to a Town Ordinance or Regulation such as the Sprinkler Ordinance which the Town could enforce and could not be changed by lot owners.
7a&b. A copy of a memorandum dated February 18, 2005, from Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, Board of Selectmen, and Planning Board Members, Re: SNPC, Master Plan Scope of Work, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that she needed to know if the Board approved of the Master Plan Scope of Work for finalization in March, 2005. She added that the Master Plan Committee was scheduled to meet on March 9, 2005, and would discuss the Scope of Work at that time.
Bob Furey asked if much reworking of the Master Plan would be necessary if the Steep Slopes Ordinance did not pass at the March Town vote. The Coordinator stated that it would not because the language in the Master Plan simply suggested that lands with slopes of 25% and greater not be developed and slopes of 15% to 25% be considered closely. She added that if the Steep Slopes Ordinance did not pass this language could remain in the Master Plan.
Bob Furey stated that he did not understand the $8,000.00 credit. The Coordinator explained that there had been $15,000.00 that had been voted in by the town meeting last year for the Master Plan Update. She noted that this was to be added to $9,000.00+/- that was encumbered for Master Plan work from previous years. However, the Town Administrator had informed her that the auditors may require those prior year funds to be returned to the general fund. With that in mind and taking into account that the Master Plan Committee had dwindled in size and was not making quick progress on the Master Plan, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission (SNHPC) had offered the $8,000.00 credit in order to allow the Master Plan update to be completed in 2005. The Coordinator
stated that the Town Administrator thought that with a concrete Scope of Work in place, the auditors may allow the funds remaining from past town votes to be used and not returned to the general fund. She noted that, either way, it appeared that there would be funds in place to complete the update this year.
The Planning Board was in favor of moving ahead with the Scope of Work as presented by SNHPC, noting the importance of completing the Master Plan update in order to allow work on ordinances and regulations to take place.
Bob Furey wished to return to a topic discussed at the hearing of applicants, Susan and David Lyons earlier in the evening. He asked if an applicant confirmed that they had a Dredge and Fill Permit could the Board could feel confident that wetland crossings were designed properly. Bob Furey stated that he thought the first wetland crossing for the Lyons was close to the property line and questioned if the two proposed culverts could handle run-off loads. He
further asked if the State viewed wetland crossing designs. James Nordstrom replied that in some cases the State required drainage analysis but was unsure what condition created that requirement. Bob Furey asked if such assurance could be a requirement of the Board. James Nordstrom replied that he was unsure if the Town could make that requirement but knew that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had asked for drainage analysis in certain cases. He added that if a problem was suspected nothing prevented the Board from requesting further analysis. Don Duhaime thought Bob Furey raised a good point in the Lyons case as the culverts proposed seemed small for the site. Bob Furey stated that he questioned the validity of such assurances by an applicant. James Nordstrom agreed that this was a good point. Don
Duhaime stated that in the last several months two similar projects had come before the Board and he asked if the Board could require how drainage was addressed. Travis Daniels replied that this could result in higher costs to the applicant. Don Duhaime replied that he was not concerned with cost. The Chairman stated that the Board could stress that drainage designs adhered to what was required by the Subdivision Regulations. Dave Woodbury asked if the Board had the right to deny bad plan designs. The Coordinator cautioned the Board that basing a denial on poor design made the Town vulnerable to legal action. She added that denials needed to be based in accordance with what the Regulations dictated.
At 10:38 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:
|