New Boston Planning Board
Minutes of January 25, 2005
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Vice Chairman James Nordstrom. Present were regular member, Bob Furey; ex-officio Dave Woodbury; and, alternate Don Duhaime. Also present were Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien. Planning Board Chairman, Peter Hogan, arrived at approximately 7:10 p.m.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting, were Bob Todd, LLS, Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, PE, Greg Michael, Esq., Rick Martin, Thomas Clapp, Roch Larochelle, Mitch Larochelle, Kim Burkhamer, Pat Golding, Jay Marden, Brandy Mitroff, Dave Elliott, Neil Smith, Willard Dodge, Kathy Bradfield, Frank Fillmore, Eric Farris, Maria and J.C. Irizary, Brian Cail, Mike Dahlberg, LLS, Todd Connors, PE, Paul Morin, Pete Moloney, Frank Woodward, Tom Morgan, Jeff Kevan, PE, Brian Holt, Douglas Hill, Richard and Joan Silvernail, Peter Clark and Mr. Johnson.
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC., Adjourned from 12/14/05
DONALD E. GARRETSON & HOWARD M. &
FRANCES E. TOWNE
Submission of Application/Preliminary Hearing/Design Review
Major Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustments/23 Lots
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 5/52
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Vice Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Rick Martin, Bob Todd, LLS, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, and attorney for the applicant, Greg Michael, Esq. Abutters and interested parties present were Kim Burkhamer, Willard Dodge, Jay Marden, Roch Larochelle, Pat Golding and Thomas Clapp.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that no additional survey or environmental changes had been made to the plan since the last meting with the Board. He noted that previously a one way road at the eastern entrance to the subdivision was proposed and designed at a narrower width than Town standards. This had, however, been rejected by the Board. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, had redesigned the proposed eastern entrance road to Town standards so that it could accept two-way traffic.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that they were limited in the placement of the proposed eastern entrance to the subdivision because of the existing location of a 50 foot right-of-way swath. He noted that the location of the proposed westerly entrance intersected Beard Road at a higher elevation. He then showed a magnified graphic of the westerly intersection of the proposed subdivision at Beard Road and also a cross section of Beard Road.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that sight distance would not be a concern for traffic that turned right onto Beard Road from the easterly intersection. He further noted that traffic which turned left onto Beard Road at the easterly intersection would only have 165 feet of safe sight distance, 15 feet from the edge of the pavement due to Beard Road’s downward 11% grade in that location. He added that 350 feet of safe sight distance could only be achieved if the existing slope of Beard Road in that location was cut and the intersection installed at the new crown of Beard Road. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the difficulty posed by that proposal was illustrated on another graphed cross section of Beard Road taken at the steepest portion of the embankment which noted
stone walls on either side of the road to be only 35 feet apart compared to the standard 50 feet distance for a right-of-way. He added that the worst case scenario would result in a 3.8 foot drop in the road and 6 feet of further cut embankment. Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, explained that in order to spare the stone walls, 1:1 or 1:2 slopes would be necessary. The Chairman asked the width and length of this proposed channel. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that the total width would be approximately 28 feet and the channel would run almost 200 feet. The Chairman asked how snow plowing efforts would be affected if this channel was constructed. Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, replied that constructing the channel would actually aid plowing efforts as the road width was now 20-22 feet and would become 28 feet. He added that 1:1 slopes would allow sight distance to be 15 feet back from the edge of the pavement where a steeper ratio would shorten sight
distance to 10 feet from the edge of the pavement. The Chairman asked how the slopes would stay in place whether they were 1:1 or 2:1. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that the slopes would be sustained as they were presently as sheer faces but added that soil stability would need to be confirmed. Bob Todd, LLS, thought that ledge face existed on the southerly side of the road as it traveled east based on previous blasting in that area which presented a solid ledge face four to five feet from top to bottom.
James Nordstrom noted that the initial road design proposed for the easterly end of the subdivision was challenged to satisfy required cross sections, associated gradings and drainage improvements and asked if the current design addressed that issue. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that two to four feet of the road edge appeared to encroach over the right-of-way and that drainage improvements would still needed to be scrutinized. James Nordstrom clarified Earl Sandford, LLS, PE’s response to mean that the current road design did not quite fit. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that was correct but that the issue was a solvable one possibly with the addition of two foot retaining walls. The Chairman stated that the major change to the plan was a proposed
road that now traveled all the way through the subdivision in both directions. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, wished to note that in regard to offsite road improvements to Beard Road the current safe sight distance of 165 feet would keep speeds reduced on the road because of its steep grade in that location, however, he was agreeable to engineer the road design according to what the Town would prefer. Rick Martin added that with the improvements suggested this evening to the existing slope of Beard Road the grade would change from 11% to 8%. He noted that he had spoken with the Road Agent who said that other roads in the Town also had similar grades with steep embankments.
The Chairman asked whose personal property was at the top of these steep embankments. Abutter, Thomas Clapp, asked if the applicant had considered effects to his driveway if the grade to Beard Road was altered. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, apologized for not addressing this issue sooner and stated that Mr. Clapp’s driveway would not be affected as it would be appropriately blended with the new grade of Beard Road. The Chairman asked what the elevation change in the road would specifically affect Mr. Clapp’s front yard. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that the grading of Beard Road would cause it to drop three or four feet, therefore, Mr. Clapp’s driveway would be slightly more ramped than it was now. The Chairman asked Mr. Clapp what the elevation
of his garage was in respect to the current level of Beard Road. Mr. Clapp replied that his driveway was level at the entrance and then gradually inclined for a length of 300 feet to his garage for a maximum elevation change of ten feet. Rick Martin stated that he was willing to work with Mr. Clapp in the event this project proceeded so that his resulting driveway grade would be acceptable. Mr. Clapp asked if Beard Road was slated to be paved up to the westerly entrance of the proposed subdivision. The Chairman replied that he did not think that decision had yet been made. Bob Furey asked if the last 20 feet of Mr. Clapp’s driveway was level as it would need to comply with the Driveway Regulations if it required regrading as a result of proposed improvements to Beard Road. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, concurred. The Chairman thought that the result of a steeper driveway grade was more likely to occur for a house that was set closer to the
road.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the applicant sought the Board’s opinion as to whether the proposed offsite improvements to Beard Road seemed an acceptable solution. The Chairman replied that the Board was guided by their adherence to the applicable Subdivision Regulations and by that standard would not waive any safety requirements that related to road improvements. He added that in this case it appeared that regrading the slope of Beard Road in the location noted would improve sight distance with no impacts to surrounding properties. The Chairman asked how many Beard Road residents would be impacted by the proposed road improvements. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that Thomas Clapp would see the main impacts as his property was located on the lower side
of Beard Road where the embankments would be addressed. Rick Martin added that the Townes and the Edwards heirs would also see some impacts as their properties were located in nearby vicinity.
Kim Burkhamer asked if the proposed road improvements to the crown of Beard Road would exacerbate the erosion that currently occurred each winter due to current slope and drainage issues. Rick Martin replied that widening Beard Road the proposed eight feet would create more room to plow snow. The Chairman clarified that reductions were proposed to the overall grade of Beard Road and not its center crown. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that a grade reduction from 11% to 8% would also slow current water runoffs. The Chairman thought that the proposed offsite road improvements would most likely make the current situation better with professional input by engineers on the current drainage issues of Beard Road. Roch Larochelle asked if the applicant would be willing
to consider slopes of 1:2 and resetting the existing stone walls versus cutting into ledge embankments. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that although Mr. Larochelle’s example might be a preferred alternative, the applicant did not want to become detained in the multiple years of administrative red tape that would accompany discussions with abutters. Roch Larochelle wished to caution the Board that an issue could result if they could not acquire easements for maintenance of resulting ditch lines that would be created if the improvements took place. Secondly, he questioned the criteria used by the applicant to measure safe sight distance. Earl Sandford, LLS PE, replied that Dufresne-Henry, Inc. advised a safe sight distance measure of 350 feet, 15 feet out from the edge of the pavement compared to AASHTO’s suggested measure of 338 feet of safe sight distance, 10 feet out from the edge of the pavement. Roch Larochelle next asked if the
distance was considered as intersection sight distance or stopping sight distance. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that it was considered intersection sight distance.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that it appeared the plan was ready for Dufresne Henry, Inc.’s review. The Chairman stated that he was interested in the results of the previously calculated Traffic Study done for the plan which reported that a high percentage of traffic that exited from the proposed subdivision would turn left onto Beard Road toward Route 77. James Nordstrom noted that the scope of that Study might be altered given the newly proposed offsite road improvements to Beard Road. Rick Martin agreed that a new Traffic Study was warranted and he would have it amended.
Don Duhaime asked if the originally proposed clubhouse and shared garage which would use some of the buildable lots was still being considered on the plan. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the original plan proposed a condominium type project with no lot lines. He added that the plan now proposed duplexes on the lots with one lot to be used in combination as a clubhouse and manager’s residence. Don Duhaime asked if this lot had been chosen. Bob Todd, LLS replied that the lot had not yet been selected. Don Duhaime asked if a shared garage to house resident’s boats, etc., was still proposed. Bob Todd, LLS, replied it was not. Don Duhaime then asked if the plan proposed a cluster design. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, and Rick Martin replied that
the Regulations prohibited a cluster design in the zoning of the site.
Dave Woodbury stated that in a previous hearing with the applicant Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had commented that she had never seen a public road traverse a condominium complex. He wondered if any follow up was available to that observation. Greg Michael, Esq., replied that because the plan was no longer a cluster design the condex units could be separately owned and covenants would govern the proposed 21 lots. He noted that while public roads did not generally run in front of communities that were of the classic condominium example they did run in front of condex communities.
Dave Woodbury stated that another unresolved issue regarded an easement crossing for an existing trail that crossed from the fairground property and through the site to Town property which was also discussed at a previous meeting with the applicant. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that he was not aware of any resolutions to this issue as Kim DiPietro of the Piscataquog Area Trailways had not yet approached the Town about the easements in question. Rick Martin noted that the covenants for the proposed subdivision stated that no ATV’s or snowmobiles were allowed on this trail. He stated that the 4H Committee had asked if they could walk horses over the portion of the trail that crossed through the site and added that he would work to keep that measure in place. The
Chairman reiterated that because the trail abutted the 4H fairgrounds the 4H Committee was strongly opposed to anything other than horse back riding on the trail.
Dave Woodbury stated that Kim Burkhamer had a question regarding the common land located in the southeastern portion of the site. Kim Burkhamer stated that green space or common land abutted the railroad trail in this area and asked if this would still be considered open space. She further questioned what type of easement if any would be required. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that he would meet with the Conservation Commission on February 6, 2005. He added that he thought the association within the proposed subdivision would retain the underlying fee on this land and that the associated easement would prohibit building and allow the land to be used only for walking and access to the old railroad trail. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the land in between the lots and around
the project boundary would also be considered as open space. He added that there would be additional easements placed on the lots themselves so that the building envelopes and any unused lots would be subject to the conditions of the Conservation Easement. In this way, Bob Todd, LLS, explained that excavation and tree cutting would be prohibited outside the rights of the property owner. He added that if the Conservation Commission was unable to monitor the open space the Forestry Committee or the Piscataquog Watershed Association may need to be solicited. Greg Michael, Esq., stressed that the easement would have the typical restrictions per State statutes and would be restrictive. He noted that the easement would not be likened to those drafted for open space within the building envelopes of condominiums. Kim Burkhamer asked if the condex owners would retain ownership of the open space. Greg Michael, Esq., replied that they would unless the
Town wished to assume that ownership. Dave Woodbury stated that the Town did not generally seek to own property for which it could not find a future use.
Roch Larochelle asked what the distance between the two proposed intersections on Beard Road would be. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the distance would be less than 1,500 feet. Roch Larochelle stated that the original plan proposed paving Beard Road to Town standards from Route 77 to the western-most intersection of the proposed subdivision. He asked what the Town considered standard regarding road widths and ditch lines and applied the same line of questioning for the eastern most intersection. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that Town standards for paving required a certain width, pavement thickness and appropriate base, etc., but was unsure of the standard for addressing drainage. Roch Larochelle clarified that he asked this question because he was concerned
that the easterly portion from Route 77 to the eastern intersection would become more improved than the portion of Beard Road between the two proposed intersections. He added that he was also concerned about how travel generated by this proposed “55 and older” subdivision would be altered if the community became residential homes in the future. Roch Larochelle asked what process was required to detach the covenants and restrictions from the deeds if ownership of the condexes was overturned and the community became conventional residents. Greg Michael, Esq., replied that although it was possible to amend the documents of a condominium association certain sections within those documents would need the vote of the condominium association and the Town in order to facilitate a change. He added that he had prepared restrictions for past projects that required 100% approvals by the condominium’s association and also the Planning Board and Board of
Selectmen within a town. Greg Michael, Esq., further added that he had never seen amendments made to such documents because they were so well regulated and thought the likelihood of that occurrence to be remote. Roch Larochelle asked about the possibility of road improvements between the subdivision’s proposed intersections onto Beard Road. Greg Michael, Esq., replied that option would need to be reviewed. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the Town’s improvement schedule for roads was also a factor as Beard Road was high on the list. Earl Sandford, Esq., noted that some changes in between the intersections would occur and the applicant initially preferred not to have two entrances, however, it became a requirement and they had not yet explored beyond the sight distance issues.
Rick Martin wished to note that at the time of the land’s first subdivision he dedicated
land on either side of Beard Road from Route 77 to the entrance of the proposed subdivision in order to add width for improvements, drainage, etc. He added that currently, only 35 feet of width was available from the point of the first intersection easterly which would not lend itself to Town road improvements anyway.
An interested party stated that at the last meeting it was confirmed that the eastern entrance road into the proposed subdivision was only wide enough to accept a one way road and questioned why on the updated plan it was now wide enough for two way traffic. The Chairman replied that the Town could not accept a road that long as a cul-de-sac, therefore, the applicant was committed to designing the road to Class V standards that connected to Beard Road. The interested party still questioned why the applicant initially stated that the width necessary to construct a Class V road could not be obtained but now it could. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, interjected that as James Nordstrom had noted earlier, the road did not quite fit. He added that the widths were spilling out of
the right-of-way which still needed to be addressed. Rick Martin noted that he preferred a one way road in order to minimize costs in order to make the subdivision affordable to potential buyers. He added that because this was not acceptable to the Town the road would be re-engineered as a two way road.
Roch Larochelle stated that when the Traffic Study was reissued he thought that it should be based beyond the census data of 55+ communities and should be compared to actual similar developments. He added that even if the previous calculations of 60% of the traffic turning left out of the proposed subdivision toward Route 77 were accurate, it still meant that 400 vehicles per day would head east toward Route 13. Roch Larochelle noted that these calculations were key factors to the decisions and timing of improvements to Beard Road. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he had monitored the investments the Town had been making into Beard Road over the past five years and felt that its road improvements were imminent. Dave Woodbury noted that Bog Brook Road was the next road scheduled
for improvements by the Town and felt that Beard Road would follow as it was determined to have the same traffic count. Greg Michael, Esq., asked if Traffic Studies were reviewed by outside consultants which would reduce skepticism and offer appropriate feedback. James Nordstrom replied that studies the Town received to-date were based on concepts that differed from this application’s. He added that the Town’s policy was to first have a completed application accepted by the Board before information was forwarded for a consultant’s review.
Jay Marden asked if the plan was now considered to be a conventional standard lot subdivision with 2 acre lots and 50 foot setbacks. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was. Jay Marden then asked if the easements proposed were considered the same as scenic easements with no clear cutting, no buildings except for livestock fencing, etc. Greg Michael, Esq., said the easement was fairly comprehensive as referenced by the State statute on Conservation Easements and that use was considered extremely passive. Jay Marden asked if Greg Michael, Esq., had an
RSA# that he could reference. Greg Michael, Esq., replied that he did not have a number with him this evening but could forward the appropriate information to the Planning Department.
Greg Michael, Esq., stated that the applicant preferred to submit a final application at the next meeting. The Chairman stated that this meeting could then be adjourned but not to a date
certain as it would depend on when the applicant submitted the appropriate information for the
final application.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Right Way Builders, Inc., Donald E. Garretson and Howard M. & Frances E. Towne, Major Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, 23 Lots, Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 5/52, to a date and time to be determined. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
KATHLEEN HOUGHTON Adjourned from 12/14/04
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: Middle Branch Road & NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road
Tax Map/Lot #2/25 & 2/112
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, who represented the applicant. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that there were no changes to the plan since the last meeting with the Board. He also added that no issues arose from the site walk that was held with members of the Board. James Nordstrom asked if all waivers requested had been addressed by the Board. Bob Todd, LLS, thought that all requested waivers had been granted at the previous meeting. Dave Woodbury stated that he recalled that the Board granted all requested waivers by the applicant at a previous meeting. The Planning Assistant stated that there was an outstanding fee of $180.00 still owed because of the application’s classification change from a minor subdivision to a major subdivision.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Kathleen Houghton, Major Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Middle Branch Road and NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Tax Map/Lot # 2/25 & 2/112, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to approve the application of Kathleen Houghton, Major Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Middle Branch Road and NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Tax Map/Lot # 2/25 & 2/112, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, subject to:
HOUGHTON, cont.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of three (3) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the
recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
4. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be June 1, 2005, confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, requiring no further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the
Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 25, 2005
1. Approval of minutes of December 28, 2004, with or without changes. (Distributed at the January 11, 2005, meeting.)
Bob Furey stated that in the fifth line from the bottom of page #1 the word “split” was misspelled. James Nordstrom asked if the Recording Clerk’s questions noted by highlighted areas within the text had been addressed. The Planning Assistant replied that they had been.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of December 28, 2004, as amended. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. The minutes of January 11, 2005, were distributed for approval at the February 8, 2005, meeting, with or without changes.
3. Signature required for Site Review Agreement for Thomas and Christine Quirk, Tax Map/Lot #7/11, Cochran Hill Road, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman signed the above noted Site Review Agreement.
4. Driveway Permit Application for Dana and Joni Haley, Lull Road, Tax Map/Lot #2/85, for a proposed driveway, for the Board’s action. (drive by prior to meeting)
Bob Furey stated that he was unable to locate the driveway flags. James Nordstrom noted that he also experienced the same difficulty. The Chairman stated that the applicants should be informed that the Board was unable to act on the Driveway Permit Application due to improper flagging of the driveway when viewed by members of the Board.
5. Driveway Permit Application for Paul Normand, Laurel Lane, Tax Map/Lot #15/3, for a proposed driveway, for the Board’s action. (drive by prior to meeting)
James Nordstrom stated that the driveway was flagged on the ground. He questioned the note on the Driveway Permit Application that stated an easement would be needed to maintain a beaver dam culvert. The Planning Assistant replied that a note adhered to the Application had been inadvertently copied onto the Application and should not be considered as part of it. She noted that a beaver dam not in the Town’s right-of-way but located on the applicant’s property might need an easement so that the Town could maintain it. Dave Woodbury stated that he was familiar with the beaver dam which was comprised of a steel trash rack but agreed it was not related to the Driveway Permit Application.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application 04-123, Tax Map/Lot #15/3, for proposed driveway, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: 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.
6. A copy of a fax received January 20, 2005, from Earl J. Sandford, LLS, PE, Sandford Surveying, to the New Boston Planning Board, Re: Tax Map/Lot #6/32-27, Highland Hills, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Planning Assistant stated that Earl J. Sandford, LLS, PE, requested that As-Built Plans be provided post-construction rather than pre-construction for the Highland Hills project. The Chairman was not in favor of such an allowance. Don Duhaime was in agreement. Bob Furey asked if engineered plans of the Highland Hills subdivision had already been provided. James Nordstrom replied that the grading locations into the property had been provided. The Planning Assistant stated that these were copied from the plan onto the permit. James Nordstrom stated that because engineered plans would be required to prove that all regulations were met in the construction of the subdivision he wondered if any requirements were needed outside of that scope to confirm that
what was designed was actually constructed. The Chairman replied that it was dependent on what the plan looked like visually. James Nordstrom thought that if a design plan was required of the applicant then an inspection or As-Built Plan should also be required. The Chairman agreed. The Board required that engineered plans be submitted pre-construction and As-Builts post construction.
Miscellaneous Business Item #7 was postponed until later in the meeting as people were expected to be present to discuss same.
8. A copy of a letter received January 14, 2005, from William R. Drescher, Drescher & Dokomo, to the New Boston Planning Board, Re: recent change in the Planning Board Enabling Statute, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Bob Furey asked if a new RSA had been suggested to aid the enforcement of planning boards. James Nordstrom explained that based on legislative sessions held by the State the RSA regarding the preliminary phase of a subdivision application allowed the Planning Board to require this step rather than it being voluntary on the applicant’s part. He added that other towns were now requiring a preliminary process for subdivision applications rather than at the applicant’s discretion. The Chairman asked if these changes would need to be formally adopted by the Town. James Nordstrom replied that only slight wording changes would be necessary to the Subdivision Regulations to account for this new ruling. The Chairman thought that the preliminary process was
to the applicant’s benefit. James Nordstrom agreed and added that this process indirectly benefited the Town also. The Board thought this was a good idea.
9. A copy of an article from Town & City, January, 2005, issue, Re: Preservation Development, was distributed for the Board’s information.
10. Read File: Flyer from Office of Energy & Planning, Re: Spring Planning & Zoning Conference information.
11. A copy of a fax received January 25, 2005, from James Wilcoxen, Procraft Corporation, to the Board, Re: site plan amendment, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Planning Assistant explained that the PTI building was located on the corner of Byam Road and River Road and that the applicant had an agreement with Duke Winslow to store some of his trucks and trailers in exchange for snow plowing services. She added that the current Site Plan only allowed two box trailers for wood by-products to be stored on site and the applicant questioned if his Site Plan needed to be amended. James Nordstrom stated that the applicant had verbally requested an amendment but assumed the Town had the original plan on file and wondered if the applicant’s letter of request could simply be attached to the plan. He noted that similar cases had been treated differently either by attaching the letter to the existing plan or amending the plan
itself. James Nordstrom added that the applicant’s original plan was approved in 1998. The Planning Assistant noted that the Building Inspector thought a Minor Site Plan should be required. The Chairman stated that a Minor Site Plan could not be allowed on commercial property. He thought that a Site Plan Review was warranted to confirm the applicant’s intent and to determine whether the goals of the Site Plan were being met. He thought a sketch and explanation of goals for the site should be provided as the area was visible and on a heavily traveled roadway and likened this scenario to the previous Site Plan Review done for Paul Sizemore who operated a business on Route 77.
12. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Vista Road, LLC, 2 Lots, Inkberry and Wilson Hill Roads, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman and Vice Chairman (in the Secretary’s absence), endorsed the above noted Subdivision Plan.
13. Endorsement of Subdivision Plan for Right Way Builders, Inc., and Howard and Frances Towne, Lot Line Adjustment, Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/51, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman and Vice Chairman (in the Secretary’s absence), endorsed the above noted Subdivision Plan.
BENJAMIN STRAUSS & STEPHANIE RIDLEY Adjourned from 12/14/04
Conditional Use Permit/Two Wetland Crossings
Crossing Location: Lull Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/38
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Benjamin Strauss and Stephanie Ridley. No abutters were present.
Stephanie Ridley stated that she had notified that Planning Department that the silt fencing was installed on the site at the end of December, 2004. James Nordstrom stated that although he had not been back to view the site since the installation was completed he understood that the silt fence installation and spring seeding were the only two issues of this application. The Planning Assistant asked if a portion of the applicant’s security should be held back until the seeding could be done in the spring of 2005. James Nordstrom asked how much the security currently totaled. The Planning Assistant replied that the amount was $5,500.00. James Nordstrom suggested that $500.00 be retained until the spring seeding was completed. Stephanie Ridley asked
how she should proceed once the seeding was done. The Chairman replied that once grass was growing on the site she should contact the Planning Department. James Nordstrom added that a member(s) of the Board would then view the site and the remainder of the funds would be released to the applicant.
James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the construction of two wetland crossings on Lull Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/38, by Benjamin Strauss and Stephanie Ridley (formerly Timothy White & Cheryl Christner) and to release the security being held for said, construction, subject to:
The remaining site work item: seeding and grass growth in springtime or acceptable time as achieved shall be secured by a $500.00 security. This security shall be held until the owners notify the Planning Board of completion and the conditions are satisfactorily confirmed by a Planning Board member.
Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman noted that the grass on the site would need to be growing by June 1, 2005. He then asked if the applicants had any further contact with abutter, Mark Anderson to clarify issues he posed during the last Planning Board meeting with the applicant. Stephanie Ridley replied that she understood their driveway to be built according to the configurations of their lot and the previous lot before their parcel was subdivided from it. She added that she had not heard from Mark Anderson. The Chairman suggested that the applicants contact Mark Anderson to clarify any outstanding questions he might have and stressed that Mr. Anderson was not a difficult person to deal with.
FILLMORE, FRANKLIN & DOROTHY Adjourned from 12/14/04
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: Jessica Lane
Tax Map/Lot #14/36 & 14/36-1
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He stated that the applicant had requested to be adjourned until March, 2005, after the Town’s voting day, to see if the Steep Slopes Ordinance passed.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Franklin and Dorothy Fillmore, Minor Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Jessica Lane, Tax Map/Lot #14/36 and 14/36-1, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to March 22, 2005, at a time to be determined. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
CVI DEVELOPMENT, INC., by Eric Farris
Compliance Hearing
Major Subdivision/Cluster Subdivision/9 Lots with Open Space
Location: Bedford Road
Tax Map/Lot #8/62 & 8/62-1
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant, Eric Farris. Interested parties present were several residents of Fraser Drive, Maria and J.C. Irizary, Brian Cail and Suzanne O’Brien.
The Chairman stated that there were no outstanding issues on the completion of Fraser Drive. Eric Farris stated that was aware he owed a final invoice payment to Dufresne-Henry, Inc., which he would submit tonight along with the signed Drainage Easement.
Brian Cail asked if the plans of the Fraser Drive subdivision included a stone wall and sign to be constructed at the entrance of the road. The Planning Assistant reviewed the plans and replied that they did not. She then noted that Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s final invoice amount totaled $105.00. Eric Farris submitted a check in this amount to the Planning Assistant. The Planning Assistant stated that the As-Built Plans had been signed off. James Nordstrom asked if any associated fees were still outstanding. The Planning Assistant replied that there would be a fee for recording the drainage easement.
James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the Major Subdivision/9 Lots of Tax Map/Lot #8/62, Bedford Road, and to notify the Selectmen that the Conditions Precedent had been confirmed and subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Receipt of recording fees for drainage easement.
Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Eric Farris asked that the funds held in security now be released. Brian Cail asked if Fraser Drive was now considered a Town road. The Chairman explained that the Selectmen still needed to accept the road as a Town road which would be considered at their next scheduled meeting. Dave Woodbury noted that the next meeting of the Selectmen would be held on February 7, 2005. Brian Cail wanted an assurance that Eric Farris would be responsible for snow removal on Fraser Drive up to the time of the road’s acceptance given that his escrow funds were being released. James Nordstrom stated that Brian Cail’s point was valid and thought it should be incorporated into the motion.
James Nordstrom MOVED to amend the motion to include the stipulation that escrow funds would be released for construction, administration or bond security for road completion subsequently at the time of the road’s acceptance by the Selectmen.
Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
KARIN M. MORIN REVOCABLE TRUST Adjourned from 12/14/04
Submission of Application/Preliminary Hearing/Design Review
Major Subdivision/5 Lots
Location: Greenfield Road
Tax Map/Lot #7/74
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Mike
Dahlberg, LLS, Todd Connors, PE, of Sublime Civil Consultants and the applicant, Paul Morin. Abutters and interested parties present were Pete Moloney, Frank Woodward, Willard Dodge, Tom Morgan, and Roch Larochelle, Road Committee
Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that no changes had been made to the plan since the last meeting with the Board. He added that Todd Connors, PE, would outline the road improvements proposed to Greenfield Road from Cochran Hill to the site based on an on-site meeting held with the Road Agent one week prior. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted that the applicant had obtained the Dredge and Fill Permit and State Subdivision Approval. He further noted that Site Specific was not required for this application.
Todd Connors, PE, posted an exhibit that detailed the proposed improvements to Greenfield Road and also submitted copies to the Board. He stated that the on-site meeting with the Road Agent was held so that a design could be determined for the upgraded existing stretch of Greenfield Road from Cochran Hill Road to just past the point at which the proposed road was intended to intersect. Todd Connors, PE, stated that they referenced Town Regulations to determine what width was appropriate while providing safe access to the proposed subdivision. He added that while abutters expressed an interest in a narrower roadway the Road Agent preferred a road width to Town standards at 22 feet. Todd Connors, PE, stated that the AASHTO guidelines for rural roads suggested a
minimum width of 18 feet that could be either gravel or paved. He added that pavement was proposed in order to sustain consistency with other paved road connections. Todd Connors, PE, stated that the applicant proposed a road width of 20 feet and submitted a list of waivers that would be requested against the Subdivision Regulations. He noted that the Road Agent had not yet seen this waiver list and that the applicant preferred the Board’s input before meeting with the Road Agent again. The Chairman clarified that the exceptions presented applied to the access road and not the proposed subdivision road itself. Todd Connors, PE, replied that was correct. He stated that the right-of-way width was narrower that the norm at approximately 33 feet and also narrowed and widened from that measure in certain areas due to existing stone walls on either side. Todd Connors, PE, noted, in comparison, that a newly platted road would have a 50 foot
wide right-of-way. He stated that another complication was that the road did not always travel through the centerline of the right-of-way and a realignment of the road was needed for shoulders, slopes and ditch lines. Todd Connors, PE, added that the grade on the southerly stone wall was higher than the grade of the northerly stone wall which formed a cross slope across the right-of-way, therefore, they opted to increase the grade of the pavement and utilize the existing slopes for the proposed ditch lines. He noted that some delineated wetlands in these locations would create additional impacts.
Todd Connors, PE, stated that the Town required four feet of gravel shoulders on each side of a road and that the applicant proposed one foot in order to stay within the right-of way which was supported by AASHTO’s rural road standards. He noted that the Town required three to one side slopes but stations 300-400 as noted on the road design would need two to one side slopes, again, to stay within the boundaries of the right-of-way. Todd Connors, PE, stated that because they did not want to compromise the grade of an existing driveway off the gravel portion of the road it was proposed that the pavement be slightly higher and tapered back into the driveway so that runoff would flow off the sides. He added that existing culverts would be upgraded versus relocated,
therefore, the drainage plan would not change.
Todd Connors, PE, stated that the existing centerline of the paved portion of Greenfield Road and the centerline of the proposed upgraded section did not align therefore a transition would be required. He added that a minimum centerline radius of 100 feet radius with a 60 foot tangent section between the reverse curves was proposed versus the Town’s 200 foot requirement. He added that the implied stop sign on Cochran Hill or some softening to the second curve could lessen the effects of the curving itself but the first curve needed to stay as it was presented.
Todd Connors, PE, stated that he found nothing in the Regulations that dictated a required depth for road side ditches but that generally attempts were made to get the depth below the selected gravel material for a road, which was approximately two feet. He added that this was not possible for this road improvement due to inconsistent side slopes and, therefore, proposed 1 foot side ditches with the possibility of under drains. Todd Connors, PE, noted that he intended to meet with the Road Agent on this topic but also wanted the Board’s input.
Abutter, Pete Moloney asked how far beyond the new proposed roadway for the subdivision the applicant proposed to pave. Todd Connors, PE, replied that they wished to extend the pavement approximately 35 feet to allow the width of the pavement to be tapered down to the width of the gravel roadway before the gravel roadway continued.
Frank Woodward read a letter composed by his wife and signed by several abutters:
“Dear Planning Board members: We the current abutters to the proposed Morin subdivision off of Greenfield Road are writing to you to retain the rustic scenic nature of our small piece of Greenfield Road. We do recognize that if the Board accepts the Morin subdivision they will probably require the Morins to pave this currently unpaved final section of Greenfield Road. This letter urges that the width of this portion of Greenfield Road be increased to no more than 18 feet wide. At the 18 foot width it will be wide enough for safe use and retain the feeling of a life in an earlier slower time and will also mean less damage to the immediate natural road side environment. With the 18 foot width drivers will be less likely to mistakenly go down this road which leads to nowhere and then have to turn around and
drive back, and more likely to slow down if they enter it from the currently paved and wider main portion of Greenfield Road. This short section of Greenfield Road is affectively a dead end. Currently two homesteads, Woodward and Nixon, exist on it and there is one more home expected-Maloney. Aside from the Morin proposal no further house lots exist or are possible since Morin’s five home subdivision will be on back lots. Their cars will use Greenfield Road only to access the subdivision’s new cul-de-sac road, that is, they will not park on Greenfield nor use it other than for access to their own road.”
He then submitted this letter to the Board. The Chairman asked at what point the Town posted a “Dead End” sign on a road or “Not a Through Road”. Dave Woodbury thought that decision would be the Road Agent’s. Willard Dodge asked if Greenfield Road was a Class VI road. Dave Woodbury replied that it was considered a Class VI road once it traveled beyond the Nixon property. Willard Dodge clarified that Greenfield Road was not a dead end as it connected to Butterfield Mill Road. Frank Woodward noted that the New England Forestry Foundation owned all the land beyond that point and it would always be conservation land with no more homes. The Chairman clarified that this portion of Greenfield Road was not, technically, a dead end road. James Nordstrom stated that a
similar example was the Class VI portion of Wilson Hill Road.
Paul Morin stated that there was a dilemma between the road width preferred by the abutters versus the Road Agent. He added that he had no objection to the 18 foot width requested by the abutters. Tom Morgan, son of Peter and Carolyn Morgan, asked where culverts would be relocated on the noted section of Greenfield Road as one culvert drained to an existing pond in the area. Todd Connors, PE, replied that the applicant wished to use the existing locations of the culverts and only upgrade them which would not affect the pond.
Frank Woodward stated that on occasion he needed to “parade” his sheep down the gravel portion of Greenfield Road and thought that widening the road would encourage more traffic which could make herding more difficult. He added that bear, moose and deer were still seen on that road and he thought pavement was more apt to discourage this wildlife. The Chairman clarified that Frank Woodward did not want to diminish the “A” in the “R-A” zone. He asked how such a compromise could be reached in the case of a road where 18 feet width would be more aesthetically pleasing. James Nordstrom thought this scenario was a good example for such a compromise but that ultimately it was a question for the Road Agent who seemed to prefer a 22 foot
width. The Chairman suggested that the Board speak with the Road Agent who he assumed was merely trying to enforce the Town’s own Regulations. Paul Morin noted that the Road Agent had noted in his comments that although he preferred a 22 foot width he could accept 20 feet. James Nordstrom stated that this was now a question of two feet, 20 or 18 and that an 18 foot section with 1 foot shoulders on either side could provide the same cross section. The Chairman asked Todd Connors, PE, what AASHTO recommended for paved widths on rural road. Todd Connors, PE, replied that AASHTO recommended a minimum width of 18 feet of pavement for a rural road which was consistent with NFPA for fire fighting and fire access and a minimum one foot shoulder only for sections of road that were considered unsafe due to an obstruction near the road edge or a sharp bend, for example. He added that he preferred a one foot shoulder regardless. The Chairman
asked Frank Woodward what he would prefer for road shoulders. Frank Woodward replied that given the natural display of lilies that lined the sides of the road each year he thought one foot shoulders would be acceptable. He noted that the Road Agent had been most cooperative to limit brush mowing along the sides of Greenfield Road so that this natural display was preserved. The Chairman noted to the applicant that the potential of a narrower road width would not guarantee a lesser cost than a road improved to a 22 foot width as stiffer shoulder requirements might be imposed. Todd Connors, PE, replied that was understood and that the cost factor on that type of a width change was not an issue for the applicant.
Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, asked the condition of the portion of Greenfield Road located east of Cochran Hill Road. Todd Connors, PE, replied that it tied back into Old Coach Road. Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, asked if Old Coach Road was paved. Todd Connors, PE, replied that it was and noted where the pavement ended on Greenfield Road. Roch Larochelle stated that in discussions with the Road Agent he knew there was concern regarding narrow widths on roads where traffic could attempt to pass the plows. The Chairman stated that the narrow section was fairly short and that from the entrance of the proposed subdivisions the intersection could be seen. The Chairman noted that in many scenarios such a compromise would not be appropriate. Roch
Larochelle replied that he thought this scenario might be worth a compromise considering the profile of the road and AASHTO’s recommendations. He then requested that a set of plans be sent to the Road Committee through the Planning Department. Todd Connors, PE, asked if the Road Committee wished to see preliminary plans now or a more finalized version later. Roch Larochelle replied that the Committee would prefer preliminary plans so that their recommendations could be considered early in the application process. James Nordstrom offered his reduced copy of the road improvement design to Roch Larochelle.
Mike Dahlberg, LLS, asked the status of the application. The Chairman replied that the last detail needed for the preliminary application was the final design of the proposed road upgrade. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, asked if that item was needed for approval of the final application. The Chairman explained that if this was the applicant’s preference then a final application would need to be submitted. He added that the applicant could cover all items while in the preliminary phase of the application and then have a brief final application phase. The Chairman further added that once an applicant entered the final application phase the Board washeld to a 65 day time frame to act. He added that the preliminary process was a voluntary action by the applicant
which was usually very helpful to the overall process. Paul Morin stated that he was not concerned about the Board’s 65 day clock but rather the current issue of the desired road width for the proposed road improvements. He added that he feared in 30 days there would be no progress on this subject. James Nordstrom stated that while recommendations would be given by the Road Agent and the Road Committee, the ultimate decision on the road width would be the Board’s. The Chairman added that the Board would basically like to see a well-designed, 18-20’ wide road. James Nordstrom wished to receive confirmation from the Road Agent and Road Committee as to what an acceptable cross section would be for Greenfield Road. Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, stated that the outstanding question was what width could be realistically achieved given the right-of-way, preservation of character and parameters presented by the applicant. The
Chairman noted that if the Road Agent and Road Committee informed the Board that they did not feel a 20 foot width was possible they would consider that recommendation seriously. James Nordstrom agreed that his decision would be based on these recommendations.
Todd Connors, PE, asked if engineered plans could now be forwarded to Dufresne-Henry, Inc. The Chairman replied that this could not be done until the application was accepted as complete after the final application was submitted. Todd Connors, PE, clarified that acceptance of a complete application could not be addressed in the preliminary phase. The Chairman replied that was correct. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that he would request a finalapplication from the Planning Department the following day.
VISTA ROAD, LLC Adjourned from 12/28/04
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. Present in the audience was Jeff Kevan, PE, and Brian Holt of Vista Road, LLC. Interested parties present were Roch Larochelle, Road Committee and Mitch Larochelle.
Jeff Kevan, PE, stated that he had received comments on the plan from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., the Road Agent, Road Committee and Site Specific which took him until today to completely address. He noted that revised copies of the plans were submitted to Dufresne-Henry, Inc., the Road Agent and the Road Committee earlier in the day. He then submitted copies of the same revisions to the Board. Jeff Kevan, PE, stated that there had been concerns raised by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., and the Road Committee concerning a drainage system located between two lots and its maintenance access. He added that they had reworked the drainage systems so that one detention pond and one treatment swale could be accessed by a gravel road the grade of which was lowered to 10% and width widened
from 12 feet to 14 feet. Jeff Kevan, PE, noted that the drainage system was reversed and could be accessed from the driveway noted on the plan. He added that the four to one slopes were removed which eliminated the need for guard rail in all but one noted section on the plan. Jeff Kevan, PE, noted that the remaining guard rails would have curved, buried ends to eliminate the danger of spearing. He further noted that the changes mentioned were pending final review of the aforementioned entities. Jeff Kevan, PE, identified the cross sections on the plan as examples of where the house lots and driveways could be located but noted they did not include septic designs. He asked if this seemed to be a reasonable approach. The Chairman replied that it depended on the driveways and how close their grades came to the 10% maximum. Jeff Kevan, PE, replied that he placed the houses close to the setbacks so that the driveways were short in length
and none approached 10% grades. The Chairman asked what the case would be if the house locations changed. Jeff Kevan, PE, agreed that there were other alternatives to the placement of the houses and asked if the Board wished to see those examples. The Chairman replied that the Board would like to see building envelopes on the plan that would assure their driveways would not be a challenge to construct. Jeff Kevan, PE, replied that most of the proposed driveways on the plan worked well with the existing grades of the lots. The Chairman noted that the Board became particularly concerned when driveways entered off the roadway at a positive angle. Jeff Kevan, PE, stated that if the homes were pushed back on the lots the driveway would be set down and not cause that issue.
Brian Holt stated that he and Jeff Kevan, PE, had worked well with the committees involved in the plan review and felt that although some minor details still needed to be addressed most of the requested adjustments were made. The Chairman stated that the date for the Board’s action needed to be extended and asked if February 22, 2005, was acceptable to the applicant. Jeff Kevan, PE, replied that it was.
Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, stated that he felt the applicant had done a good job addressing the design concerns presented by the Road Committee. He asked where the Board stood regarding improvements to the sight distance at the intersection of Wilson Hill Road and Bedford Road. The Chairman replied that was one of the reasons that the plan was being reviewed again by the Town Engineer. Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, stated that the Committee was concerned about the time frame to acquire approval from abutters and hence, thought the option of a monetary contribution by the applicant toward the project should be considered. Jeff Kevan, PE, asked if right-of-way boundaries and lot lines were established at the site of the intersection. He added that he
thought he had read a letter somewhere that made reference to the possibility of Town funding for this improvement project. Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, replied that he understood the monetary contribution option to be a secondary choice and work done by the applicant as the primary preference. The Chairman stated that the names of the abutting property owners and who would contract the work, be it the Town or the applicant, needed to be established. Roch Larochelle thought that this decision should come from the Selectmen. The Chairman clarified that the Selectmen should ascertain who the abutting property owners were and whether they would be agreeable to improvements to the intersection of Wilson Hill Road and Bedford Road that might impact their land. He added that once this was established he understood that the applicant had offered equipment and labor toward the intersection improvement project. Brian Holt stated that he was concerned
that this application was nearing the end of its approval phase and the introduction of the intersection improvement project could stall its progress. The Chairman replied that this was recognized and that if the intersection project could not be incorporated within the timing of the current application it could be carried over to the applicant’s next application which the Board understood was forthcoming. Brian Holt stated that he wanted to state that point for the record. Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, stated that he had he had no issue with the applicant performing the work to improve the intersection. James Nordstrom stated that a clear scope of what type of work was needed at the intersection needed to be presented. Don Duhaime thought the applicant should come up with a plan for the improvements. The Chairman noted that whether the applicant offered a plan for the improvements now or at the time of the next application it was
understood that the applicant had agreed to do the work. He added it was also understood that the applicant did not wish to contribute funds toward the project but would offer labor and equipment. Brian Holt thought that because this improvement project would affect private property the Selectmen or Town should initiate the process rather than the applicant, although he could arrange a preliminary viewing of the site by his foreman. James Nordstrom asked if the Planning Board should request that this subject be added to the Selectmen’s meeting Agenda. Dave Woodbury thought that a brief letter drafted to the Selectmen that addressed the expectations for the project would suffice.
The Chairman noted that John Riendeau, Road Agent, was present for the last meeting with the applicant when this project was discussed. Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, stated to the Planning Assistant that the Committee had compiled some check list items regarding considerations for the improvements to the intersection and asked that this also be forwarded to the Selectmen. He added that one item of concern was that a permanent easement be established for Town maintenance purposes at the intersection.
James Nordstrom asked the Planning Assistant if she could draft a letter to the Selectmen that highlighted tonight’s discussion on the proposal of sight distance improvements to the intersection of Wilson Hill Road and Bedford Road. The Planning Assistant replied that she would draft this letter.
James Nordstrom MOVED to extend the deadline date for the Board’s action to February 22, 2005, and 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 February 22, 2005, at 9:15 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Brian Holt asked if all the comments from the Road Committee had been submitted. Roch Larochelle, Road Committee replied that he believed the only outstanding question was what type of grates would be used on the proposed roadway for the subdivision. Jeff Kevan, PE, replied that beehive grates were proposed.
Brian Holt asked if any other items were missing on the plan. The Planning Assistant asked if Site Specific had been submitted. Jeff Kevan, PE, noted that the permit was expected in one to two weeks. He added that a waiver request was submitted for existing conditions 400 feet from the property line. James Nordstrom stated that because this hearing had been adjourned these items would need to be addressed at the next meeting.
THIBEAULT CORPORATION OF N.E.
Compliance Hearing/Major Subdivision/Inkberry Road
Location: Inkberry Road off Byam Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/41
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Brian Holt, who represented the applicant. An abutter present was Kathy Bradfield.
Brian Holt stated that because some outstanding comments from Bill Rossignol still needed to be addressed he thought that, procedurally, the compliance hearing would need to be adjourned. He stated that the easements for Inkberry Road had been drafted and approved. Brian Holt then submitted the filing fee for the warranty deed to the Planning Assistant in the form of a company check.
Brian Holt stated that the Board had viewed the road. James Nordstrom added that John Riendeau had also viewed the road. Brian Holt stated that everything seemed to be in order except for some minor corrections to the plan. James Nordstrom asked about the status of Tax Map/Lot #6/45. Brian Holt replied that Andy Sullivan, Esq., had prepared documentation that said the Town could perform maintenance by accessing Tax Map/Lot #6/45. He added that Bill Rossignol had requested that a portion of the applicants' bond be held back to cover any regrading that would be necessary for the entrance to Tax Map/Lot #6/45. James Nordstrom asked the Planning Assistant if she had seen any recent easement documentation for this Lot. The Planning Assistant replied that
she had not. Brian Holt stated that although he did not have a copy of the easement documentation he thought the Planning Department should have received one. James Nordstrom stated that he was personally concerned that the Town should address all that it could for Tax Map/Lot #6/45 before Inkberry Road was accepted. He added that a letter by Bill Rossignol of Holding Engineering dated December 27, 2004, expressed the same concerns. James Nordstrom asked Brian Holt if he thought Thibeault Corporation would have an issue with the withholding of $5K on the bond. Brian Holt replied that he did not think this would be an issue. He understood that Tax Map/Lot #6/45’s driveway needed to be addressed when the season permitted. Bob Furey noted that at the previous hearing for the applicant the Board had discussed whether the guardrail on Inkberry Road was adequate to prevent cars that traveled downhill from sliding into Tax Map/Lot
#6/45’s driveway and over its unprotected edge. James Nordstrom noted that at the previous meeting he had suggested that the entrance to this driveway be blocked with additional guard rail as the driveway did pose that potential but unlikely danger. He added that he believed the driveway itself would need guard rails. The Planning Assistant asked if this could be dealt with at the time of the CUP. James Nordstrom replied that it could not because the CUP only dealt with a wetland crossing for Tax Map/Lot #6/45’s driveway. He noted that the applicant had offered to extend the compliance hearing. James Nordstrom stated that he did not know how closure would be addressed for Tax Map/Lot #6/45 and thought the Coordinator’s comments should be solicited as she had followed this issue.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Thibeault Corporation of New
England, Compliance Hearing, Major Subdivision, Inkberry Road, Location: Inkberry
Road off Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to
February 22, 2005, at 9:30 p.m. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED
unanimously.
7. A copy of a letter received January 13, 2005, from Peter C. Clark, to New Boston Planning Board, Re: discussion of steep slopes ordinance.
The Chairman stated that members of the audience had requested to be heard by the Board as they questioned the wording in Article #2 “Establishing of Districts and District Regulations-Steep Slopes Conservation District”. Dave Woodbury advised those present in the audience that the Board could listen to their concerns but was unable to alter the draft of the Steep Slopes Ordinance because it had been posted on the ballot for the March, 2005, Town vote.
Rick Martin asked why the Ordinance had been drafted. The Chairman explained that the Ordinance was drafted because too much building had occurred on slopes within the Town that did not support acceptable driveway grades and the resulting driveways had been poorly designed in an attempt to maintain the Town’s maximum 10% grade. He added that a roadway design was attempted in a subdivision plan that was also of very poor design with many curves and slopes which the applicant could have argued as acceptable because it met slope requirements. The Chairman stated that, luckily, this applicant was agreeable to work with the Board and resubmitted a more acceptable road design for the subdivision plan. He added that the Steep Slopes Ordinance was, therefore,
drafted so that certain lands with a high slope percentage would be excluded from what was considered developable land and so that poorly designed roads and driveways were avoided in the future.
An interested party asked how the actual slope criteria were determined. James Nordstrom explained that the Master Plan of the Town had an ordinance adopted some time ago that specifically identified slope areas in the ranges of 15%-25% and 25% and greater, as being lands that were sensitive to development. He added that the Planning Department had also sponsored a Community Profile in the spring of 2004, at the Central School, which was run by an extension out of the University of New Hampshire. James Nordstrom further added that one of the most significant outcomes from the “Land Use Planning” sector of the Community Profile was the desire for a Steep Slopes Ordinance. He stated that the Planning Board then commissioned a sub-committee to develop this
Ordinance. The interested party stated that he was uncertain as to why the specific slope ranges were chosen and asked if there was an underlying geological reason. James Nordstrom replied that these numbers were selected because the Master Plan specifically identified these ranges and research compiled by the sub-committee from other example ordinances, technical reports and soils analysis contributed as well. The interested party asked what the Master Plan dictated regarding these percentage ranges. James Nordstrom replied that he could not specifically quote the wording but summarized that areas of 25% and steeper were not suitable for development and areas between 15% and 25% needed very careful consideration for development. Richard Silvernail asked what “very careful consideration” meant to the Board and asked if all development proposed in those ranges would be rejected by the Town. The Chairman replied that “very careful
consideration” meant that the Board would consider each proposal and gave the example of one house proposed on 25 sloping acres versus 25 houses proposed on 50 acres. He added that with a Steep Slopes Ordinance the Board would have more support when they made decisions based on the acceptance of the latter scenario.
Rick Martin asked if the Board was aware how minimal a 15% slope was. The Chairman noted that according to the Ordinance the slope was required to traverse a certain distance in order to be considered in the noted slope range. James Nordstrom explained that an elevation change for a distance of 20 feet was attached to the stipulation of the ordinance because the sub-committee wanted to eliminate the factors of slightly irregular terrain on hillside development. He noted the example of Byam Road which followed an 8% uphill grade and asked the audience to visualize the same road at double the grade which was what the Town wanted to avoid. Rick Martin noted that the Steep Slopes ordinances of the surrounding towns of Milford, Hollis, Brookline and Francestown dictated
their steep slope ranges began at 25% and 28% and asked why the town of New Boston was more stringent. James Nordstrom asked Rick Martin if he had carefully read the Steep Slopes Ordinance for the town of Francestown, New Hampshire. Rick Martin replied that he had not. James Nordstrom stated that the town of Francestown had a more stringent Steep Slope Ordinance than the drafted Ordinance for the town of New Boston. He added that Milford, New Hampshire did not have a slope ordinance. Rick Martin noted that Bedford, New Hampshire’s steep slope range began at 28%. James Nordstrom noted that the terrain of Bedford, New Hampshire, was considerably different than the terrain of New Boston. Rick Martin then noted the colored areas of a chart presented to the Board as 8,000 impacted acres in the Town based on the areas of reduction noted in the Steep Slopes Ordinance. He added that although he thought the Ordinance was a
good idea he believed a higher percentage than 15% was warranted given the elevations of land throughout the Town. The Chairman stated that he did not believe Rick Martin would be affected by the Steep Slopes Ordinance as he would not build on the steep slope areas the Ordinance outlined. Rick Martin agreed but added that in speaking with Bob Todd, LLS, he was also of the opinion that a higher percentage of 28% or 30% was more than fair as long as the land was engineered correctly. Douglas Hill asked if the Ordinance would eliminate the construction of homes with walk-out basements as they were usually built on a 15% slope. James Nordstrom replied that the Ordinance did not preclude development within slopes of 15-25%. Douglas Hill thought that given the Ordinance, the Town would not accept the development of a 50 acre parcel with 10-20 homes that had walk-out basements and that only smaller developments would be considered. The Chairman thought
that Douglas Hill was misinterpreting the intent of the Ordinance. Douglas Hill stated that an application that proposed development on a parcel with an existing 20% grade which would be a natural condition for the construction of a walk-out basement could have its C.U.P. (Conditional Use Permit) denied by the Board. The Chairman replied that was correct. Brandy Mitroff stated that as a member of the sub-committee that drafted the Steep Slopes Ordinance she wished to note that the committee’s intent was to give the Board the ability to monitor developable areas with slopes and mirrored the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance. She added that while many of the developers in the room could be trusted to build acceptable developments on sloping parcel other developers could do a poor job on land of lesser slopes and this Ordinance gave some form of control to the Town in that regard. Douglas Hill stated that he saw the Steep Slopes Ordinance as a growth
ordinance for the Town. The Chairman replied that he did not agree.
Richard Silvernail stated that he owned 80 acres on Colburn Road and only wished to give each of his sons a piece of that land to build their own homes. He added that given the Town’s stipulations for 200 foot squares, no common driveways, no backlots and now the Steep Slopes Ordinance, he did not think this would be possible. The Chairman explained that “no common driveways” only applied to lots that could not support a driveway through their own frontage but would be allowed if the opposite was true. He explained that in the past applicants would propose a common driveway for the example of two lots because one lot was surrounded by wetlands. In this way the Chairman noted that by stipulating in the Driveway Ordinance that a lot was required to
support a driveway through its own frontage, that loop hole could be avoided. Richard Silvernail stated that because he owned 80 acres with only 500 feet of frontage, he could be limited as well unless he constructed a $500K roadway. The Chairman replied that Richard Silvernail should not assume that nothing could be done. Joan Silvernail stated that she and her husband bought their land 30 years ago with the intention of subdividing it for their sons and they had not yet been able figure out a method to do so. She added that she herself had sold real estate for 20 years and had seen a cluster subdivision denied twenty years ago by the Town. Joan Silvernail noted that she did not feel the Town had considered establishing a commercial area to help offset taxes which increased every year. She wondered why the Town did not want to manage the growth and felt that growth was instead being obstructed. The Chairman thought this an interesting
observation as the usual caveat was that the Board encouraged too much growth in the Town.
Willard Dodge stated that he was also a member of the sub-committee that drafted the Steep Slopes Ordinance and noted that the Committee had studied a wealth of material from other towns and similar areas that had such an Ordinance. In regard to Joan Silvernail’s comment about no tax based land, Willard Dodge wished to note that much study was done in the past by the Planning Boards who agreed that the Town was not situated to be a commercially developed town, a sentiment he felt was shared by many of the Town’s residents. He added as a point of interest that many individuals who initially joined the Steep Slopes Sub-Committee did so because they felt development should be stopped in the Town but it was later recognized that the greater purpose of the Steep Slopes
Ordinance was to manage development which was also the intent of the Master Plan. Willard Dodge stated that he suspected after hearing tonight’s comments from the audience that many of them had not studied the draft of the Steep Slopes Ordinance. Jay Marden noted that he had also lived in Town for 30 years and that years ago the Planning Board had zoned both sides of Route 114 approximately 200 feet deep as commercial lands and, therefore, took steps to encourage tax based business outside of the village area. He added that, unfortunately, people built more homes than businesses in this location.
Peter Clark agreed that trying to develop the Town commercially would be very difficult and that if it was going to happen it would have happened on Route 114. He asked if the Committee had considered the ultimate financial impact of the Steep Slopes Ordinance on property taxes. Willard Dodge replied that many items were considered due to the variety of people that sat on the Committee. He noted that an important factor to consider was that although the prices of homes were on the rise, the average home constructed in Town cost the tax payers money. Willard Dodge further noted the inverse example of the retirement community that was currently being proposed for the Town which many Beard Road residents opposed, yet would in fact help the Town’s tax base.
Willard Dodge stated that the Fire Chief had recently sustained $1,200.00 damage to his personal vehicle when he made a service call to a house with a very steep driveway as an example of the safety factors that the Town needed to consider as development proceeded. He stated that he joined the Committee because of the mix of people that served on it and the different viewpoints and discussions that ultimately contributed towards the final draft of the Ordinance. Peter Clark was concerned that if certain areas of land were removed from the buildable equation market values of certain properties would decrease. Willard Dodge replied that the number of houses that would have been built above the slope criteria versus the tax affect they would have generated needed to be considered before that judgment was made. The Chairman noted that houses built in areas of excessive slope with comparably steep driveways could posed a liability to individuals who might
purchase such homes, especially if a resident had medical needs and emergency personnel could not properly gain access to the property. Mitch Larochelle noted that the Town already had a 10% maximum grade requirement in the Driveway Regulations. Douglas Hill agreed that the driveway grades were a separate issue. The Chairman replied that the concept was the same. He added that there was also a neighborhood in Town with septic issues due to the steep slopes of the property. Dave Elliot stated that he had spoken with the Building Department and they could
not recall such an instance. He added that he felt the slope ratios imposed in the draft of the Steep Slopes Ordinance were too stringent and that it was quite possible to address properties with 15% grades so that their driveways could achieve grades of 10% or less. Dave Elliot stated that many people in tonight’s audience had properties with 15% grades or greater and that part of what made New Boston unique was the older properties whose homes had been constructed on grades in excess of 15%. He added that he personally did not want to see development occur on flat land only as that would not complement the character of the Town. Dave Elliot thought that all driveways should have an engineered plan and a qualified inspection follow up. He added that while he thought development restrictions on slopes
25% and greater were acceptable he felt that 15% was too restrictive and would hurt long time residents that had purchased large pieces of land. Dave Elliot then stated that in his opinion this Ordinance would not solve any of the issues that the Town had experienced in the past. He noted that the State requirements for septic designs dictated slope ranges between 33-50% which had prompted his questions to the Building Department. Dave Elliot thought that issues could be avoided through proper management of construction and design without lowering the slope criteria to a 15% grade. James Nordstrom stated that he did not disagree with Dave Elliot’s comments but noted that there were situations where land that had slopes ranging between 15-25%, and built responsibly, could create no adverse effects, however, situations did and would exist where land with such slopes created problems and for which the slope criteria posed in the Ordinance would be well suited. He agreed that the
most difficult component of the Ordinance was the 15-25% slope range and the CUP restriction and that while the Ordinance could be considered unnecessarily restrictive in some situations it would be well suited for others. Rick Martin asked if a reasonable alternative would be to require engineered plans on lots that had slopes in the 15-25% range regardless of the number of homes proposed. Douglas Hill thought that the Town was vulnerable to lawsuits because the Ordinance was so subjective.
The Chairman asked how members of the audience were made aware of the drafted Steep Slopes Ordinance. Douglas Hill replied that he read about the Ordinance in the Town newspaper. The Chairman asked Brandy Mitroff how many months the Ordinance topic had appeared in the Town newspaper. Brandy Mitroff replied that the Ordinance had first been mentioned in the Town paper during the summer of 2004 followed by multiple publications throughout the fall that discussed when Public Input Sessions and Public Hearings would be held. She added that tonight’s discussion would have been most beneficial during some of the previous sessions that discussed the Ordinance. The Chairman agreed that tonight’s discussion was the type they had hoped would occur earlier in
the process of the Ordinance’s drafting as it was unchangeable now and up for the March, 2005, voting ballot. Jay Marden understood that the Ordinance allowed Rick Martin or any applicant to do as he suggested which was to present a plan that could be accepted if it was engineered properly even though steep slopes may play into the equation. The Chairman replied that was the case. James Nordstrom noted that the ZBA (Zoning Board of Adjustment) could also grant variances if they chose to, on aspects of this Ordinance, should it get adopted in March, 2005.
Brandy Mitroff asked the Chairman if she could address Earl Sandford, LLS, PE. The Chairman replied that she could. Brandy Mitroff then noted to Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, that she was concerned that costs of additionally engineered plans coupled with the fees to an applicant for a CUP and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan would be more prohibitive to an individual that merely wanted to subdivide a small piece of his land versus a large developer who planned a major subdivision. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that it would depend on the difficulties presented by the lot. Rick Martin thought that the point was moot as costs should be equal across the board. Douglas Hill noted that every lot going forward would be subject to topographic mapping by a licensed
engineer to ascertain the slopes that were present. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, thought that it would come as a surprise to individuals who approached his office to have subdivision plans drawn and were turned down because they did not have 1.5 acres of contiguous flat lands on their property. Dave Elliot agreed and felt that less than 10% of the people in the Town would know what a 15% grade looked like and how minimal it was. Brandy Mitroff stated that she would attempt to photograph examples of slopes for the Town paper to educate the public. Neil Smith thought that by instituting this Ordinance many lands would become undesirable for developers and premiums would be placed on flat lands. He suggested that easements and building restrictions would be better suited to protect these picturesque lands. The Chairman noted that the Dodge Family would be one of the most affected property owners if the Ordinance was adopted and yet Willard Dodge had been
active on the sub-committee that drafted it. Willard Dodge stated that he hoped to never see the Dodge Farm developed and knew that his brother struggled to keep his farm and reject offers of development. Douglas Hill noted that it should be up to an individual to choose whether or not they wished to develop their land and it was unfair to place limitations on property owners who might want to sell in order to put their children through college, etc.
The Chairman stated that he appreciated the input from the audience this evening and wished such input had been given six months prior when discussions on the drafted Ordinance began because now that it was posted for the ballot it could not be changed. He added that there were other sub-committees that would benefit from the public’s input. Jay Marden noted that the Master Plan Committee was currently working on historic sites, stone walls and mill sites.
At 11:10 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Bob Furey seconded the
motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien,
Recording Clerk Minutes Approved:
| 
