Town of New Boston
Planning Board
Minutes of January 11, 2005
The meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by Vice Chairman James Nordstrom. Present were regular members, Bob Furey, Travis Daniels; ex-officio Dave Woodbury; and, alternate Don Duhaime. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nicola Strong and Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown. Planning Board Chairman, Peter Hogan, arrived at approximately 7:10 p.m.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting, were David Craig, Bob Todd, LLS, Laura Todd, Jim Kerouac, John MacLennan, Corey Johnston, Jeff Cloutier, Kim Burkhamer, Brent and Patricia Armstrong, Andy and Melissa Philippy, Paul Carideo, PE, Art Siciliano, LLS, Sam Proctor, Brandy Mitroff, Tris Gordon, Bob Huettner, Ursula Gordon, Greg Mattison, Phil Consolini, Rock Larochelle, Charles Cleary, Esq., Walter Houghton, Sr., Dave Elliott and Neil Smith.
PUBLIC HEARING
Amendments to the Building Code
The Vice Chairman read the public hearing notice. He then appointed alternate Don Duhaime as a full voting member of the Board. The Vice Chairman confirmed that no members of the public were present and read the proposed amendments to the Building Code:
‘Are you in favor of amending the Town of New Boston Building Code to add the following paragraph to apply to all sections relating to the requirement to install fire prevention sprinkler systems:
‘The Town of New Boston Fire Chief is hereby authorized to grant exceptions or variances to any requirement relating to the installation of fire prevention sprinkler systems to the extent that such action will provide a degree of safety substantially equivalent to that provided under the provisions from which the exception or variance is sought.’
Dave Woodbury questioned the use of the terms “exception(s)” and “variance(s)” in the context of the amendment because those terms were applied differently for land use issues. He added that it could be assumed that the intent of the language for this amendment was that the Fire Chief could grant waivers and thought the public might confuse the current terms to mean that a variance or special exception was warranted. Dave Woodbury noted that when he raised this question with the Planning Assistant she had informed him that Bill Drescher, Esq., had reviewed and approved this language. The Coordinator clarified that Bill Drescher, Esq., had actually composed the language for the amendment. The Planning Assistant noted that Bill Drescher,
Esq., explained that if the Fire Chief was to deny the waiver, the individual(s) could approach the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for a variance. James Nordstrom clarified that this amendment afforded the Fire Chief administrative decision making power and that an applicant would have the ability to seek an appeal from such an administrative decision. The Coordinator agreed and likened this to the scenario of an applicant that sought an administrative appeal from a decision of the Building Inspector. Dave Woodbury still thought the terms “exception(s)” and “variance(s)” were confusing and asked if a change needed to be made in the context of tonight’s meeting. The Coordinator felt that changing the terms to “waiver” was
PUBLIC HEARING, Amendments to the Building Code, cont.
acceptable as the intent of the amendment would not change. The Planning Assistant noted that Bill Drescher, Esq., understood Dave Woodbury’s concern regarding the terms and was not opposed to the use of
“waiver” in place of “exceptions” or “variances”. The Coordinator added that tonight was the
last available date to discuss the proposed amendment.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to replace the words “exception(s)” and “variance(s)”
in the amendments to the Building Code with the term “waiver(s)”. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to propose the amendment to the Building Code as adjusted for ballot vote in March 2005. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
GRANITE STATE CONCRETE CO., INC.
JOINT HEARING OF THE ZBA AND PLANNING BOARD FOR
SPECIAL EXCEPTION & NON -RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW.
Location: Salisbury Road
Tax Map/Lot #13/5
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Vice Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were ZBA Chairman David Craig, and board members Bob Todd, Greg Mattison and Phil Consolini. Also present was ZBA Recording Clerk Laura Todd. James Nordstrom stated that the Planning Board would take seats in the audience and allow the ZBA to take the table for discussion.
Present for the applicant were Jim Kerouac of Gallagher, Callahan and Gartrell, John McLellan of Granite State Concrete, Jeff Cloutier of North American Reserve and Corey Johnston of Keach-Nordstrom and Associates.
---Please refer to ZBA minutes of January 11, 2005, for this discussion---
At the conclusion of the ZBA’s portion of the hearing the Planning Board was reseated. The Chairman confirmed that the site walk with the applicant, members of the ZBA and the Planning Board would be held on January 29, 2005, at 8:00 a.m. James Nordstrom noted that he would need to recuse himself from the application of Granite State Concrete Company, Inc., as he worked for the engineering company that prepared the plans.
Travis Daniels MOVED to adjourn the application of Granite State Concrete Company, Inc., Location: Salisbury Road, Tax Map/Lot # 13/5, Residential-Agricultural, “R-A”
District, to February 8, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it
PASSED unanimously.
SUSAN MARTIN
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: South Hill & McCollum Roads
Tax Map/Lot #14/1
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, who represented the applicant. Abutters present were Brent and Patti Armstrong.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the applicant had received an amended State Subdivision Approval from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). The Coordinator noted that she had also received a copy. Bob Todd, LLS, added that minor corrections had been addressed according to the Planning Department’s checklist review and a revised plan prepared.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the application dealt with Tax Map/Lot #14/1 and noted the parcel’s central location based on a composite of four tax map sheets. He added that the location was in a low density residential area and mostly agricultural. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that more recently the property was known as the South Hill Farm and previously the Reed Brothers Farm, which had been one of the more prominent farms in the Town. He noted that Tax Map/Lot #’s 13/45 and 13/54-2 were also part of South Hill Farm at one time. Bob Todd, LLS, noted the newest development on McCollum Road in relation to the parcel’s location along with neighboring residential lots on Route 13, conservation lands, Tax Map/Lot #’s 14/2 and 14/3 which were owned by the
Piscataquog Watershed Association (PWA), and a Town owned lot comprised of meadow lands. He added that the distance from the driveway entrance of Lot #14/1 to the Fire Station was 2.5 miles. Bob Todd, LLS, described South Hill Road (a 21 foot wide paved roadway) and McCollum Road (a gravel surfaced road) as the main access roads to the Lot and noted that minimal traffic traveled off of Route 13 via Meadow Road towards this area.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the overall property plan had been compiled from existing surveys performed in 1981 by Howe Engineering and Survey of Massachusetts and also by himself. He explained that the soil lines illustrated on the plans were projected or digitized from the Hillsborough County Soil Survey Map. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the western quarter of the parcel contained Paxton or Group 3 soils which were considered to have moderate limitations. He added that a Group 1 soil was found in the west central location and was classified as Windsor which was well suited for development. Bob Todd, LLS, further added that the soils transitioned from poorly drained to very poorly drained and mucky peat to marsh as the parcel continued eastward to the low gradient area
near Route 13. He noted that these soils were classified as Groups 5 and 6. Bob Todd, LLS, indicated the areas where test pits were dug on the Lot two years prior which netted Canton soils that were non-restrictive with deep water
tables. He added that test pits dug in remaining areas of the Lot were found to be restrictive at
18 inches with seasonal high water tables at that level.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the developed areas of the Lot included the existing farm, guest house and hayfield where slopes ranged from 3% to 8%. He noted that a strip of steep
MARTIN, cont.
slope was located at the eastern edge of the hay field which was determined to be in the ranges of 15-25% and 25% and greater as noted by shadings on the plans. Bob Todd, LLS, added that the slope measurements were determined by use of a hand held compass and pace measurements. He noted that these slopes were not considered to be significant factors that would affect lot sizing or uses proposed by the applicant. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the property located across from the hay field had slopes of 3%-8% followed by a gradual 0%-3% slope toward the eastern
boundary of Meadow Brook Road. He noted the fields on the parcel to be sufficient hay
producers that were harvested each year. Bob Todd, LLS added that the forest on the site was well managed with white pine growth due to fine textured soils and adequate water supply. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that no wetlands were observed on the western side of the parcel and reiterated that poorly drained soils were noted on the eastern portions. He added that he had not delineated the wetlands as they were outside the proposed limits of the plan and, therefore, had requested a waiver for that requirement.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the applicant proposed to subdivide a 2.429 acre lot which would include the former caretaker’s home (now rented) and noted the proposed lot’s configuration on the plan. He pointed out the existing well and septic on the plan but added that new ones were proposed and noted their suggested locations. In addition, Bob Todd, LLS, noted the area of the proposed driveway on South Hill Road. He added that safe sight distance had been determined at that location. Bob Todd, LLS, further added that Will Sullivan, Esq., was in the process of drafting easements for continued use of the existing driveway in the event the new owner opted not to construct a new driveway. He added that these documents would be submitted to the Board by
week’s end.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the second proposed lot would be a 12.428 acre parcel which would include the existing farm house, guest house, barn and pool. He noted the guest house was not used as a permanent residence. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that a new septic system was installed on this parcel three years prior, therefore, the test pits were not duplicated.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the remaining 78.1 acres had frontage on South Hill Road and also 50 feet of frontage on Meadow Road. He added that this parcel had two accesses in two different locations which could avoid traversing the steep slopes and noted that the last timber harvest that had been done on the property used the Meadow Road access.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the applicant requested waivers for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Studies, and the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and check list item #’s 36, 37 and 50. He added that he had presented an executed Declaration of Covenants to require fire sprinkler systems for future proposed homes on the site and coinciding deed language. Bob Todd, LLS, confirmed that boundary markers had been placed at the site and that the Driveway Permit Application was attached to the application.
Dave Woodbury asked if the potential house lot density for the remaining 78 acres had
been calculated. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that approximately 15 lots could be allowed on the remaining 78 acres under cluster or conventional guidelines. Bob Furey asked if an access to a potential future subdivision was likely to be off McCollum Road. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that he thought such an access would be more likely to come off South Hill Road.
MARTIN, cont.
The Chairman asked if any abutters were present. Abutter Brent Armstrong wished to pose three points to the Board as follows:
1. Has the applicant been in contact with the declarants of the existing covenants to assure that the application complied with those covenants?
2. The disposal area on Lot #14/1 serves only the existing main house on the plans and not the additional guest house as noted. The guest house has its own 500 gallon septic
tank and disposal area on the north side of the guest house 10 feet from its foundation and the main house has its own three separate tanks.
3. Will an easement need to be granted to Lot #14/1 to allow electric service to pass underground to the guest house on Lot #14/1-2 as the Public Service of New Hampshire transformer box which provides underground utility service to both structures was not illustrated on the plan?
Bob Todd, LLS, asked Mr. Armstrong for a copy of his questions which Mr. Armstrong then provided.
The Chairman asked if the Declaration of Covenants stipulated no further subdivision of the lot. Brent Armstrong understood the Covenant to be restrictive and that enforcement was limited to the declarants themselves. He noted that the Planning Board had no authority to enforce the Covenants. Brent Armstrong added that portions of the application seemed to breach these Covenants and, therefore, he questioned whether the declarants had been contacted.
Bob Furey asked the name of the declarants. Brent Armstrong noted the declarents to be George Olmstead III and his sister Mrs. Joan Oaks who were the children of the owner of South Hill Farm Partners. He recommended that the Board read the Covenants for their own education. The Chairman stated that the Board would obtain a copy of, and review, the Declaration of Covenants.
The Chairman wished to review the waiver requests submitted for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. James Nordstrom clarified that the intent of the current proposal was for no new construction other than a new well and septic disposal on the site. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that was correct and that only changes to ownership lines were proposed. Brent Armstrong noted that as the applicant’s Lot #14/1 existed presently, it was non-conforming with two residences but grandfathered with that status. He added that if subdivided, each lot would become conforming with one residence each, however, a potential buyer who purchased both lots and wished to consolidate them back to one would be unable to use the
existing caretaker’s house as a residence because the grandfathered non-conformity status would have since been eliminated. The Chairman understood Mr. Armstrong’s explanation as a point of information for the Board and current and future owners of the property. Brent Armstrong acknowledged that to be the case. James Nordstrom thought the waiver requests were justified due to the fact that no new construction was proposed.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waivers requested in the letter dated December 8, 2004, by Bob Todd, LLS, for Soils Mapping on the remaining acreage east of the parcel, the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Site Specific Soil Mapping, and
MARTIN, cont.
Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Studies. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Susan Martin, Major Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: South Hill and McCollum Roads, Tax Map/Lot #14/1, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman wished to schedule a site walk so this application could be reviewed against the existing on-site approved yoga business regarding parking spaces, etc. Dave Woodbury noted that the existing business was not a very active one. The Chairman replied that it was still important to confirm the compliance of the existing business in light of the present application. A site walk was scheduled for January 29, 2005, at 9:15 a.m.+/-.
Travis Daniels MOVED to adjourn the application of Susan Martin, Major Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: South Hill and McCollum Roads, Tax Map/Lot #14/1, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to February 8, 2005, at 8:30p.m. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
WALTER H. HOUGHTON SR (OWNER)
ANDY PHILIPPY (APPLICANT)
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Minor Site Plan
Location: 80 Weare Road
Tax Map/Lot# 5/32
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was applicant Andy Philippy. Melissa Philippy and Walter Houghton, Sr., were present. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Andy Philippy stated that he wished to install a sign on his property that advertised his plumbing business. The Chairman asked the applicant if he would be using the garage on his property to store business materials. Andy Philippy replied that he would store only a minimal amount of items that would be no more than what was able to fit into his trailer which he worked out of when he made service calls. The Chairman explained that as a home shop the applicant would not, for example, be allowed to pile water heaters around his home, garage or property and that this was the intent of the required Site Plan. He explained that the applicant would need to contact the Building Inspector and possibly the State regarding setback requirements for the business sign as an
issue regarding a business sign’s placement had occurred at a residence on Route 136. The Chairman asked if the sign would be illuminated. Andy Philippy replied that he preferred not to do so but asked if he would need to re-file his application in the future if he
HOUGHTON, PHILIPPY, cont.
decided to use a light. The Coordinator suggested that the applicant show a light on his filed permit with the Building Inspector and then make his preference. Dave Woodbury asked if the applicant proposed a business sign at his residence to conduct business at his home or just to inform that he was in the plumbing business. Andy Philippy replied that the sign was for information purposes only. The Chairman noted that this was the reason the plan was not for a home business. Dave Woodbury clarified that this was also why hours of operation, Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Studies and a site walk was not relevant for the application. The Chairman replied that was correct. James Nordstrom suggested a hand amendment to the Site Plan would clarify that it was not a home business with employees,
etc. The Chairman felt that the definition of a home shop and the plan’s title would quell any confusion. James Nordstrom
agreed. The Chairman stated that the sign’s location on the plan would be acceptable as long as the requirements of the Building Inspector and the State were satisfied. Dave Woodbury asked if any revisions were needed to the Site Plan. The Chairman replied that pending the State’s approval there was one possible change to a note on the plan. James Nordstrom stated that the note on the plan which stated that the sign would have no light should be deleted.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to approve the site plan for Walter Houghton, Sr., owner and Andy Philippy, applicant, to operate a plumbing home shop and install a sign advertising the business at Tax Map/Lot #5/32, Weare Road, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of three (3) copies of the revised site plan that include all checklist corrections and any agreed-upon conditions from this hearing.
The deadline for complying with the condition(s) precedent shall be June 1, 2005, the
confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date, and a written request for extension is not submitted prior to that date, an administrative NOTICE OF DENIAL shall be issued without further action of the Board being required.
James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Andy Philippy asked if he needed to obtain something signed from the State to present to the Building Inspector. The Chairman asked what the State had told him thus far. Andy Philippy replied that the State was in the process of sending him documentation that referenced a jog in the right-of-way on his property. The Chairman stated that when Andy Philippy received this documentation he should present it to the Building Inspector.
THIBEAULT CORPORATION OF N.E.
Compliance Hearing /Major Subdivision/Inkberry Road
Location: Byam Road
Tax Map/Lot # 6/41
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
THIBEAULT CORPORATION OF N.E., cont.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He stated that the applicant had requested a continuance of tonight’s scheduled hearing to January 25, 2005, at 10:00p.m.+/-.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Thibeault Corporation of N.E., Compliance Hearing, Major Subdivision, Inkberry Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to January 25, 2005, at 10:00p.m.+/-. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
An interested party from Inkberry Road stated asked when mail service to the road would begin. The Chairman replied that the Board first needed to establish that Inkberry Road had been built to Town specifications at a Compliance Hearing and that mail service to the road would begin soon after such compliance was confirmed. The interested party asked if any other work needed to be done to the road. The Chairman thought the road was complete. Dave Woodbury stated that it was the applicant’s decision to request a continuance of tonight’s hearing. The Coordinator explained that the Planning Department had been informed that the As-Built Plans for the applicant’s compliance hearing would not arrive in time for tonight’s hearing, therefore,
the applicant had requested a continuance. She noted that after the continuance request was made the As-Built plans arrived at the Planning Department. Dave Woodbury thought the rescheduled compliance hearing on January 25, 2005, should be without incident. The Planning Assistant added that after the compliance was confirmed the Board of Selectmen would need to accept the road at which time the Post Office would be given notification that the road was accepted. The interested party stated that the builder of the development had stated that the remaining lots on Inkberry Road needed to be completed before the road could be accepted. The Chairman said this was incorrect and that in this case, compliance was based on the road proper completion.
HARVEY DUPUIS FAMILY TRUST
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, of T.F. Moran who represented the applicant. Dave Elliot and Neil Smith were also present. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Paul Carideo, PE, stated that because some checklist items had not been properly addressed on the plans the applicant requested a continuance to the next available meeting date. The Chairman asked how much time this hearing would require. The Coordinator replied that the applicant’s hearing would require at least one half hour and, therefore, the earliest available meeting date was February 8, 2005.
HARVEY DUPUIS FAMILY TRUST, cont.
Dave Woodbury 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 February 8, 2005, at 9:00p.m. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2005
1. Approval of minutes of December 14, 2004, with or without changes. (Distributed at the December 28, 2004, meeting.)
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of December 14, 2004, as written. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. The minutes of December 28, 2004, were distributed for approval at the January 25, 2005, meeting, with or without changes.
3. Endorsement of a Site Review Agreement for Thomas & Christine Quirk, Tax Map/Lot #7/11, Cochran Hill Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Coordinator noted that the applicants first needed to sign the Site Review Agreement before it could be endorsed by the Chairman and Secretary.
7. Signature required for a Driveway Permit Application for Paul R. Normand, Laurel Lane, Tax Map/Lot #15/3, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Coordinator suggested that because no members of the Board had been able to drive by the site prior to tonight’s meeting this item should be addressed at the meeting of January 25, 2005. The Chairman asked if a site walk on the property was warranted. Dave Woodbury thought a drive by would suffice. The Chairman said the Driveway Permit Application could then be acted upon at the next Planning Board meeting.
8. Signature required for a Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Swanson Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/32-28, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman stated that the driveways of Tax Map/Lot #6/32-27 and 6/32/-28 were discussed at the last meeting and that Lot #28 was to be viewed again to confirm the need for engineered driveway plans. Don Duhaime noted that it had been determined previously that Lot #27 would require engineered driveway plans. The Chairman agreed and noted that having viewed Lot #28’s driveway he thought it was able to be built to Town specifications. Bob Furey thought Lot #28’s driveway would be easier to construct than Lot #27’s. James Nordstrom
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
agreed that Lot #28’s driveway could be easily constructed. The Chairman wondered if the Board should require a provision that the proposed house for Lot #28 was built a certain distance from the road as no building envelope had yet been specified. Don Duhaime thought the Chairman’s point was valid as placement of the house further into the lot could cause an issue with the driveway’s construction. James Nordstrom thought this intent could be stipulated on the Driveway Permit for Lot #28. The Chairman noted that the applicant referred to Lot #28 as a “fill” lot that would pose no construction issues for the house or driveway. The Coordinator noted that the Driveway Permit was not the appropriate venue to instruct an applicant where to place a house and that the Subdivision Plan
stated that an applicant must comply with all Subdivision Regulations to meet the maximum driveway grade requirement of 10%. She thought it would be foolish for an applicant to compromise an acceptable driveway grade by changing the placement of a house thus jeopardizing the Certificate of Occupancy and facing revocations by the Board. The Coordinator suggested that the Board, as a courtesy, could send a letter to the applicant that outlined these points and in this way the location of the driveway could be assured and the project would proceed. The Chairman agreed. The Coordinator stated that the Road Agent had not yet provided his comments regarding the driveway for Lot #28. The Chairman could not foresee any issues the Road Agent might have. James Nordstrom agreed and felt that the Board could act on Driveway Permit Application given prior discussions with the Road Agent that concerned the process of driveway reviews between the Planning Board
and the Highway Department.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application 04-105, Tax Map/Lot #6/32-28, 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.
9. Compliance drive by on driveways for R.J. Moreau, Popple Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/32- 13, and #6/32-20.
Don Duhaime explained that a site representative had spoken with him regarding bonding through the winter as problems with Lot #13’s driveway could not be addressed until the spring. The Coordinator noted that the Town had the bond but it was based on the old amount of $250.00. The Chairman asked how Lot #20’s driveway appeared. Don Duhaime replied that it seemed to be fine.
Travis Daniels MOVED to confirm compliance for the driveways for Tax Map/Lot #6/32-13 located on Popple Road and Tax Map/Lot #6/32-20 located on Wilson Hill Road. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
10. Schedule a Compliance site walk for the Conditional Use Permit of 1 Wetland Crossing, for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Inkberry Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-39.
A compliance site walk was scheduled for January 29, 2005, at 10:00a.m. The Coordinator noted that a proper compliance hearing would need to be scheduled for this applicant and the bond hold-back amount would also need to be determined for the spring re-
seeding of the site. James Nordstrom asked the expiration date of the applicant’s Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Assistant replied that the Conditional Use Permit had expired in October, 2004.
11. A copy of a letter received January 4, 2005, from John S. Greenwood, R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, to Michele Brown, New Boston Planning Board, Re: Conditional Uses Permits for Tax Map/Lot #6/41-39, and Tax Map/Lot #6/41-45, was distributed for the Board’s action.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the extension requested in the letter received January 4, 2005, from John S. Greenwood, R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, and extend the Conditional Use Permit for Tax Map/Lot #’s 6/41-39 and 6/41-45, to April 1, 2005. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
12. A copy of a letter received January 4, 2005, from Arlene Allen, Compliance Inspector, D.E.S., to Lull Road Corporation, Re: Complaint received, was distributed for the Board’s information.
13. Daily road inspection reports dated, November 15th, 18th, and 19th, from Dufresne-Henry, Re: Indian Falls, were distributed for the Board’s information.
14. A daily road inspection report dated, November 18th, from Dufresne-Henry, Re: Highland Hills, was distributed for the Board’s information.
15. Read File: SNHPC, Project Newsletter, Volume 29 No. 2.
CURTIS HILL, LLC Adjourned from December 28, 2004
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/ 7 Lots
Location: Old Coach Road
Tax Map/Lot #10/3
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Vice Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Art Siciliano, LLS, and Sam Proctor of Curtis Hill, LLC. No abutters or interested parties were
CURTIS HILL, LLC, cont.
present.
Art Siciliano, LLS, submitted a waiver request for the Fiscal Impact Study. The Chairman asked if the waiver for the Study had already been granted. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that it had not.
Art Siciliano, LLS, stated that since the last meeting with the Board the terms of the Steep Slope Ordinance were applied to the plan and appeared to moderately affect Lot #4. He
asked if he correctly understood the requirement for at least 1.5 acres to be less than or between 15%-25% and contiguous. The Chairman replied that was correct. Art Siciliano, LLS, showed a sketch of the proposed house and septic locations. He stated that in his opinion a building and septic system could fit on less than 1.5 acres of contiguous flat land.
Sam Proctor stated that he had not heard of the Steep Slopes Ordinance until the meeting with the Board on December 28, 2005. He added that the minutes of a prior meeting in November with the Board noted that there were no outstanding issues with the application. Sam Proctor added that after many months of discussion on the fire fighting water supply for the subdivision which had since been resolved he was surprised to hear that this Ordinance affected the application. He stated that upon his review of the Ordinance and its coinciding seven points of intent, none of the points were compromised by the configuration of Lot #4. Sam Proctor added that although he understood the need for such an Ordinance he wished to ask the Board if they would consider waiving the
requirement in this case of this application which would have been finalized in September or October of 2004 if the cistern issue had not slowed its progression. The Chairman replied that the Board was not authorized to waive such a requirement because the Ordinance fell under Zoning. Dave Woodbury noted that only the ZBA would be authorized to grant such a waiver. James Nordstrom explained that because the Ordinance had been posted the Board was required to view it as part of the current Regulations. The Coordinator added that the applicant could await the outcome of the Town vote in March, 2005, or seek a variance from the ZBA. James Nordstrom asked if the green shaded area on the map illustrated slopes greater than 15%. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that the green shaded areas represented slopes in the range of 15 to 25%. James Nordstrom asked if Art Siciliano, LLS, had referenced the stipulation in the Ordinance that noted an elevation
change of greater than 20 feet must occur in order for an area to be considered part of the Steep Slopes Conservation District. The Chairman stated that he did not remember seeing any 15-25% slopes on the property when the site walk was performed. Art Siciliano, LLS, asked what the land would be considered if there was not a 20 foot change in elevation. James Nordstrom replied that the land would then be considered as flatland. Dave Woodbury asked if the applicant was certain that the areas noted as slopes of 15% and greater were truly of that classification. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that he was unsure. Bob Furey asked what portions of land the Board viewed on the site walk. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that the applicant and members of the Board walked the flatlands of the site. James Nordstrom noted that in the preliminary process of the application when the site walk occurred the Steep Slopes Ordinance was not in existence. The
Planning Assistant noted
that the Public Hearing for the draft of the Ordinance was held on November 23, 2004. James Nordstrom stated that the application had become the victim of unfortunate timing concerning
CURTIS HILL, LLC, cont.
the Ordinance. The Chairman thought the elevation stipulation should be thoroughly checked against the plan. He asked how far off Lot #4 was from 1.5 acres of contiguous flat land. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that the contiguous flatland for Lot #4 was approximately one acre. Dave Woodbury thought it could be difficult to reach the 1.5 acre contiguous requirement from the current 1.0 acre. Bob Furey asked if the non-shaded area to the south of Lot #4 was flat land. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that it was. The Chairman asked the same question of the abutting lot. Art Siciliano, LLS, concluded that oddly configured lots might result on the plan given the new challenge presented by Lot #4. He added that he would review the 20 foot elevation/distance stipulation of the Steep Slopes
Ordinance against the plan. Dave Woodbury noted that although the Board could not waive the requirement to apply the Ordinance the applicant had the choice of either applying the Ordinance, waiting for the Town vote or reconfiguring the lots on the plan. The Chairman added that checking the 20 foot elevation/distance changes on the plan before making a choice was a worthwhile step. Sam Proctor agreed.
The Chairman asked if the application had a deadline date for the Board’s action. The Planning Assistant noted that it did not because the application had not yet been accepted as complete.
The Chairman thought the Board could act on the waiver request for the Fiscal Impact Study. James Nordstrom asked if the applicant had provided justification for the waiver request. The Chairman replied that in the letter of request the applicant had stated that because this subdivision would have no greater effect on the Town than any other subdivision of the same size they did not feel a Fiscal Impact Study was warranted.
Travis Daniels MOVED to accept the waiver request for the Fiscal Impact Study. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion as a means to move to discussion.
Dave Woodbury stated that the applicant’s reasoning for the waiver request suggested that no Fiscal Impact Study was ever appropriate. He added that he was not certain that Fiscal Impact Studies provided a true economic picture, however, questioned why this plan deserved a waiver when others did not. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that because a Fiscal Impact Study reports the impact of new homes on schools and other Town services he believed that at a certain point towns became conscious of what amount of impact was generated by each new lot, therefore, felt that a Study should not be required for
every new subdivision going forward. Dave Woodbury asked if the Subdivision Regulations required a Fiscal Impact Study for proposed Major Subdivisions and the Coordinator replied that they did. Bob Furey noted that a variable that did affect the Fiscal Impact calculation was new road(s) within a subdivision and their associated maintenance costs. Dave Woodbury noted that this would not be the case for homes that were built on existing road frontage. James Nordstrom thought that the most significant fiscal effects
post-development to a town were not the division of land but the costs of the homes that were built. He added that he was also not a proponent of Fiscal Impact Studies. The
CURTIS HILL, LLC, cont.
Coordinator thought that because the Fiscal Impact Studies had not been useful since they were established in the Regulations and a Town wide Fiscal Impact Study was a future consideration the Board may wish to discuss whether the Study should remain a requirement for Major Subdivision applications. She added that Fiscal Impact Studies were useful in the instance of larger subdivisions with roads and homes of larger size and scope as James Nordstrom mentioned. Because a better justification could not be provided at tonight’s hearing and given the assumption that the waiver for the Fiscal Impact Study would most
likely be waived at some point in the process of the application the Board decided to table the motion for the waiver request.
All voting members of the Board opposed the motion and it FAILED.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to adjourn the application of Curtis Hill, LLC, Major Subdivision, 7 Lots, Location: Old Coach Road, Tax Map/Lot #10/3, “R-A” District, to February 8, 2005, at 9:30 p.m. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
16. The seventh draft of the Driveway Regulations to be scheduled for a Public Hearing on February 8, 2005, was distributed for the Board’s review.
The Coordinator asked that the Board review the draft for discussion at the next meeting. Dave Woodbury noted that there was a lot of interest at the Selectmen’s meeting on January 10, 2005, concerning the circular driveway issue. The Chairman asked for a brief overview. Dave Woodbury replied that the main question involved the status of the issue and noted that John Bunting was particularly curious. He added that because he had not yet reviewed the seventh draft he referred questions concerning circular driveways to the Coordinator, however, assumed that the latest draft might answer these questions. The Coordinator noted that the section regarding Circular Driveways had been eliminated from the draft.
The Chairman explained that the section was eliminated because it conflicted with the concept of the current Ordinance which sought to minimize curb cuts on roadways. He added that the Ordinance also encouraged common driveways for the same reason. James Nordstrom noted that if a circular driveway complied with the 200 foot distance between curb cuts the driveway would be allowed. The Chairman agreed and added that a circular driveway with the same entrance and exit would also be permitted and was feasible if the home had a properly planned setback from the road. Bob Furey noted that secondary driveway accommodations were also a permissible option.
The Coordinator asked Bob Furey if he could update the cross sections he had previously provided to coincide with the current draft. Bob Furey replied that he could make a new graphic
cross section from textual mark ups that had since been worked.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
17. Discussion: Driveway bonds for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC.
The Chairman stated that the Driveway bonds should be discussed after the draft of the Driveway Regulations was finalized.
20. FYI, Re: joint hearing of the ZBA and Planning Board for Lull Road Corporation, gravel permit, West Lull Place, February 15, 2005.
The Chairman asked that the Planning Department remind him of the above meeting on February 14, 2005.
21. A copy of a fax received from Brian Holt, Vista Road, LLC, to the Board, Re: postponed Inkberry Road compliance hearing to January 25, 2005, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman noted that the above item was addressed earlier in the evening.
22. A copy of a fax dated January 4, 2005, from Brian Holt, Thibeault Corporation, to the Board, Re: bond reduction from $31,784.00 to $5,000.00, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that this item should be addressed at the time of the applicant’s rescheduled Compliance Hearing on January 25, 2005, as a motion for compliance was necessary before the bond could be reduced. The Chairman concurred.
23. A copy of a fax dated January 9, 2005, from Bill Drescher, Esq., to the Board, Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant & Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: legal review of documents for New Era CF Trust, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator stated that there were a few suggestions made by Bill Drescher, Esq., regarding corrections that should be made to the documents. She noted that the Board should decide whether the entire letter from Town Counsel or a summarized version would be released to the applicant. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she felt there was any reason that the entire letter could not be released to the applicant. The Coordinator replied that there was not and that the content of the letter was straightforward. Dave Woodbury asked if there was sensitive information in the letter which should not be released. The Coordinator replied that there was not but that it was standard practice for the Board to decide whether information of this nature was released or
summarized to an applicant. Dave Woodbury stated that he trusted the
Coordinator’s opinion as she had reviewed the letter. The Board gave consensus to release a copy of the letter, as written, to the applicant.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
24. A copy of a fax dated January 9, 2005, from Bill Drescher, Esq., to the Board, Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant & Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: legal review of documents for Indian Falls, LLC, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Following a brief discussion regarding the same issues as #23 above, the Board gave consensus to release a copy of the letter, as written, to the applicant.
25. A copy of a letter dated December 2004, from Plan NH, to the Board, Re: design assistance for NH projects, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that the suggestion for downtown footpaths to the proposed library lot had been submitted for the past two years with no success. She stated that the Board could submit any additional ideas to the Planning Department.
26. A copy of a letter dated January 7, 2005, sent to 13-15 Hopkins Road, Inc., Joseph Swiezynski, from Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant, Re: outstanding invoices, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman asked if the Planning Department had received a response back from Mr. Swiezynski. The Planning Coordinator replied they had not as the letter was just sent out the previous Friday.
27. A copy of an announcement of a Land Resource Management Workshop, January 13, February 8, & March 16, 2005, Concord, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that those interested in attending the workshop could sign up at the Planning Department.
28. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing, Bow Zoning Board of Adjustment, January 18, 2005, for a personal wireless facility.
4. Endorsement of a Site Plan for Carol Hayse & Richard Herget, Tax Map/Lot #14/128, 79 Summit Drive, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Coordinator noted that while getting the closed files ready for reporting in the Town Report it was discovered that a few site plans had not been signed by the Board, hence #’s 4, 5
and 6 on Miscellaneous Business this evening. The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the above
noted Site Plan.
5. Endorsement of a Site Plan for Paul and Kristi Citak, Tax Map/Lot #2/47, 45 Woodbury
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the above noted Site Plan.
6. Endorsement of a Site Plan for Roger Noonan, Middle Branch Produce, Tax Map/Lot #1/50, 280 Colburn Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the above noted Site Plan.
18. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for New Era CF Trust, Lull Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/9, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the above noted Subdivision Plan.
19. Endorsement of Annexation Plan for New Boston Conservation Commission and Aggregate Industries Land Co., Parker Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/86 & 3/58, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the above noted Annexation Plan.
At 10:10 p.m. Dave Woodbury MOVED to adjourn. James Nordstrom seconded the
motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien,
Recording Clerk Minutes Approved:
|