Minutes of the Planning Board for May 23, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, James Nordstrom, Bob Furey; and ex-officio Christine Quirk. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were Jack Munn, David Preece, Cynthia Wilson, Brandy Mitroff, Debra Downing, Jay Marden, Brian Dorwart, Road Committee, Jonathan Willard, Dorothy and Jessica Eisenhaure, Mike Carter, Rick Kohler, Cynthia Wilson, Jim Edwards, LLS, Connie and Robert Brown, Jeff Hudson, Pat Golding, Kim Burkhamer, Tom Sauser, Tom Clapp, Rick Martin, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Mark Anderson and an attorney from Pat Panciocco Esq.’s office.
This will be a meeting with Jack Munn, Senior Planner, SNHPC, to discuss ordinance and regulation update per recommendations from Master Plan revision.
Jack Munn, Senior Planner, SNHPC, and David Preece, Executive Director, SNHPC, were present for this discussion. Interested parties present were Brandy Mitroff and Brian Dorwart, Road Committee. Jack Munn stated that although the Town’s Master Plan was nearing completion the Natural Resources chapter still needed work and was currently being reviewed by the Open Space Committee, Conservation Commission and Forestry Committee. As a result, he added that there could probably not be a public hearing held for the Master Plan until August, 2006. The Chairman asked if it was worth bringing the Master Plan forward to a public hearing before the Natural Resources chapter was completed. Jack Munn replied that he did not think this was workable as the goals and
objectives along with other parts of ordinances related to the Natural Resources chapter could help to provide the basis for future revisions of those ordinances.
Jack Munn noted that the Coordinator had mentioned to him the possibility of having SNHPC audit the Town’s regulations regarding goals and objectives along with smart growth principles and that if this was done areas that needed revision could be better addressed in the future. Jack Munn added that the Coordinator had also mentioned waiting until January of 2007 to form the committee to propose amendments to the regulations but that waiting this long would not allow for enough time to prepare any amendments to regulations for the Town’s March, 2007 vote. He noted that SNHPC would be happy to meet with the Board at a later date to discuss these options. The Chairman stated that he liked the idea of an audit for the Town’s regulations. Brandy Mitroff
stated that she thought a warrant on the March, 2006, ballot had detailed funds being set aside for such an audit and was surprised that it was still in the consideration phase. She explained that the warrant article discussed a review by SNHPC for Subdivision Regulations and Zoning, therefore, she assumed this process was already underway. James Nordstrom thought that the warrant article outlined the terms of what provisions would be needed to begin this process. David Preece stated that an audit process could begin in July, 2006, in conjunction with work being done on the Natural Resources chapter and, in that way, both items could be addressed by August, 2006. He added that the goals of the Master Plan were firm and should not be changing in the interim. Bob Furey asked if the audit revealed that numerous changes needed
to regulations, if all those revisions would be presented for the March, 2007, Town vote. David Preece replied that the top priorities resulting from the audit would be the most important items presented first. Bob Furey asked if the $15K amount presented in the warrant article was an adequate amount to do such an audit. James Nordstrom noted that a contract to begin an audit had not been prepared. The Coordinator noted that it was assumed that SNHPC could not begin any work on anything to do with the regulations until July, 2006, when the Master Plan was completed, therefore, the first step would involve preparation of a contract which could be reviewed by the Board and the Selectmen. David Preece stated that he thought a contract could be prepared in June, 2006.
Bob Furey asked if growth control or impact fees would be a topic of consideration for the audit. Jack Munn replied that the Town’s budget was in good shape and that although significant growth had been a factor in the Town the only facilities that seemed to need attention was Recreation with the Community Center proposal. He stated that Schools were always an ongoing issue. He added that there were also some road safety concerns and with many unpaved roads in Town maintenance cost differentials for paved versus unpaved roads needed to be determined. Bob Furey asked if a growth management ordinance was in the Town’s future. David Preece replied that this was a difficult item to address as certain criteria supported by statistical data were required
to justify such an ordinance. Jack Munn offered that a table comparing growth rates of neighboring towns could be prepared as that was a key element of any town’s growth study. He added that the survey done by the Master Plan Committee indicated that many residents in Town had wanted a growth study considered. David Preece noted that such growth management plans needed cautious consideration because if they were brought forward to the courts without ample justification and foundational support they could be denied as was the recent case in Hooksett, NH. Brandy Mitroff agreed that this was an emotional subject for many towns and that strict criteria needed to be followed, however, Weare, NH, had recently brought a growth management ordinance to the State Supreme Court which was not supported by their planning board and the Court upheld the ruling which unusual. David Preece noted that there were ways to manage growth within Subdivision and Zoning
Regulations without introducing an ordinance. He added that it was important to assure that growth maintained a community without impacting the town’s services. Christine Quirk wondered how the Planning Board could affect better growth controls when 30-50 lot subdivisions were being proposed. The Chairman noted that phasing was one option, however, this was voluntary on the applicant’s part. Jack Munn added that some towns had phasing controls in place which was used as a growth management tool and did not involve a growth management ordinance. Brandy Mitroff clarified that such phasing controls could be instituted through public hearings. The Chairman asked what such a growth management tool would be based on. Jack Munn replied that it would be based on factors such as historical trends and the number of building permits issued.
Bob Furey stated that Fiscal Impact Studies for proposed subdivisions always showed a net gain to the Town which he found questionable. Brandy Mitroff agreed but noted that, as a member of the Finance Committee, she was surprised to learn that the growth in the Town over the past year had contributed to a decrease in the tax rate for the upcoming year. Brian Dorwart, Road Committee, noted that infrastructure and timing impacts could also be affected by an increased growth rate. Brandy Mitroff replied that the infrastructures in the Town including the Police Department, Highway Department and Fire Department were functioning at a normal rate and the growth development experienced by the Town had not seemed to pose negative effects. She noted that department heads had
gotten very creative in their funding and the CIP and Finance Committees had witnessed reverse trends with growth. Jack Munn noted that Ken Lombard of the Open Space Committee was currently working on a Cost of Community Services study regarding this issue. He asked the status of emergency services within the Town. Christine Quirk replied that the Fire Department was still comprised of volunteers.
Brian Dorwart asked if the School budget was impacted by the Town’s significant growth. Brandy Mitroff replied that it was hard to predict as it was never known when a special needs student would enter the system which could cost the School $250K to educate. She added that what was keeping the School budget on track in the face of high growth rates was the fact that new residents moving into Town had middle school and high school aged kids, but again, the trends were unpredictable going forward. Brian Dorwart noted that in growth management planning there were statistical ways to make more accurate predictions in order to avoid unforeseen trends. Brandy Mitroff stated that she was sure Principal Rick Matthews would be interested to learn what some of those
tools might be.
Returning to the Scope of Work discussion, Jack Munn stated that the money budgeted by the Town would cover a critical review of the Cost of Community Services analysis but would not be enough for a fiscal impact study of the community. The Chairman was agreeable to this. Bob Furey asked how work was progressing on the Natural Resources chapter of the Master Plan. Jack Munn replied that this chapter was written several years prior and even in the original Master Plan update of 2000, it was not deemed to be in a satisfactory format. He noted that SNHPC was not involved in that iteration, however, the Master Plan Committee had asked them to review the current version. Jack Munn continued that because there was not enough money in the budget for them to take on
the entire task they had met recently with the Forestry Committee, Open Space Committee and Conservation Commission who had made it through approximately one third of the chapter and were working on streamlining the text by relocating technical information to an appendix. He noted that the original author’s point of view seemed to include many personal comments and the goal was to give the chapter more of a main theme and focus. Jack Munn added that Bob Todd had made a presentation at the 4/15/06 Master Plan forum on the functions and values of Natural Resources that should be considered and this would be added to the chapter. He felt that rewriting the chapter should not take more than a month.
Brandy Mitroff asked if any thought had been given to a regulation for wetlands given that some setback issues with recent applications and the flooding rains experienced in the Town in May, 2006, had brought this subject to the forefront. Jack Munn replied the Town needed to update their definition of “wetlands” in accordance with State statutes and this could be done independently of the Master Plan. David Preece added that in order to devise a good wetland ordinance buffer zones needed to be scrutinized and the public needed to be involved by way of community education. He noted that the Town of Bedford, NH, had recently initiated a modest wetland ordinance noting 100’ buffer zones around wetlands and it was defeated by the residents. Brandy
Mitroff noted that a similar situation had occurred in New Boston two years prior. The Chairman noted that a set buffer zone such as 100’ may not be appropriate in every situation. Brandy Mitroff hoped that the recent flooding had highlighted the fact that the Town and the Planning Board needed to investigate further the aspects of the downstream effects of wetland impacts. She noted that Nissitissit LLC’s application was an initial instance where the Planning Board had stated that they were concerned about downstream effects, not just localized impacts to a subdivision’s site and, in that case, the Board saw results with positive response from the applicant. Brian Dorwart commented that every dam in the State was required to do flood damage analysis and he felt this could also be done for wetlands. He added that wetlands were more tied to the shape of their discharge curve from properties versus distance as a change at the peak
altered sheet flows and, in turn, impacts downstream. Jack Munn agreed that Low Impact Development could be achieved through strict setback approaches noting that septic systems were the largest culprit in the equation. Brian Dorwart noted that he was currently working on several designs for the State where detention ponds were being replaced with flow-through roadways where the sides of the road caught runoff allowing less water to be treated at a time because of a two phase impact: first flush and peak flow. He explained that treatment water entered infiltration diffusion galleries which held the first flush with the remainder diffusing as overland spring flow down into a buffer area with contaminants removed. He noted that there was no high peak flow in this scenario as the runoff was disbursed more flatly and over a longer period of time. He added that such systems were in existence and monitored by DEP with one example being at Mount Wachussett in
Massachusetts. Bob Furey asked if such scenarios were still in hypothetical stages at NHDOT. Brian Dorwart replied that he thought NHDOT would give little resistance to such proposals and would entertain them before considering detention ponds. Bob Furey clarified that this was something not yet required at the State level. Jack Munn agreed but noted that it was part of the State’s growth initiative. Bob Furey liked the concept and wished it could be part of an RSA.
Jack Munn stated that SNHPC would proceed with the regulations audit discussed earlier and prepare the appropriate contract. Brandy Mitroff asked if the Town’s walking trails as addressed by the Livable Walkable Communities Committee had been considered. Jack Munn replied that this topic was integrated within the Master Plan. David Preece added that they were trying to get NHDOT involved in this with their Context Sensitive Solutions project and to come before the Board for discussion. Brandy Mitroff noted that the town of New Boston, NH, had been chosen for the pilot program regarding its walking trails. David Preece stated that it had been a pleasure working with the Town on its Master Plan and felt that Nic Strong and the Master Plan Committee were
very committed to the cause. He added that they looked forward to working with them in the future.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 23, 2006
1. Approval of minutes of April 25, 2006, with or without changes, distributed at the June 6, 2006, meeting, with or without changes.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of April 25, 2006, as written. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Driveway Permit Application for Norman and Barbara Gagnon, Laurel Lane, Tax Map/Lot#12/110-1, for the Board’s action. (Drive by prior to meeting-no copies)
The Coordinator explained that the sight line revisions proposed were included in the Board’s read file which noted the cutting of trees with ribbons which would afford 200’ of sight distance from the proposed driveway. The Chairman asked if the trees to be cut were on the Town’s property or the applicants’. The Coordinator replied that they were in the right-of-way. The Chairman asked who would be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of that vegetation. The Coordinator replied that the property owners would be responsible. The Planning Assistant noted that the applicants were expected to be present for this item later in the evening. The Chairman stated that the owners were aware that they would be responsible for maintaining
the sight distance from the proposed driveway. The Coordinator suggested that a note could be added within a motion for approval of the driveway that said vegetation must be maintained for sight line visibility from the driveway.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #06-___ for a
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. As part of the approval it is stipulated that the property owner is responsible to maintain vegetation for sight line visibility. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. Driveway Permit Application for Dana Moody, Clark Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #’s 8/122-1 & 2, for Planning Board approval. (no copies)
The Coordinator noted that this Driveway Permit made direct reference to the sight line drawings provided during the subdivision process.
Bob Furey MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #06-002 and #06-001 for proposed driveways, 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 driveways shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
4. Schedule a compliance site walk for Right Way Builders, Friendly Haven Farm, Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/29.
A compliance site walk was scheduled for Wednesday, May 31, 2006, at 6:00 p.m.
5. A copy of an Email received May 12, 2006, from Ken Brucker, to Planning Department, Re: Carriage Road/Susan Road intersection, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
James Nordstrom suggested that correspondence be forwarded to Mr. Brucker from the Board explaining the purpose of the construction warning signs. The Chairman asked that the Coordinator send Mr. Larochelle, home builder for Carriage and Susan Roads, a copy of this email because he had volunteered to keep the neighborhood up to date with the situation regarding the Carriage/Susan Road intersection.
The Coordinator stated that she had also received correspondence from Rene LaBranche, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., regarding the issue of the Carriage and Susan Road intersection who noted that they were still working with T.F. Moran on the matter and had received partial design plans one week prior along with a memo. She added that Rene LaBranche had added that they were still awaiting a set of complete revised plans from T.F. Moran.
6. A copy of a memorandum response dated May 16, 2006, from Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, to Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Planning Board Membership, was distributed for the Board’s information.
7. The minutes of May 9, 2006, were distributed for approval at the meeting of June 13, 2006, with or without changes.
8. Endorsement of Lot Line Adjustment/ Major Subdivision Plan for Ivan Byam and Vista Road, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-1, 40-2, & 40-3, Byam Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the above noted Lot Line Adjustment/Major Subdivision Plan.
9. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Philip and Hollis Duke, Tax Map/Lot #11/77, McCurdy and Joe English Roads, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the above noted Subdivision Plan.
10. Schedule a site walk for Reggie Houle Builders, Driveway Permit Application, Daylily Lane, Tax Map/Lot #7/74 thru 7/74-5.
A site walk was scheduled for Wednesday, May 31, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. +/-.
At 7:52 p.m. the Planning Board took a 10 minute break.
DOWNING, DEBRA
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Home Day Care
Location: 266 Saunders Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #1/12-1
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant, Debra Downing. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Debra Downing stated that she proposed to run a daycare from her home with one employee as that was the number required for caring for up to 10 children on site per State Regulations. The Chairman asked if the maximum number of 10 children was noted on the plan. Debra Downing replied that it was written on one of the application forms. The Chairman stated that the maximum number must also be listed on the plan itself along with what parts of her home were designated for child care. Debra Downing noted that the designated areas were outlined in yellow on the plan which was the bottom floor including a sunroom, porch, kitchen and nap area. She added that there were 2 designated parking areas for drop offs and pick ups and that the entrance and business sign were
noted on the plan. The Chairman asked if any new exterior lighting was proposed. Debra Downing replied that there were existing flood lights at the entrance and on the back of her house with no other new lighting proposed. The Coordinator asked if a sign was proposed at the entrance from the road or on the house as a sign was shown on the plan. Debra Downing replied that although a sign was on the plan she preferred not to have one if that was permissible. James Nordstrom asked what business hours were proposed. Debra Downing replied that she proposed hours of 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Bob Furey asked if the plan required that her existing septic system be updated. Debra Downing replied that it did not as her house had two and one half baths and most of the children she watched were toddlers in diapers except for two who were only at her home for half of the day. She added that the ages of the children she watched ranged from
infancy to 6 years old. The Chairman asked Debra Downing what her garbage disposal involved. Debra Downing replied that she went to the Town dump once a week and had a diaper pail in her home that required emptying and cleaning twice a week. The Coordinator noted that there were fees outstanding on the application totaling $189.60. Debra Downing then submitted a check for this amount to the Board.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Debra Downing, NRSPR/Home
Daycare, Location: Saunders Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #1/12-1, Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the list of abutters and hours of operation would need to be included on the plan. Debra Downing replied that she would do so. The Chairman stated that a note should also be added to the plan regarding the 10 child maximum. Debra Downing then penciled this note onto the plan. The Chairman asked what times the children were likely to arrive at the daycare. Debra Downing replied that currently 3 children arrived at 6:45 a.m., one at 8:00 a.m. and the remainder arrived at staggered times. She added that pick up times ranged between 3:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. with three cars other than hers being the most in her driveway at any one time. Debra Downing further added that she had never experienced any problems with cars in the
driveway as she had ample turn around space.
A site walk was scheduled for May 31, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. The Chairman stated that the Board would assess the site from a safety perspective and if signs for parking were illustrated on the plan these should be installed by the time of the site walk. He added that if the site walk represented what the plan included then the applicant could expect to be approved at her next meeting with the Board.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Debra Downing, NRSPR/Home Daycare, Location: Saunders Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #1/12-1, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to June 13, 2006, at 7:15 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Coordinator noted that two copies of the plans in addition to the one provided to the Board this evening would needed from the applicant. Debra Downing agreed to provide the additional sets.
At 8:20 p.m. the Planning Board took a 10 minute break.
WILLARD, JONATHAN & JESSICA
Adjourned from 5/09/06
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Private School
Location: 20 River Road
Tax Map/Lot #18/20
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Jonathan Willard. No abutters or interested parties were present.
The Chairman stated that the final item missing from the plan had been received which was a revised septic design from the State.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Jonathan and Jessica Willard, NRSPR, Private School, Location: 20 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #18/20, Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Coordinator asked if there was anything on the plan that was not yet constructed on site because if this was not the case then conditions subsequent to the approval would not be necessary. Jonathan Willard replied that he intended to remove an existing stockade fence and replace it with a picket fence for site visibility. The Chairman stated that this should be addressed during the compliance phase of the plan.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Non-Residential Site Plan for Jonathan and Jessica Willard to operate a private school to be known as Little People’s Depot, 20 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #18/20, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) revised site plans that include all of the checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing.
2. Execution of a Site Review Agreement.
3. Submission of any outstanding fees for the application.
The deadline for complying with the condition(s) precedent shall be July 30, 2006, 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, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. All of the site improvements are to be completed per the approved site plan;
2. The Town of New Boston Planning Department shall be notified by the applicant that all improvements have been completed, and are ready for final inspection, prior to scheduling a compliance hearing on those improvements, a minimum of three (3) weeks prior to the anticipated date of compliance hearing and the opening of the business on the site;
3. Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be
submitted prior to the compliance hearing;
4. A compliance hearing shall be held to determine that the site improvements have been satisfactorily completed, prior to releasing the hold on the issuance of Permit to Operate or Certificate of Occupancy, or both.
The deadline for complying with the Conditions Subsequent shall be August 15, 2006, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing on same as described in item 4 above.
Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 8:35 p.m. the Planning Board took a 25 minute break.
EISENHAURE, DOROTHY & JESSICA
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/4 Lots
Location: McCollum & Meadow Roads & unnamed class VI highway
Tax Map/Lot #14/98
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Mike Carter and Rick Kohler of Bob Todd Land Use Services and the applicants Dorothy and Jessica Eisenhaure. No abutters were present. Interested parties present were Jay Marden, Brandy Mitroff and Brian Dorwart, Road Committee.
Mike Carter stated that the applicants proposed to subdivide Tax Map/Lot #14/98 totaling 22.6 acres into 4 lots. He added that the parent lot would be 2.5 acres and include an existing house and driveway and there would be 1 frontage lot of 5.549 acres and two backlots, each with 50 feet of frontage, 8.362 and 6.265 acres respectively. He noted the suitable building envelope for the frontage lot on the plan to show 0.9 acres but explained that this had been a code interpretation that did not exclude critical areas, therefore the plan would be revised to show the correct figure which was 0.785 acres. Mike Carter added that the suitable building envelopes for the two backlots were 0.721 and 0.78 acres. The Chairman asked if the larger lots would be excluded from
further subdivision on the plan. Mike Carter replied that they would as the bulk of the land beyond existing stone walls was mature forest land that was sometimes logged except for the parent lot which transitioned to fields. He noted that the existing stone walls seemed to connect at breakpoints in existing slopes on the site which created plateaus for the 3 new proposed building sites. Mike Carter explained that beyond the stone walls the slopes steepened down to Meadow Road and the unnamed class VI road. He added that the wetlands were noted on the plan which ran under McCollum Road to an existing dual culvert and then into a clearly defined drainage channel. Mike Carter stated that the soils on site were determined to be Canton, fine/sandy loam except for a small triangular shaped piece outlined on the northern tip of the site which was Pipestone, loamy/sand. He added that this information was provided by mapping done by Hillsboro County and
4 test pits dug by Bob Todd’s office on the three new proposed lots. Mike Carter noted that the pits were dug to 60” with no refusal and the test pit dug on the parent lot hit bedrock at 62”. He further noted that the parent lot had a fully functioning septic system and an additional approved septic design was approved with State Subdivision Approval received on that lot.
Mike Carter stated that each new proposed lot could support its own driveway, however, the applicant proposed a shared driveway to access the backlots and enter off McCollum Road through an existing gap in a stone wall. He noted that the scale of the plan being viewed by the Board was 1”=100’ and the sight distance was measured in the field to exceed 200’ from the backlot driveway proposed.
Mike Carter stated that the applicant requested four waivers on the application. The first waiver request was for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. He explained that the offices of Sandford Survey and Engineering had showed extensive construction measures to control erosion on the lots in addition to the fact that the lots were located on plateaus with considerable forest land that would aid in drainage absorption from construction. The second waiver request regarded a high intensity soil survey which the applicant did not think necessary due to the information provided by the Hillsboro County Soils Maps. The third waiver request was for the watershed computation which Mike Carter justified by noting that the applicant did not believe that the addition
of three house lots would increase runoffs. The fourth waiver request was for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact studies which he again noted would not calculate any significant impacts based on three additional lots proposed off McCollum Road. Bob Furey asked how the contours of the topographical mapping were generated. Mike Carter replied that the 5’ contour intervals were generated by a survey crew from the offices of Bob Todd. Bob Furey then asked if the waiver request for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan was a waiver request to Section V-V of the Subdivision Regulations. Mike Carter replied that he believed it as a waiver request to Section IV,F,2,J, listed as item #49 on the Final Plat’s checklist. He noted that the larger scale plan illustrated that erosion and sediment control issues would be thoroughly addressed. James Nordstrom clarified that, given this information, a waiver request would not
be required for the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Bob Furey wondered if a waiver should be considered for 5’ contours versus 2’. James Nordstrom noted that if the applicant had accurate spot information of the ground topography then it would not be difficult to do 2’ contours of the site. Mike Carter noted that the contours provided on the plan gave the indication that Steep Slopes began ahead of the existing stone wall on the site when in fact that was not the case. James Nordstrom clarified that it was possible that the ground information was a little thin and as the computer interpolated it did not draw a completely accurate picture. Mike Carter agreed. The Chairman asked for justification of the waiver request for three paper print copies of the soils map. Mike Carter explained that this would involve soils specification done by a soils scientist which could be helpful if there were a convergence of different
soils on the site, however, because the majority of the property was composed of Canton soils (with the exception of the small triangular piece comprised of Pipestone soil), it seemed an unnecessary expense to have this information re-proved by a soils scientist. Bob Furey stated that he would hold off on his opinion to grant this waiver until after a site walk was held. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she had any questions based on her review of the plan. ***The Coordinator replied that she had used Section V-V of the Subdivision Regulations as a checklist and noted that bounds needed to be set along with a breakdown of the contiguous flat area***.
The Chairman asked Mike Carter to provide a positive argument for the shared driveway proposed for the two backlots. Mike Carter replied that the shared driveway proposed would minimize site work on the lots while providing one curb cut. Bob Furey asked if there was ample sight distance in both directions from the proposed shared driveway location. Mike Carter replied that there was due to a long straight-away portion of McCollum Road in that area which traveled uphill towards the parent lot. James Nordstrom asked what distance from the edge of the traveled way was used when this sight distance was measured. Mike Carter replied that the sight distance had been measured at an eye height of 3.7’, 10’ back from the traveled way. Rick Kohler
agreed and clarified that the eye height distance used was either 3.75’ or 3.9’ to 200’ of sight distance in both directions. He added that when measuring sight distance on narrow dirt roads such as this it was typical to measure to the centerline of the roadway versus favoring one side or the other. James Nordstrom noted that McCollum Road was quite narrow. Mike Carter agreed, adding that its 13’ wide gravel surface was noted on the plan.
The Chairman asked if the lot was flagged currently. Mike Carter replied that it was not. The Chairman stated that in preparation for a site walk the wetlands would need to be flagged and the centerlines of both driveway scenarios for the backlots would need to be marked. He added that his interpretation of a favorable common driveway design involved both properties sharing a common curb cut and their property lines acting as the divider between the point at which the driveway split to each lot. The Chairman noted that as presented the proposed shared driveway seemed like it could cause maintenance issues between the property owners of the lots. James Nordstrom clarified that the Board preferred that common driveways have a single curb cut with a common
boundary line and split off to their individual driveways in the location of the right-of-way. A site walk was scheduled for Tuesday, June 6, 2006, at 6:00 p.m.
Brandy Mitroff stated that because the site was steep on the back side she was concerned that there would be no control over clear cutting once the lots were sold which could cause drainage issues to McCollum Road, Meadow Road and the unnamed class VI roadway. She asked if the Board had any control over clear cutting issues. The Coordinator replied that they did not although they might advise by note on the plan that drainage measures be considered. She explained that property owners had the right to clear their land. Brandy Mitroff noted that property owners also had the obligation to control drainage. James Nordstrom suggested that an easement could be created to help control clear cutting. The Chairman agreed that if they chose the applicants
could present language that could prevent clear cutting on the slopes of the site. Jay Marden added that an easy way to protect slopes such as those on the site would be with a conservation easement which would not restrict logging but protect against further development or clear cutting and accommodate existing wildlife. Brandy Mitroff asked if this would be a concept the Board would be willing to support. The Chairman thought that it seemed to be a good idea. Bob Furey noted that conservation issues had been requested in three recent subdivision applications. Mike Carter stated that he would speak with the applicants regarding this suggestion.
Brian Dorwart, Road Committee wished to note that the soil types presented were highly erodible and the amount of erosion would be dependent on the construction sequence employed on site. He explained that if the construction was controlled rather than stripping and leveling the site for the lots all at once there should not be a major issue, however, this was something that should be considered. The Chairman replied that the Board would be able to gather more information at the site walk.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Dorothy and Jessica Eisenhaure, Major Subdivision, 4 Lots, Location: McCollum and Meadow Roads and Unnamed Class VI highway, Tax Map/Lot #14/98, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to June 27, 2006, at 8:00 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
SHB PROPERTIES, LLC
Adjourned from 4/25/06
Submission of Application/Preliminary Hearing
Major Subdivision/7 Lots
Location: Pulpit and Bedford Roads
Tax Map/Lot #12/65
Residential-One “R-1” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Jim Edwards, LLS, of Meridien Land Services and Jeff Hudson and Tom Sauser of SHB Properties, LLC. Abutters and interested parties present were Connie and Robert Brown, Jay Marden, Brian Dorwart, Road Committee, and Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission.
Jim Edwards, LLS, stated that since the last meeting a site walk was held with members of the Board where the proposed wetland and driveway crossings were observed. He noted that at the last meeting the potential of constructing the driveway to Lot #12/65-8 off the proposed road instead of off Bedford Road was discussed to avoid a large wetland impact. Jim Edwards, LLS, added that a 25’ stand alone access was discussed and was now sketched onto the plan. He further added that the access could be as wide as 30’ if that was preferred and that it would only slightly alter the property lines of Lot #12/65-9 if employed. He summarized that the proposed road had gentle grades to a cul-de-sac and that the applicant was currently pursuing the possibility of a
discontinuance of Pulpit Road with the Board of Selectmen which would require extending an existing access easement to Bedford Road.
Jim Edwards, LLS, was asked if the required impact studies would be required for the plan. Bob Furey stated that he thought the proposed driveway to Lot #12/65-8 off the proposed road in lieu of Bedford Road which would require a wetland crossing was a good idea. Interested party Jay Marden asked if this driveway would be located on deeded land or a right-of-way. Jim Edwards, LLS, replied that the driveway would be on the lot’s property and could, therefore, stand alone. The Chairman wished to note that Lot #12/65-8 could support its own driveway off Bedford Road, therefore, the alternate proposal off the proposed road was an alternative and not the only option. Brian Dorwart, Road Committee, asked if there was an ability to extend the proposed cul-de-sac
to New Boston Road. Jim Edwards, LLS, replied that the land beyond the cul-de-sac was open space in the Bedford Three Corners area and he believed he had read correspondence from Karen White, Bedford Town Planner that suggested that area be gated off. He added that such a connection to New Boston Road could have the potential of becoming a major thoroughfare, however, this applicant did not intend to initiate it.
Brian Dorwart agreed that such a connection could become a high speed short cut which should be considered by the Town as it did not have means to accommodate that type of traffic onto Bedford Road. He asked if a Traffic Study had been performed as the site distance from the proposed road seemed questionable. Jim Edwards, LLS, replied that sight distance was adequate. Brian Dorwart thought that there were trees located at one corner of Bedford Road that might hinder sight visibility. Jim Edwards, LLS, referenced the plan and noted that sight distance had been measured at 390’ in this location which was more than adequate. Brian Dorwart stated that this area of Bedford Road was reduced in width. Jim Edwards, LLS, noted that the area which Brian Dorwart spoke of was beyond the
scope of the proposal. Brian Dorwart stated that proposing an intersection near a marginal corner of a heavily traveled road could be an issue especially since traffic was known to exceed the posted speed limits. Jim Edwards, LLS, replied that only 7 trips per hour were expected out of the proposed intersection at peak travel times.
Connie Brown asked how she was expected to exit her existing driveway once a portion of Pulpit Road was abandoned as proposed. Jim Edwards, LLS, replied that a current easement was to be extended toward the Bedford, NH, town line. Connie Brown asked who would own the easement. Jim Edwards, LLS, explained that if a portion of Pulpit Road was abandoned then the property owners on both sides would reclaim it with easements in place. Connie Brown asked who would be responsible for maintaining the easement. Jim Edwards, LLS, replied that the property owners would. Connie Brown stated that she did not see why this should be the case when she did not have to maintain anything now. Jeff Hudson asked if the Board had received Town Counsel’s letter sent
to the Selectmen addressing this issue. The Coordinator replied that the Planning Department had received the letter that day. Jeff Hudson explained that he had met with Town Counsel and this letter outlined suggestions to resolve the abandonment issue by way of four options. He noted the first option to be abandoning the portion of Pulpit Road that extended southeast from Bedford Road and rename the new portion. He noted that the name Balsam Court was being considered. Jeff Hudson added that a new easement would then be established which would extend the current access easement and also establish a turn around area for snow plows. The second option involved leaving Pulpit Road as is but the Town would no longer maintain. The third option was to have the applicant provide an entrance onto the new Class V portion of Pulpit Road. The fourth option was to do nothing and continue to have the Town plow and maintain as they saw appropriate. He added that Town Counsel originally
questioned why the Town maintained a Class VI as this had established this scenario in the first place, therefore, proposed these four options as a way of dealing with the issue and the Town would need to decide which option they preferred. Christine Quirk noted that Class VI roads were not typically maintained by the Town. James Nordstrom added that when building on a Class VI road a property owner signed a release of liability for access and maintenance and wondered if that had been done for current residents of Pulpit Road. The Coordinator explained that the portion of Pulpit Road in question had been discontinued in 1952, however, the Town continued to plow up to the Klardie’s driveway. James Nordstrom clarified that an historical precedent had been set. Bob Furey questioned option #3 provided by Town Counsel. Jeff Hudson explained that because it was difficult to plow and turnaround an access would allow the plow to get down to the
cul-de-sac and turn around onto Bedford Road. The Coordinator stated that the Selectmen decided such matters but wished to know why the applicant would consider renaming the new portion of Pulpit Road. Jeff Hudson replied that this was in consideration of emergency services where if the existing Pulpit Road intersection remained and two entrances accessed it confusion could result. He noted that it would be more clear if the upgraded portion from Class VI to Class V were renamed. The Chairman agreed but noted that if the road were discontinued it was preferred that the name Pulpit Road remain with it. Christine Quirk added that a Pulpit Road resident had been in favor of the latter option. She added that the road naming was referred to John Bunting and then the Selectmen and she did not think Balsam Court would be the ultimate choice.
The Chairman stated that he liked the proposal of having the driveway access to Lot #12/65-8 off the proposed cul-de-sac rather than off Bedford Road with a wetland crossing involved. Jim Edwards, LLS, asked if the Board would require a Traffic Study for the plan and if so if only peak travel hours should be considered. The Chairman replied that they would require a Traffic Study which would encompass all hours 7 days per week. Brandy Mitroff asked if the houses constructed on the proposed lots would be single family or duplex. Jim Edwards, LLS, replied that they proposed single family homes for the lots. The Coordinator noted that due to the lot sizing on contiguous upland sites only one lot would qualify for duplex status anyway. The Board felt that
waivers were justified and could be granted for the Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies at a subsequent meeting.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of SHB Properties, LLC, Major Subdivision, 7 Lots, Location: Pulpit and Bedford Roads, Tax Map/Lot #12/65, Residential-One “R-1” District, to June 27, 2006, at 8:30 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
DONALD E. GARRETSON (APPLICANT/OWNER)
Adjourned from 4/25/06
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC., RICK MARTIN (APPLICANT)
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/20 Lots
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 52
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Rick Kohler of Bob Todd Land Use Services, an attourney from the offices of Pat Panciocco, Esq., and the applicant Rick Martin. Abutters and interested parties present were Pat Golding, Kim Burkhamer, Brandy Mitroff, Tom Clapp and Mark Anderson.
Rick Kohler stated that he would present two iterations of the proposed lot layout, one with open space and another where the proposed lots used the entirety of the parent parcel. He noted that in consideration of the Board’s input the applicant had returned to the cul-de-sac concept but this would require a waiver to the maximum cul-de-sac length allowed by the Town. Rick Kohler stated that the proposed length of the cul-de-sac was 2,900’ to the throat of the dead end or 3,200’ to the end of the circle. The Chairman clarified that the Board had never seen the plan being presented this evening. Rick Martin replied that it was presented as a conceptual design several months prior. The Chairman noted that there were no other roads proposed off
the cul-de-sac. Rick Martin replied that was correct. The Chairman asked the length of the longest approved cul-de-sac in Town. Rick Martin replied that it was 2,900’ and had been waived by the Board. The Chairman then asked what fire fighting water supply methods were proposed. Rick Martin replied that he proposed underground utilities, a 10,000 gallon cistern and fire sprinklers in all the homes on the lots proposed. Rick Kohler added that there would be an easement for sight distance and snow plowing on Beard Road at the entrance to the proposed subdivision and he realized that the lot by the cistern location would need to be modified to meet the 50’ frontage requirement. The Chairman asked if it was noted on the plan that no further subdivision could occur on the site if the plan was approved. Rick Kohler replied that it could be done. Rick Martin offered that the land that could be further subdivided was not
accessible. Brandy Mitroff noted that it was important to have such a note on the plan in the event that regulations changed in the future.
Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission, noted that the applicant had proposed many different instances of open space on the various design he had presented for this application and asked if the area outlined in yellow on the plan represented open space and abutted the railroad trail along the Piscataquog River. Rick Kohler replied that was correct and the total acreage of the open space proposed was 48 acres. Rick Martin noted that neither the Conservation Commission nor the Piscataquog Watershed Association had been interested in assuming an interest in the open space. Cynthia Wilson noted that the open space was comprised of many small pieces of land and asked what the reasoning was behind that. Rick Kohler replied that it would aid snow removal and storage within
the subdivision. Jay Marden stated that he did not recall a large area of open space ever presented on the plan concepts and thought it inaccurate to say that the Conservation Commission was disinterested in it. The Coordinator noted that she recalled that the Conservation Commission had not been interested in a conservation easement at the time the open space was first proposed, and pointed out that, the acreage offered had remained the same regardless of what type of subdivision was being proposed by the applicant. She offered that this plan could now be sent back to the Conservation Commission if they wanted to rethink their opinion. The Chairman clarified that regardless of the Conservation Commission’s preference the applicant seemed to be following the path of least resistance. James Nordstrom noted that lot density of the plan was not affected either way. The Chairman agreed. He asked who would pay taxes on the open space if
the Conservation Commission took control of the open space. Cynthia Wilson replied that it would become Town property. James Nordstrom clarified that if the open space was privately held by the lot owners there would be no controls over it unless that land were given to the Town or a scenic easement was instated. Rick Martin noted that he was most interested in seeking a waiver to the cul-de-sac length proposed this evening beyond any other issues. Mark Anderson noted that NH Fish and Game would be interested in having the open space for a deer yard. The Chairman asked Mark Anderson how he would recommend doing so. Mark Anderson thought they could be approached as they were looking to accept land of that sort. He noted that if the open space fell into private ownership then it was likely that no trespassing signs would be posted quickly. The Chairman explained that the applicant was not under any obligation to give land, therefore, he
must be approached by an interested party.
Tom Clapp questioned what was proposed for Lot #5/50-17 which was located behind his property. Rick Martin replied that this was a single building lot. Rick Kohler noted that this lot had driveway access and was a backlot. Jay Marden stated that he liked the plan and asked what the status was of the condominium proposal presented at previous meetings with the applicant. The Chairman replied that the applicant was seeking an approval on the subdivision of land for building lots which could be single family houses, duplexes or condexes as allowed in the RA District. Jay Marden asked the number of lots proposed. Rick Kohler replied that it was 15 which was 13 lots less than originally proposed. Jay Marden stated that he was in favor of the current plan
provided that the open space was owned by an outside party other than the lot owners. Brian Dorwart asked if the Traffic Study previously done for the plan would apply now based on the proposed density added to Beard Road traffic. Rick Kohler believed that it would as the reduced number of lots would have far less impact to traffic flows. Brian Dorwart noted that in the future Beard Road would need upgrading and this plan was an opportunity to gain a 50’ right-of-way. Rick Martin noted that he had already dedicated a 50’ right-of-way to the Town as part of a prior plan. The Chairman clarified that in a previous plan the applicant would have improved Beard Road but with this plan was offering the money for the Town to do so. Brian Dorwart stated that the current cost to upgrade Beard Road was $800K with engineering costs ranging between $70-90K. He noted that land acquisition was part of the upgrade process and this no longer
seemed to be a high priority issue, however, 230 cars per day traveled Beard Road currently and a Traffic Study based on 20 lots had placed that count at 400 trips per day which would mean that Beard Road would require upgrades sooner rather than later. Brian Dorwart added that the current plan did not pose the same levels of impact but would accelerate the need to improve Beard Road. The Chairman asked Rick Martin if he still intended to pave a portion of Beard Road from the subdivision entrance out to NH Route 77. Rick Martin replied that he did not, however, funds from his offsite improvement donation could be used to do so if the Town preferred. Brian Dorwart noted that Beard Road needed upgrades before paving and that it would be better if the offsite improvement money from the applicant went toward an engineered plan. The Chairman said this was a good point to be aware of.
Kim Burkhamer asked on what the Board based waivers for cul-de-sac lengths. The Chairman replied that safety was a factor and the Fire Department used to say that the length of cul-de-sacs could not exceed the length of fire hose available, however, this scenario was no longer the case, therefore, the ability of emergency vehicles to get to the end of a cul-de-sac was a main factor and underground utilities, cisterns and fire sprinkler systems for the homes were strong justifications for allowing waivers to the cul-de-sac length on a case by case basis. Jay Marden asked where the proposed cistern would be located. Rick Kohler noted a triangular shaped marker on the plan located above Lot #5/50-7.
Mark Anderson asked how many parts of Town could not be reached by a 3,000’ cul-de-sac. He felt that the applicant was using a loop hole to gain approval of his plan and that the Board should give forethought to what they were approving and why as they seemed to be setting a precedent. James Nordstrom replied that the Board may have set a precedent, however, they had done their homework before making the original waiver decision for the first extended length cul-de-sac. James Nordstrom noted that in all cases a loop road option would be considered over extending the maximum cul-de-sac length, however, in the applicant’s case a loop road option did not exist.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the current plan had the same road layout as was conceptually presented several meetings prior. Bob Furey asked if the road profile had changed at all. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that the proposed road was within a couple hundred feet of the original profile of the looped road to avoid re-engineering, however, re-engineering was done for the cul-de-sac the approach into it. The Chairman noted that Mark Anderson’s comments deserved consideration in what was to be gained by allowing cul-de-sac lengths to get longer and longer. He noted that safety factors were justified in the case of another application with a waived cul-de-sac length of 2,900’ because that plan could accommodate a looped road, however, it would
have destroyed the open space that the alternative cul-de-sac design afforded. The Chairman further noted that this application had the same benefits if an outside party was willing to accept responsibility for the open space. He stated that there were cases of land that should not be developed, however, he did not think this plan was at that level. James Nordstrom added that he would entertain a waiver to the cul-de-sac length because the safety aspects had been justified and he preferred an open space concept as it seemed a more beneficial scenario for the Town. The Chairman asked James Nordstrom if there was any length of cul-de-sac that he would not consider granting. James Nordstrom replied that there was and that a stigma existed in the planning community that planning boards looked negatively on dead end lengths, however, it was less publicized that if safety aspects were present this was not necessarily a bad scenario.
Christine Quirk stated that she was more in favor of this plan than its previous iterations because of the safety aspects and the fact that 15 lots versus 44 condexes were being proposed. The Chairman stated that whether or not this was the best plan the applicant could present was not relative to him and that he preferred a good subdivision of a piece of property. He added that if this were the case then the Board should be able to support the extended cul-de-sac length. The Board agreed. The Chairman explained that a waiver could not be granted this evening as this plan was in the preliminary phase but stated for the record that if the application were presented at a formal hearing the Board would grant the waiver for the cul-de-sac length based on the reasons
given tonight. He added that the Board preferred to see the applicant cooperate with whomever he saw fit to assume responsibility for the open space as that would be a better scenario, therefore, it was up to outside parties such as NH Fish and Game or the Conservation Commission to contact the applicant. Rick Martin stated that he planned to submit a formal application to the Board on June 13, 2006. The Chairman clarified that the applicant had requested this scheduling at his last hearing, therefore, he was already on the Board’s agenda.
An attorney from the office of Pat Panciocco, Esq., asked if the deadline for the Board’s action on the application needed to be extended. The Coordinator thought that the deadline for action had already been extended into August, 2006, but she would confirm that information. An attorney from the office of Pat Panciocco, Esq., asked if there was room on the Board’s agenda for a second hearing in June, 2006. The Coordinator replied that the applicant was potentially penciled in for a meeting on June 27, 2006, however, the Board would need a formal adjournment to secure that date.
Bob Furey MOVED to adjourn the application of Donald E. Garretson (Applicant/Owner) and Right Way Builders, Inc., Rick Martin (Applicant), Major Subdivision, 20 Lots, Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 52, Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, to an additional hearing on June 27, 2006, at 7:30 p.m. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 10:45 p.m. Bob Furey MOVED to adjourn. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien,
Recording Clerk
| 
