TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of 2006 Meetings
August 8, 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 Don Duhaime; ex-officio Gordon Carlstrom and alternate Douglas Hill. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were James and Carol Eggers, Matt Eggers, Dan & Marie MacDonald, John Magruder, Bill Foster, Lou Maynard, Brandy Mitroff, Christine Quirk, Sam Hackler, Lloyd Hill, Herb Hardman, Linda Shea, Rosemary Gallagher, Jeff Montiel, Peter Lohman, Susie Hackler, Nancy Biederman, Ray Shea, Roch Larochelle, Brian Dorwart, Burr Tupper, Dave Elliot, Al Bell, Andre Araujo, Rick Martin and Bob Todd, LLS.
RAGAMUFFIN’S PROPERTIES, LLC
Adjourned from 7/11/06 by James Eggers
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Restaurant
Location: 35 Mont Vernon Road
Tax Map/Lot #19/6
Commercial “Com” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicant James Eggers, Carol Eggers and their son Matt Eggers. Abutters and interested parties present were John Magruder, Dan & Marie MacDonald, John Magruder, Bill Foster, Lou Maynard, Brandy Mitroff, Christine Quirk, Sam Hackler, Lloyd Hill, Herb Hardman, Linda Shea, Rosemary Gallagher, Jeff Montiel, Peter Lohman and Susie Hackler.
James Eggers stated that while 95 had been stated at previous meetings as the approved capacity of the proposed sports bar this was an erroneous number and 74 was what had been historically approved. He added that the existing structure had always been used as some type of meeting facility and he requested that the same requirements it had been subject to previously be continued going forward. James Eggers noted that a letter received from the Planning Department had cleared up the confusion between the capacity of 74 and 95 as it related to septic and water approvals. He further noted that minimal amounts of water had been used when the structure housed a preschool and the system was in good shape. James Eggers stated that based on the erroneous number of 95 patrons 75 total parking spots had
been calculated, however, with 74 patrons that number decreased and only 25 additional spots would be required which the lot had accommodated in the past. He explained that the original plan had not noted the setbacks for the parking shown along the existing fence which was a drafting error that had gone unnoticed. James Eggers added that the 6’ barrier fencing was lined with 20-25’ tall pine trees and other trees 50-60’ in height. He stated that the plans had been revised to show 25’ setbacks and green space. James Eggers added that traffic for the proposed sports bar would enter one way into the lot as was done currently with 8 spaces delineated along the center portion of the lot, 10 at the back end, 5 at the entry point and 2 noted in an additional area. He explained that all proposed parking spots were 65’ from the barrier fencing to setback lines and that an additional 20’ was present to handle snow loads.
James Eggers stated that he wished to leave a 15-20’ area between an existing ditchline and the parking lot for eventual scraping. He added that he had discussed this subject with NHDES when they walked the site to gain insight into any drainage and canal impacts and was also outlined in their review letter. James Eggers noted that NHDES said that the existing canal could be filled because the drainage ditch started at a wetland area.
James Eggers stated that a concrete slab was planned at a corner area of the existing structure proposed for the sports bar in order to mount an 8’ X 12’ cooler system which would be bordered by a fence with surrounding aesthetic plantings. He added that there were no other physical changes proposed for the outside of the property. James Eggers recalled that at a previous meeting the Board had suggested the installation of double doors to the structure to tone down noise and this was also been supported by the Fire Inspector when he recently visited the site. Matt Eggers clarified that these doors could be installed inside of the building at the entry point to the main room which was down the hall and past the bathroom. Jim Eggers stated that they would do whatever was necessary to
reasonably suppress noise coming from inside the building. He noted an existing door on the plan that was intended as an emergency exit only and stressed that the structure had been built to code with push bars on all exits except the sliders at the back of the building which faced the river. James Eggers explained that there were three exit points from the building, each with fire extinguishers, one at the end of the hall, the back slider and at the front door where there was a standard 36” door. He noted that the fire alarm system had a bull horn and that there were flashers on the walls without buzzers. James Eggers added that the restaurant on site had a fire alarm system with a direct response call which he would tie into Neville Mill hall at some point. He stated that in order to allow smoking in the proposed sports bar heat detectors would need to be used and that the requirement of a sprinkler system would most likely no longer be
required as the NFS 101 State code stated that capacities over 100 required them while the maximum capacity was now stated at 74 with crowd expectations of 50-65 in a single room equipped with a fire alarm bull horn covering the whole building and no push bar exit more than 25’ away. James Eggers stated that it would take no more than 4 or 5 seconds to reach an exit and that there was no heat equipment or open fires proposed in the sports bar, only a glass washer and an ice machine.
James Nordstrom asked if, based on the information compiled by the applicant, the existing septic system could accommodate 74 patrons in the sports bar. James Eggers replied that it could. The Chairman asked the applicant if he had that approval for the septic. Matt Eggers replied that the site had been historically approved for water and septic to a capacity of 75 patrons in that structure and that the Board had sent them a letter with this information. The Coordinator clarified that she had been able to find an approval for construction only but no approval for operation. She noted that the plan with the approval for construction denoted a 450 gpd system. Jim Eggers stated that he would obtain a copy of the approval from his contractor. The Chairman stated that the system was
apparently never certified as being completed even though a Certificate of Occupancy had been issued. Previous owner and interested parted Lou Maynard, stated that a full septic system had been designed and constructed for 74 people and done in accordance with the Fire Code in 1976. Matt Eggers noted that because a preschool had been housed in the structure there must be records on file. Lou Maynard stated that the septic system was inspected two times a year when the preschool inhabited the site.
James Nordstrom stated that based on the information the Board had Neville Mill Hall had a septic system approved for 450 gallons per day and that the current numbers required by the State for a restaurant or bar was 20 gallons per day per seat, therefore, 20 gallons divided into 450 equaled an occupancy that was under the current capacity allowed. Lou Maynard reiterated that the septic system had been approved in 1976 and allowed for a maximum of 74 people for weddings and large functions. James Nordstrom did not disagree but noted that based on the current numbers for usage this was the conclusion that could be drawn and additional information would be required. Lou Maynard thought that such information should be on file with the Building Inspector. The Chairman
replied that it was not, therefore, the Board would need a copy from the applicant. James Nordstrom clarified that the State, not the Town required septic approval copies, therefore, the Town might have a copy of the approval for construction but not the design plan of the septic system. Lou Maynard believed he may have left such a copy with the Eggers at the time he sold them the property. James Eggers replied that he had no such copy although the contractor, John Ryan, may. Carol Eggers questioned if the 20 gallons per day per seat might be more applicable to a restaurant than a sports bar. James Eggers noted that the septic system was installed with a meter but thought that this ratio was inappropriate for a sports bar. Matt Eggers asked where this ratio was stated. James Nordstrom replied that it was included in the State’s design manual and noted that the ratio varied depending on the type of restaurant, for example, sit-down
versus take-out, and that some ratios were as high as 40 gallons per seat per day but a bar was 20. Lou Maynard thought this ratio seemed high. James Nordstrom gave the manual to James and Matt Eggers for their perusal. Matt Eggers asked if this ratio included peak factors. James Nordstrom replied that it did unless unit design flows were used, however, anyone designing such a septic system would be required to use the 20 gallons per seat per day which was the case as far back as 1991. Lou Maynard noted that when the septic was installed for the Tavern building the State questioned the loads which were then monitored with the meter and were found to come nowhere close to their ratios, in fact 60% less. James Eggers stated that there was an additional meter on Neville Mill Hall. James Nordstrom commented that this issue may be why it was there. He added that the State was aware that their numbers were conservative and with the
information that had been recorded the applicant or a licensed designer could design around that otherwise they would be held to those flows. James Eggers replied that this would be fine if he were designing a new system but he was not. The Chairman explained that the applicant had historical water usage information available, therefore, the system could be rated for however many people it could handle. James Eggers noted that the total water usage last year at Neville Mill Hall was 122 gallons. Lou Maynard added that when the meter was installed they had not been required to change anything about the septic system but merely had to monitor the water usage for one year which revealed that the usage was minimal. He further added that these readings were periodically sent in to the State and after one year of monitoring there was no issue. The Chairman felt that the applicant would be required to do the same type of monitoring and provide assurance
that the current septic system was sufficient for Neville Mill Hall. Matt Eggers noted that the past readings already proved that it was sufficient. Gordon Carlstrom stated that the previous owner of the site had
used Neville Mill Hall for occasional functions and a preschool while the applicants proposed a 7 day a week business with a large capacity of patrons. Matt Eggers felt that the only way to ascertain the usage levels was to operate the business and, based on the readings collected, determine if a redesign of the septic system was necessary. The Chairman noted that more than the applicant’s assurance regarding this issue was needed and some stipulations may need to be built into the plan.
Matt Eggers wondered how they could arrive at a reasonable number of patrons to begin operations with the current septic system. The Chairman was unsure and asked who monitored the system when Lou Maynard owned the property. Lou Maynard replied that he had installed the meter and taken the readings, recording the date and number of gallons used and anytime the State wished to spot check the site they could do so. The Chairman asked Lou Maynard what the start up procedure for monitoring involved. Lou Maynard replied that the issue arose when the addition went onto the restaurant and his lawyer had contacted the State who advised metering. He added that he then found similar restaurants in the area, namely, Spats and Travers Tavern and asked them if he could
compare their meter readings against his. Lou Maynard noted that getting this information was very easy as these establishments were on city water and the water company had all the records. He further noted that his site used one third of what the State ratio was. Lou Maynard wished to add that the largest number he had recalled for a sit-down restaurant was 15 gallons per seat per day, therefore, he thought 20 gallons per seat per day for a bar seemed excessive. The Chairman stated that a similar scenario involving the State would be necessary for the applicant. James Eggers replied that this could be done but that he did not want it to delay the process of his application. The Chairman thought that if the meter readings were found to exceed the proposed capacity once the bar was operating then the number of patrons would need to be reduced until the septic system could be altered to accommodate it. James Eggers stated that he believed
that half of the current pub patrons in the restaurant were likely to move over to the sports bar while the remainder would stay for the non-smoking aspect, therefore, they should run below capacity for a few months of business anyway at the agreed upon septic system loading. The Chairman noted that potential crowd issues could also be assessed during the initial months of operation. Dan MacDonald asked if this discussion meant that the applicant was now willing to decrease his capacity from 74 to 50 patrons. Matt and James Eggers replied that this was not the case. The Chairman clarified that if the capacity was reduced to 50 that would not be considered a permanent number. He added that the problem with gaining the ability to operate at a capacity of 74 was the need to measure the water flow, therefore, operating at a limited capacity and watching the meter to see if the existing septic system could function properly was the solution. Dan
MacDonald asked who would be assigned to monitor the meter. The Chairman replied that the applicants needed to provide this information to the Board but was hoping that the State would be the monitor. Christine Quirk stated that as owner of the Friendly Beaver Campground, she had gone through a similar process and with the cooperation of all the surrounding campgrounds in the area they were able to lower the State’s ratio requirement from 90 gallons per day to 60 gallons per day.
James Nordstrom reiterated that the State admitted their ratios were conservative. He added that the Town needed assurance from the applicant that the design capacity of the existing septic system met the use proposed. Gordon Carlstrom noted that using Lou Maynard's information that the readings for the Tavern were 60% less than the State's numbers could mean that the bar could be approved for 60 - 70 people. The Chairman thought that a capacity of 50 patrons would be a good initial number to determine the flow rate.
Gordon Carlstrom asked if live entertainment would be inside and/or outside the proposed sports bar. Matt Eggers replied that it would be contained indoors. Bob Furey noted that note #12 on the Site Plan stated that the parking lot would be graveled at a later date and this time frame should be clarified for compliance purposes. James Eggers replied that he did not think this would be completed by June, 2007, as it was not one of his priorities and would also mean that he would lose the entire winter season. The Chairman explained that, provided the application was approved, the next step would deal with when the work specified on the plan would be completed which would be listed under the conditions subsequent followed by a compliance site walk to confirm that the work was done. James
Eggers stated that he thought this was handled by the Building Department. The Chairman clarified that any work required for driveways or safety related matters were handled by the Planning Board. James Eggers stated that the contract was ready for that work to be done and would take at least 6 weeks. Bob Furey suggested that note #12 be revised to say “gravel parking”. Brandy Mitroff asked all proposed parking would face the river. James Eggers replied that it would and that he had tried to locate the parking spaces as far down the lot as possible to minimize headlights flashing onto the MacDonald property.
The Coordinator asked the Chairman if the Board had given any thought to the usage issue of the site with regard to the fact that there was no listing for "bar" in the Commercial District. The Chairman replied that the usage was formally a school and he felt the proposal of a bar was an extension of the use of the restaurant and its current bar. Bob Furey agreed. The Chairman noted that if the proposed sports bar was a stand alone business with no provisions for food on the premises he would consider the issue differently. James Nordstrom asked if the existing pub in the restaurant would be closing if the sports bar was approved. James Eggers replied that he would convert the existing pub to a waiting area for the restaurant and although drinks would still be served the ambience
would differ from that of the current pub. He noted that with smoking having become an issue in the pub his options were to rent Neville Mill Hall to another business for a bar type establishment with smoking or establish a bar there himself which he determined was a good idea as this would allow for the restaurant to become entirely non-smoking. James Nordstrom asked if it wouldd be accurate to say that the majority of the existing pub business would be relocated to the proposed sports bar in Neville Mill Hall. James Eggers replied that was correct although he was unsure what type of patrons it would draw. He added that for practical purposes the existing pub would become a martini-type, non-smoking lounge. Don Duhaime asked if food would be cooked in the proposed sports bar. James Eggers replied that this would be handled by the restaurant and bartenders or servers in the proposed sports bar would use a connected “POS” system to
have food run over from the restaurant kitchen.
Sam Hackler stated that he felt the topography of New Boston was such that the noise factor of the proposed sports bar would be a concern and he was not convinced that two double doors installed inside the bar would reasonably contain it. He suggested that the Board might consider having a sound engineer evaluate the site to determine how the building could be better sound proofed to suppress noise. Sam Hackler believed that he could be considered a “noise abutter” to this site having property on Hooper Hill Road. He added that his wife, who could not be present this evening, was concerned regarding the safety issues this proposal presented to the Town. Sam Hackler noted that they had experienced break-ins at their home after 11:00 p.m. at night which meant that the State police were
contacted and this took 45 minutes. He asked if the Town was prepared to staff its own police after 11:00 p.m. to compensate for the possible safety repercussions of a sports bar and recommended to Gordon Carlstrom that the Selectmen should address this issue also given the late business hours that were proposed. The Chairman stated that when the Board held its site walk he wanted a sound system playing at approximately the same level as a band and again during a compliance site walk if the application was approved to confirm that any alterations needed had been addressed. Matt Eggers asked who would determine what a reasonable level of noise was and if a decibel meter would be used. The Chairman offered an example of a car driving by the site and drowning out the noise generated inside the building as being a reasonable level of noise. Lloyd Hill asked if the Zoning Regulations contained set decibel levels for noise. The Chairman replied that
they did not and that only rough estimates could be determined. Lou Maynard stated that as the previous owner of the property for 27 years he had had disc jockeys, weddings, etc. on site with hardly a complaint. The Chairman replied that this was the point and was why a site walk would be held. Douglas Hill thought that because the sports bar was proposed in a small town having a site walk was a reasonable request. Matt Eggers noted that any bands playing at the sports bar would only go until 12:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday nights. The Chairman stated that he did not foresee noise being an issue and expected that it would be minimal at most. Matt Eggers asked how soon the Board wished to hold the site walk. The Chairman replied that it would be scheduled before the hearing ended this evening.
Bill Foster asked how the gravel parking area would be delineated. James Eggers replied that it would be delineated by a fence such as a post and rail. The Chairman noted that this should be added to the plan and could be hand drawn by the applicant. Douglas Hill stated that he was impressed with the redesign of the parking that had been made to the plan since the last meeting.
Herb Hardman stated that he shared Sam Hacklers concerns regarding noise levels noting that even though he lived on Cemetery Hill Road he could still hear concerts that were being held in the Village Square. The Chairman asked if Mr. Hardman’s main concern was outside noise. Mr. Hardman replied that this would be more of a concern to him, however, if the proposed sports bar would be generating noise from the inside only then this should be ok. James Eggers clarified that for outside functions such as the annual river roast the restaurant went through a permitting process. The Chairman noted that such functions did not apply to this plan. Herb Hardman noted that he had constructed hotels in Burlington, Vermont and Smithfield, Rhode Island and had been required to install oil separation
systems for the parking lots which were located near rivers. He asked if any similar provisions would be made regarding this application. The Chairman replied that he believed such systems were required for paved parking lots whereas the site’s parking lot would be gravel and absorb oils from parked cars more readily. Herb Hardman also wanted to point out that he had installed a sewer line for his Rhode Island restaurant which none of the abutters would contribute to, because its septic system used to require pumping two times a week. He noted that large functions can cause these issues.
Linda Shea stated that her first concern was safety and that there were inevitable delays when police were called at 1:00 a.m. She added that her second concern was noise and that she had noticed an increase in noise levels from motorcycles at the existing restaurant which she assumed would further increase with additional parking. Dan MacDonald stated that although he thought the revisions to the plan were very good a reduction from 95 to 74 patrons still saw an increase of existing bar patrons of 350%. He added that 25’ setback lines were not as workable as they seemed to deaden noise and that many current patrons of the restaurant and pub drove motorcycles. Dan MacDonald further added that he did not think the Fire Inspector was certified to support that
double doors would quell noise generated from inside a building. He added that another issue would be the noise generated by patrons leaving the proposed sports bar at late hours in a small town. Dan MacDonald then asked the Chairman if the Police Department had submitted their opinion on the proposal. The Chairman replied that they had and that they had no concerns. He then read an excerpt of their letter: “…I have reviewed your memo and the Major Site Plan dated 6/08/06 for the above Non Residential Site Plan. At this time I do not have any dispute with their expansion…”. Dan MacDonald, speaking as a citizen of the Town, felt that the letter was a political statement and an unsatisfactory response. He added that a bar was not defined as a use in the Zoning Ordinance. The Chairman replied that the majority of the Board felt that the proposed bar was an extension of the existing restaurant use. Dan
MacDonald stated that 74 more patrons would burden emergency services of the Town, generate more noise and increase the possibility of impaired drivers which did not exemplify the type of business that was characteristic of New Boston.
Rosemary Gallagher recalled that the Master Plan addressed preservation of the rural nature of the town in general terms and felt that the applicant’s proposal contradicted that. She did not think that adequate discussion had been held regarding the nature of the business proposed and if it would benefit the Town. Rosemary Gallagher also thought the threat to nearby property values should be considered along with what type of patrons would be drawn to a sports bar. The Chairman asked Rosemary Gallagher if she was labeling those who drank alcohol as a certain type of individual. Rosemary Gallagher stated that she was not and that she also drank alcohol, however, felt that this proposal increased the chances that patrons would have a greater chance of drinking to excess at a sports bar.
She added that she was grateful for the article in the New Boston Bulletin informing the public of this application otherwise she would have known nothing about it.
Jeff Montiel wished to comment on Dan MacDonald’s earlier comments regarding the burden that would be placed on the Town’s volunteer emergency services if the application were approved. He added that he trained every six months for general CPR and emergency services training. Dan MacDonald explained that he was the Fire Chief and asked Mr. Montiel if he was alluding to joining the Fire Department by his statement. Jeff Montiel replied that he was not. Linda Shea stated that the applicants were located in a residential area not a separate business district and that this proposal would further impact nearby residences which should be considered. Peter Lohman felt that New Boston residents were more likely to patronize a local sports bar versus people driving in from out of town. He added that he never saw motorcycles at the existing restaurant after dark.
Dan MacDonald felt that the revised capacity of 74 from 95 warranted another review by the Fire Inspector as different rules could apply to lesser numbers. James Eggers noted that the Fire Inspector had walked the building several days prior and under the assumption of 74 patrons. The Chairman noted that the Fire Inspector’s review letter did reference a capacity of 74. James Eggers stated that the Fire Inspector had agreed verbally to some issues like those surrounding the requirement of a fire sprinkler system but that there were other items that needed to be addressed such a lock box. He added that the Fire Inspector asked that a certified letter from a fire alarm system engineer be submitted. Matt Eggers noted that Neville Mill Hall had been State certified to house a daycare in
the past. The Chairman stated that the installer’s certification of the system would be required.
Interested party Susie Hackler stated that she was considering investing in the Town and asked the applicants if they resided in New Boston. James and Matt Eggers replied that they lived on the premises of the business. Susie Hackler asked the applicants what they thought the proposed sports bar would contribute to the Town. Matt Eggers replied that besides the town of Bedford, NH, New Boston was the richest and fastest growing town in the State with almost 5,000 residents as of 2005. He felt that at some point in the Town’s growth they would need certain things such as the proposed entertainment complex which he viewed as a positive for the Town. Susie Hackler asked why such late business hours were proposed. Matt Eggers replied that this was his right just as a recent
application for a restaurant across Town was approved with hours of 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. He noted that operating the business would reveal if those hours should be adjusted. Abutter Marie MacDonald asked if the application was approved what recourse they would have if the noise generated from the sports bar became too much for their tenants and they were ultimately unable to rent the apartments going forward. Douglas Hill replied that he was sure there were civil remedies that could be applied but as far as the Town was concerned he was unsure. Dan MacDonald asked if the Board deemed the noise levels reasonable and he felt they were not then would he be in a position to sue the Planning Board, in other words, was the Planning Board placing itself in a precarious position. Douglas Hill felt that if noise levels increased after the plan was approved than a compliance issue might be present. He added that because the Town had no noise ordinance it
could only be requested as part of the plan’s approval that noise levels be kept to a reasonable level.
Dan MacDonald asked if abutters could attend the site walk for the applicants. James and Matt Eggers preferred that abutters not be in attendance. A site walk was scheduled for Monday, August 14, 2006, at 6:30 p.m.
The Coordinator suggested that any hand amendments that the applicant wished to make to the plan should be done on one copy then if the plan proceeded to nearing approval the remaining copies could be professionally altered to suit.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Ragamuffin’s Properties, LLC, by James Eggers, NRSPR, Restaurant, Location: 35 Mont Vernon Road, Tax Map/Lot #19/6, Commercial “Com” District, to September 12, 2006, at 9:30 p.m. Bob Furey
seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Driveway Regulations
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. An interested party present was Bob Todd, LLS.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if the draft being reviewed tonight was a final draft. The Coordinator replied that it was, however, she would like the Board to review the section dealing with common driveways (Section #11). Douglas Hill suggested that the Board members be polled for consensus on this section. Don Duhaime stated that he agreed with the Chairman’s opinion on common driveways. James Nordstrom stated that although he believed common driveway proposals needed individual assessment it was in the Town’s best interest to limit common driveways to common curb cuts. Bob Furey agreed. Gordon Carlstrom wished to clarify that such curb cuts would be common while the driveways themselves would not be once they split off from each other
at the right-of-way. The Coordinator noted it was important to consider that more of the natural environment was destroyed when an applicant was required to put two driveways in versus a common drive because more trees and vegetation would need removal. Bob Furey stated that he preferred to see fewer curb cuts which might afford less removal of vegetation for common driveways. He added that he felt whatever transpired between property owners of common driveways regarding maintenance should be their private matter. The Chairman stated that in the matters of the planning process the Board had the ability to require two driveways over one when an applicant purposely cleared only one path through a lot and attempted to argue the point that the lot deserved a common drive. Douglas Hill thought there were extenuating circumstances that could arise, however, in the case of existing driveways which could affect abutters if they were proposed for common
driveway status the Board should look at instances where this might be a better choice. He agreed with Bob Furey’s comment regarding owners’ issues with maintenance being a private matter. The Chairman stated that one issue he saw frequently was that builders would rather install a common driveway versus constructing two single ones side by side to save money. Gordon Carlstrom thought that common curb cuts and common driveways for 100’ to 200’ were acceptable but that it was also important to prove that a lot could support its own driveway. He agreed that a builder’s deliberate avoidance of installing single driveways by proposing common ones was an issue. James Nordstrom noted that waivers to gain acceptance of proposed common driveways were also an option for an applicant. The Chairman felt that in certain scenarios common driveways were a reasonable proposal but the argument that two parallel single driveways were
not feasible was wrong and one that he heard frequently from applicants. After discussing several phrasings the Board determined that the revised text to Section #11.3 dealing with common driveways should read: “The acceptable common driveway configuration is such that the driveway enters at the common lot line and splits to the separate lots within one hundred feet (100') of the right-of-way line.”.
Bob Todd, LLS, asked if the Driveway Regulations were adopted if this meant that the driveway to a condex would need to have two separate driveways. James Nordstrom replied that because a condex was constructed on a single lot it would only require one driveway. He then asked what the basis of the minimum 100’ measure of the common portion of the driveway was. Douglas Hill replied that he saw it as having aesthetic value where only the common portion would be visible from the road. Bob Furey added that there would be less traffic issues onto a road with a common driveway. The Chairman noted that the common portion of the driveway would be the more expensive section as it would need to be constructed to accommodate two-way traffic.
Gordon Carlstrom asked if the Driveway Regulations were considered for lots of record only and would, therefore, not apply to new subdivisions. He wondered if that should be stated within the Driveway Regulations. The Coordinator replied that these Driveway Regulations applied to new or existing driveways and noted that Section #8.1 stated that the stipulations of the Driveway Regulations applied to existing driveways and new driveways on new roads which were additionally subject to the Subdivision Regulations. James Nordstrom clarified that the Driveway Regulations would work in conjunction with the Subdivision Regulations.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to adopt the Driveway Regulations as amended. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC.
Compliance Hearing/Subdivision/NRSPR/Condominium
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/52-1
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS.
Gordon Carlstrom questioned the term on the plan that read “Roof Over”. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that the roof on the plan was noted in the wrong location and that there should be an arrow to note the correct spot. Douglas Hill asked why foundations were noted on the plan at the back of the condex. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that these were for patios.
James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm that Right Way Builders, Inc. has complied with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the Condominium Subdivision and Site Plan, Unit A & Unit B, Tax Map/Lot #5/52-1, Beard Road and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 9:05 p.m. the Planning Board took a 15 minute break.
ONE CHESTNUT HILL DEVELOPMENT, LLC
Submission of Application/Preliminary Hearing/Design Review
Major Subdivision/8 Lots
Location: Susan Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/93-38
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering and Al Bell of One Chestnut Hill Development, LLC. Interested parties present were Dave Elliott, Andre Araujo, Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission and Brian Dorwart and Roch Larochelle, Road Committee.
Ray Shea stated that the proposal involved 25 acres of the old Dupuis property located at the end of Susan Road which had been configured several different ways before the Board in the past. He noted that this site was the leftover portion of Lot #12/93 as Carriage Road was built up to the south. Ray Shea stated that the proposal involved extending Susan Road to the east and tieing into the Bussiere (12/88) and LeBlanc (12/89) properties. He explained that the red marking on the plan represented this application while the green noted the LeBlanc property and the blue was the Bussiere property. Ray Shea added that Indian Falls Road would extend to the Bussiere property line while Harvey Lane would connect Susan Road with Carriage Road. He further added that the
proposal involved leaving 2 legs off Susan Road and extending a loop around the site.
Gordon Carlstrom asked if any thought had been given to recreational open space on the site. Ray Shea replied that 12 acres of easement were shown on the plan through Indian Falls but that tonight’s application did not propose any open space although the owners were considering open space dedication for the future application dealing with the next 100 acres of land abutting. Gordon Carlstrom stated that he was not referring to specific easements but rather land that would be dedicated for ball fields, playgrounds, etc., as this was a very large area that warranted recreational use. He noted that the Town had received a lot of donated land over the years that was not appropriate for homes or recreational use and that growth had increased where land for recreation had
not. Ray Shea replied that he could not answer this question tonight but noted that all the land owners involved were aware of this issue and that he would forward the Board’s concerns onto them.
Ray Shea stated that this application was in a preliminary phase while the other two connecting sites were still working on their impact studies before submitting formal applications. He noted the 100 acre parcel to the south of the site as still being in a conceptual phase. Ray Shea then submitted the Soils plans certified by a wetland scientist to the Board. He stated that some of the 4K areas on the lots had been adjusted and that much of the information had come from previous engineering firms that had done work on the plans. Ray Shea added that some lots would need revisions but the proposed road stood as a looped road with access to McCurdy and Bedford Roads which would fulfill connecting requirements between parcels.
Bob Furey asked what would become of the Susan Road cul-de-sac given this proposal. Ray Shea replied that a stub may be created to the south with right angle turns to exit out. He added that the applicant was open to suggestions. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the intersection shown on the plan looked strange. Ray Shea agreed that it did as a stand-alone but this was done in anticipation of a future build-out and would have a stop sign also. James Nordstrom commented that the future road shown on the plan which ran off a lower road shown heading to the adjacent piece (15/15) seemed challenging based on the grades shown on the map. Ray Shea replied that this road was proposed through two wetlands and the only wetland impact for this subdivision was small
and had already been permitted. He added that given several different road layouts they had determined one that seemed best with varying elevations but nothing too great. Ray Shea noted that the land leftover for this proposal was oddly shaped which was reflected in the lot configurations.
The Chairman asked about the traffic flow on the proposed road. Ray Shea replied that the through road was noted as traveling south to a stop sign then a stop sign heading to Susan Road and another stop sign heading to Indian Falls Road. Bob Furey asked if the 100 acre future piece had been reviewed by the Board at any time. Ray Shea stated that it had not and the parcel Mr. Furey referred to was actually the Bussiere land, #12/88, with future potential outlets to Klondike Corner. Bob Furey commented that the future 100 acres (#15/15) at the bottom far right of the plan seemed to have no outlet. Ray Shea replied that it had potential to link to the Bussiere lot but there were many wetland fingers and given the terrain the feasibility of a right-of-way was
unknown at this time and the property owner, Emile Bussiere, was not in any great hurry to move forward with a plan as of yet.
Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, was concerned that if the 25 acre parcel was sold off there would be no guarantee that any commitment agreed to for recreational land at the time of approval would be honored. Al Bell replied that wetlands infringed on much of this land, therefore, there may be non that was suitable for a ball field, etc. He noted that in this case it would be better to go with a conservation piece of land. Burr Tupper, speaking as a private citizen, agreed with Gordon Carlstrom's previous comments that recreational pieces were needed. Brian Dorwart, Road Committee, noted that certain road cuts and fills were equal to the footprint of a ball field and this plan’s proposed road seemed to indicate substantial cuts and fills and should be
re-thought. Ray Shea disagreed and felt that the road proposal was very reasonable. Al Bell noted that the cuts on the proposed road were half of those done on LaBree Road. Brian Dorwart felt that upon a brief review the lots seemed optimized without the use of the land being considered. Dave Elliot stated that the radii and slopes that builders were required to design today were driven by the Subdivision Regulations. Brian Dorwart noted that there were still alternatives to designing to specifications and that in some cases less invasive methods should be considered.
Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, asked if the Board had requested one year prior that an outlet at Klondike Corner be conceptualized. Ray Shea replied that they did. Roch Larochelle then asked if a traffic study was ever done with that concept. Ray Shea replied that it was not but that a detailed traffic study was in the process of being done for this application which would contain a small narrative on how traffic would impact a connection to Klondike Corner. Roch Larochelle stated that he hoped this narrative would contain enough detail to adequately access the impacts to Klondike Corner and any improvements that would be required to Bedford and McCurdy Roads. Ray Shea replied that they would address this but would also not be putting great effort into
analyzing traffic studies for concepts they felt would never come to fruition. He added that he did not disagree that consideration of these traffic impacts was a necessary step going forward. Roch Larochelle asked that once these traffic studies became available that the Road Committee receive copies as well as any concepts that had been prepared to date.
Interested party Andre Araujo asked if this proposal would be considered part of the Olde Colony subdivision and, therefore, subject to the same covenants. Al Bell replied that it would be. Andre Araujo asked if Mitch Larochelle was the potential builder who had first rights of refusal. Al Bell replied that was correct. The Chairman asked if the site was marked. Ray Shea replied that centerlines of the proposed road along with anything else the Board required marked would be done for the site walk. Burr Tupper asked if the wetlands on site had been flagged. Ray Shea replied that they had been flagged by the previous engineer and land owner. He added that although not flagged by the current engineer they could be rechecked. Dave Elliot
noted that the flagging was done less than two years prior.
A site walk was scheduled for Saturday, August 12, 2006, at 8:30 a.m.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of One Chestnut Hill Development, LLC, Major Subdivision, 8 Lots, Location: Susan Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/93-38, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to September 12, 2006, at 8:00 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
PLANTIER, DAVID A. AND ALEXIS B. Adjourned from 7/25/06
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/4 Lots
Location: Bedford and Campbell Pond Roads
Tax Map/Lot #12/82 & 12/71
Residential “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Ray Shea who represented the applicant. An interested party was Roch Larochelle, Road Committee.
Ray Shea stated that a site walk with members of the Board was held one month prior and that the remaining issue was the conditional use wetland impacts. He added that cost estimates for two wetland crossings had been submitted and sight line easements for the driveway to the two acre lot fronting on Bedford Road, #12/71-2, had been added to the plan. Ray Shea further added that the common driveway easement had been revised to specify “only 100’ from the edge of pavement”. Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, asked the location of the sight line easement. Ray Shea replied that it was 10’ beyond the Town’s right-of-way. He noted that the existing driveway, #12/71, from which the proposed driveway would be cut followed the lot line.
Douglas Hill clarified that because of this some trees would need to be cut which would impact an abutter. Ray Shea replied that was correct. Bob Furey asked if the applicant was comfortable with the driveway configuration. Ray Shea replied that he was not but was doing what the Board preferred. James Nordstrom asked if the abutter was very uncomfortable with the configuration. Ray Shea replied that the applicant was and so was he. Douglas Hill stated that this was a driveway with extenuating circumstances and, in his opinion, should be revisited. Gordon Carlstrom asked the location of the existing house on the site. Ray Shea noted its location on the plan. The Chairman asked what the square sketched on the lower driveway on the plan represented. Ray Shea replied that it was a building setback. Douglas Hill commented that once trees were removed to construct the proposed driveway there would be no buffer
between the applicant and an abutter. He was surprised that this abutter was not present at the meeting.
The Chairman asked if there were any outstanding issues. The Coordinator replied there were not. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the easement review was received. The Coordinator replied that it was. James Nordstrom asked if it was the consensus of the Board that the common driveway as depicted on the plan be 100’ from the edge of pavement. Douglas Hill was not in agreement. The Chairman offered that this design was the most practical way to utilize the policy the Board had regarding common driveways and the best configuration for a future owner. He added that he gave no weight to an existing driveway where it could have been subdivided in such a way that it could have more towards the middle even though a lot may have been lost. The Chairman
noted that the driveway was not depicted as going right up against the property line and if the abutter had chosen to run their lawn up to the edge of their lot they would have to live with the consequences. Douglas Hill asked what driveway configuration the applicant would be most happy with. Ray Shea replied that, theoretically, he supposed that the applicant would be more accepting of the existing driveway extending 300’ to 400’ and then splitting off but since this was not allowed then the best option was to go with the Board’s preference.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Consolidation and Subdivision Plan for Alexis and David Plantier, Tax Map/Lot #12/71 & 12/82, Bedford and Campbell Pond Roads, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of five (5) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of the mylar for recording at the HCRD;
3. Review and approval of the Driveway Covenant and Maintenance Agreement by Town Counsel, the cost of which review shall be borne by the applicant.
4. Submission of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application or recording of documents at the HCRD.
5. Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent to approval.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be October 30, 2006, 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 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.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. Sprinkler systems shall be installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee before the occupancy of any dwelling in the approved subdivision.
AND;
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application as complete, and to grant the Conditional Use Permit and approve the plans of David and Alexis Plantier to dredge & fill 2,114 s.f. of poorly drained soils for the construction of driveways on property on Bedford and Campbell Pond Roads, known as Tax Map/Lot #12/71 & 12/82 as the four conditions for granting the Permit have been found to exist, subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of the financial security in the amount of $11,246.57 and in a form
acceptable to the Planning Board.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be October 30, 2006, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should the conditions to approval not be fulfilled 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. Completion of the site improvements as related to the filling of 2,114 s.f. of poorly
drained soils for driveway construction, as shown on the approved construction
design plan.
2. The financial security shall not be released until the site has been inspected upon
notification to the Planning Department by the applicant that the project has been
completed, and a compliance hearing is held and confirms that the project has been
satisfactorily completed by no later than September 1, 2007.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2006
1. Approval of minutes of July 11, 2006, distributed at the June 25, 2006, meeting, with or without changes. (No Copies)
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of July 11, 2006, as written. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. The minutes of July 25, 2006, were distributed for approval at the meeting of August 22, 2006, with or without changes.
3. Driveway Permit for David and Sheridan Elliot, 39 Tucker Mill Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/10, for the Board’s action. (Drive by prior to meeting)
Dave Elliot was present for this item. He explained that the existing driveway originally serviced the existing house and later on his wife opened a gift shop on the premises. He added that the parking for patrons of the gift shop had since taken over the driveway and he intended to construct a garage on the opposite side of the existing house which would be served by the proposed driveway. Dave Elliot explained that the gift shop was a permitted business started 10 years prior and that the parking situation worked well except for the busy winter season. The Chairman commented that it appeared the current parking scenario exceeded what had been approved on the Site Plan for the business. He noted that one argument would be to have the Zoning changing to
commercial property or else by keeping the residence linked with the business the intensity of that business would be naturally limited and would assure that the existing home remained the primary use on that property. The Chairman added that the real issue involved the fact the Board had not been allowing secondary driveway accesses within 200' of each other on the same lot. He asked if it would be possible to use the existing curb cut for the proposed driveway. Dave Elliot replied that if this was his only option then he would not do that because, aesthetically, it would not look good. He noted that the parking for the business was designed according to what would fit in the yard along with two residential parking spaces. The Coordinator asked when the business was approved. Dave Elliot replied that it was approved 10 years prior. He added that he was unsure how traffic to the business could be controlled unless there was a gatekeeper. He reiterated that the gift shop was
busiest from October through January and also several weeks in the spring which required that the residential cars be moved out of the driveway which still did not solve the issue.
James Nordstrom asked if the gift shop was approved as a home business. Dave Eliot replied that it was. The Chairman clarified that the business was approved in an accessory building. Dave Elliot replied that was correct and that the accessory building had been a former workshop. Michele Brown, Planning Assistant, fetched the site plan file from the office so the Board could review the approved Site Plan. Douglas Hill asked who owned the abutting lot. Dave Elliot replied that his brother did. James Nordstrom noted that earlier in the evening the Board had adopted the Driveway Regulations which stipulated that there must be a minimum of 200’ between an existing and proposed secondary driveway. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the driveway could
go be moved to the south. Dave Elliot replied that the grade on the property would not allow it. James Nordstrom added that to “T” off the existing driveway would require an extreme cut. Dave Elliot agreed. Don Duhaime asked if the proposed driveway could be constructed around the back of the lot and house. Dave Elliot replied that he preferred not to as this would impact the back yard and he would still lose two parking spaces along with established gardens and plantings. He added that he had been struggling with alternative solutions for almost a year now and saw his proposal as the only solution. Don Duhaime recalled a resident on Carriage Road who was turned down by the Board when a second curb cut on their property was requested. Dave Elliot noted that the Carriage Road example was strictly based on aesthetics and home business was not involved. James Nordstrom asked Dave Elliot to note the proposed driveway’s location again. Dave Elliot noted the location on the
design and stated that it afforded a minimum cut at the lowest corner of the property to the road and also the safest access point in consideration of an existing crest on Tucker Mill Road.
The Chairman asked if there were criteria specified in the Driveway Regulations describing what should be considered for a waiver. The Coordinator replied that such criteria were left out of the Driveway Regulations deliberately. The Chairman stated that he could not justify the rationale that a home business created too much customer traffic, therefore, there was nowhere to park. He saw this scenario as being in violation of the Site Plan. Dave Elliot noted that he derived the number of parking spaces that he could when the business was proposed based on the existing driveway. The Chairman asked what number of spaces was generally allowed. The Coordinator replied that this stipulation came into play with minor Site Plans not major. Dave Elliot
clarified that this was a major Site Plan and that no mention was ever made that a certain amount of traffic could not be exceeded. James Nordstrom noted that if this was the case then there may be justification present to request a waiver for the 200’ distance between the primary and secondary driveways. The Chairman noted that 4 parking spaces were delineated on the plan. James Nordstrom noted that the plan did not specify that this was a maximum number allowed. Dave Elliot added that 2 additional spaces were noted for residential parking. Douglas Hill stated that he did not see how one could orchestrate that a certain minimum number of cars be allowed on site to a retail business. Dave Elliot noted that cars parked everywhere on the current driveway when the business was at peak seasons. Douglas Hill further noted that the parking had been calculated using the formula for parking in a commercial setting (960 s.f./300 = 4).
The Chairman felt that this home business was approved in a Residential-Agricultural district, not intended to take over the property and self regulating because of that. The Chairman considered that the two driveways were proposed too close to each other at 75’. Secondly, a justification for the waiver process was needed. Douglas Hill thought that a justification would be that the Site Plan was approved as a retail home business with minimum parking listed and that such a business was either going to grow or go out of business. Gordon Carlstrom asked if more parking could be accommodated off the existing driveway. Dave Elliot replied that if he paved an offset to the existing driveway the site would resemble a commercial establishment which he sought to avoid. Bob Furey suggested that graveled areas could be added for additional parking. Dave Elliot replied that he had put a lot of work into his gardens and plantings over the
years and felt that separating the residential side from the business side was a better option. He noted that if he constructed his planned future garage at the other end of the house from what he intended then he would lose all his parking spaces. The Chairman asked Douglas Hill if the hours of operation were listed on the plan if he would consider those maximum or minimum hours. Douglas Hill replied that he would consider those maximum hours. The Chairman asked why he would not feel the same about the parking spaces noted. Douglas Hill replied that it was because these were calculated using a commercial formula using square footage. The Chairman felt that if more parking spaces were needed then an amendment to the site plan was necessary. Dave Elliot felt that given the formula used the parking proposed on the plan was the minimum required but it was never discussed that if the business did well that more parking spaces could not be
requested. The Chairman stated that if the Site Plan was amended to 10 spaces then the Board could consider this scenario but currently the request could not be justified by saying that another driveway was needed because the applicant was in violation of the Site Plan. James Nordstrom stated that justification would need to come from Dave Elliot. Dave Elliot replied that he felt a second driveway was the best solution to the parking issue along with the safest and most aesthetically pleasing option. The Chairman noted that in amending the Site Plan to include more spaces, for example, 4 to 7, this would then eliminate the residential parking, therefore, Mr. Elliot could then propose that a secondary driveway be approved to a future garage on the opposite side of the existing residence. He added that this justification should be submitted in writing to the Board. James Nordstrom asked if this written submission could be attached to the existing
Site Plan or if the Site Plan would need to be amended. The Chairman thought that it could not be a hand amendment if something significant was being added or subtracted such as relocating parking to another area but in this case all the parking would remain in the same area with the 4 approved being renamed as six which seemed a convenient amendment to the current plan. He did not think that a hearing would even be necessary for the amendment as the change would not impact abutters and that amending the plan itself would not be required. James Nordstrom clarified that a written justification and waiver request should be submitted to the Board which would be attached to the original file.
4. Endorsement of a Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Matthew and Kim Kantor and Charles T. and Monica Ann Grandll, Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-10 & 41-11, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
Because multiple signature sheets were involved the Chairman determined that this item could be addressed at the end of the meeting.
5. Schedule a compliance site walk for Indian Falls Road, Indian Falls, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #12/89.
A site walk was scheduled for Saturday, August 12, 2006, at 9:45 a.m.
6. A copy of an email received July 26, 2006, from Steve Dunbar, Thiebeault Corporation, to New Boston Planning Board, Re: request for extension of conditions subsequent, Vista Road, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5, Hutchinson Lane, was distributed for the Board’s action.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the extension of the conditions subsequent to the subdivision of Hutchinson Lane, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5, requested in a letter dated July 26, 2006, to August 1, 2007. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
7. A copy of a letter received August 3, 2006, from John S. Greenwood, Project Manager, R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, to Town of New Boston Planning Board, Re: request for extension of conditions subsequent, Highland Hills Subdivision, Tax Map/Lot #6/32, was distributed for the Board’s action.
Don Duhaime MOVED to grant the extension of the conditions subsequent to the subdivision of Highland Hills, Tax Map/Lot #6/32, requested in a letter dated August 3, 2006, by John S. Greenwood, to October 31, 2006. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
9. A copy of a memorandum with attachments from Nic Strong, to Burton Reynolds, Re: Off-Site Road Improvement Costs for New Boston, was distributed for the Board’s information.
8. A copy of an email received July 26, 2006, from Roch Larochelle and Brian Dorwart, New Boston Road Committee, to New Boston Planning Board, Re: Beard Road Subdivision, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Gordon Carlstrom asked if the $165 per foot road improvement costs were for site specific or a general amount. Roch Larochelle replied that was generic and he was concerned that the Beard Road improvements would be higher given what was required and that, additionally, the Town Engineer’s cost of $101 per foot did not incorporate anything required outside the scope of the existing roadway. He noted the reason the Road Committee could not justify $200 per foot was that it would be difficult to place that cost with every developer when it probably would not be the case for every road in the Town. Brian Dorwart offered that the Road Committee’s number was an attempt to come up with the cost of construction on a typical road along with a defensible methodology to
bias costs up or down when necessary. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the Road Committee could derive those premium increments for future situations that might require it. Douglas Hill asked if the Road Committee’s cost per foot applied to new roads also. Roch Larochelle replied that new road costs per foot would be even higher. Brian Dorwart offered that costs for new roads averaged between $300-$500 per foot with curbing and drainage and sewer for new roads he saw designed in Massachusetts, for example. Roch Larochelle added that engineering and surveying costs were also worked into these numbers.
Douglas Hill asked what the applicant’s fair share cost worked out to be for the Beard Road scenario. The Coordinator interjected that this had not yet been calculated because the per foot figure had not yet been approved by the Selectmen. Gordon Carlstrom asked that a list of discriminators be put together by the Road Committee for the Selectmen’s review. Brian Dorwart replied that the Road Committee could come up with a defensible number made up of components that could be easily reviewed by another engineer. Roch Larochelle noted that they had not seen historical costs that the Road Agent was to provide but cautioned that these numbers could be lower than the Road Committee’s estimates. Gordon Carlstrom thought that this would make sense
given that Town equipment was used for some improvement projects. Gordon Carlstrom stated that he would make room on the Selectmen's schedule for the Road Committee’s presentation on this subject. Brian Dorwart asked if the decision lay ultimately with the Planning Board or the Selectmen. Gordon Carlstrom replied that it was the Selectmen’s decision.
Brian Dorwart next wanted to address the outstanding issue of the dam on the same applicants proposed subdivision. He noted that dams required inspections, filings and long term maintenance programs that could cost the Town $50K to $80K per year. He added that the better objective was to design a detention pond that was smaller than that which fit into the dam category and would have easier maintenance access. Roch Larochelle felt that there had to be a way to design around this scenario so that the scenario being discussed did not fall into the dam category. Brian Dorwart noted an example of an existing 4’ farm dam in another town on a lot purchased by a developer. He noted that because the town did not want to pay for maintenance costs the developer had
encumbered the maintenance and when he aggressively removed a tree on site the dam broke which meant that he had to redesign and rebuild the dam along with restoring the impacted wetlands downstream and pay a $75K fine. Roch Larochelle stated that this was why he had previously asked the Coordinator about the drainage easements that this dam would be part of for the application as the Town could ultimately have the dam as a liability. The Chairman stated that the Selectmen could refuse to accept the application given this scenario. The Coordinator noted that this issue should be brought up at the Selectmen’s next meeting.
Roch Larochelle stated that after one of the applicant’s previous meetings where the dam was discussed he had contacted the Road Agent who was concerned about maintenance of the proposed center drain. He added that he understood such drains were used for filtration but may not even be required from a regulatory standpoint. Brian Dorwart added that it also depended if such a drain was an infiltrator or a drain and if it was an infiltrator than it would also have an armored spillway in the design. James Nordstrom thought that an armored spillway was included in the applicant’s design. Roch Larochelle noted that in that case the drain may not be a required feature. He stated that the Road Committee could craft a letter if necessary that urged that the
Board not accept the dam as part of the application. Gordon Carlstrom thought this should be done before the Selectmen’s next meeting.
Bob Furey asked Roch Larochelle if the Road Committee was certain that the applicant’s proposed detention pond qualified as a dam. Roch Larochelle replied that it was specifically stated on the plan that along with the acquired permits that had been necessary. He noted that the applicant should also be required to provide calculations in the event the dam breached even though it was likely that it would be a dry environment most of the year. James Nordstrom asked if the dam was revised to qualify as a detention basin what the Road Committee’s opinion would then be. Roch Larochelle replied that maintenance access would be the main concern as had been noted with other applications. Brian Dorwart added that the ability to reasonably provide maintenance
with Town equipment was also important. James Nordstrom clarified that the Road Committee’s stance was that detention basins were acceptable as long as access for long term maintenance was provided. Brian Dorwart agreed and added that another factor was the Town’s willingness to assume the cost of maintenance.
10. A copy of a letter from Morgan A. Hollis, Gottesman & Hollis P.A., to Zoning Board of Adjustment, Re Tax Map/Lot #8/77 & 8/78, Appeal of Decision of the Board of Selectmen, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Gordon Carlstrom explained that Mr. Rumore was questioning a small triangle of land on Bedford Road that he viewed as a separate lot of record. He added that because this land totaled less than 2 acres the Selectmen deemed it as non-conforming, however, Mr. Rumore was still disputing that it should be a separate lot.
11. A copy of a letter from Dawn Buker, Compliance Inspector, Wetlands Bureqau, Department of Environmental Services, to Patricia A. Halvatzes, Re: 393 Chestnut Hill Road, New Boston, NH, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator noted that Patricia Halvatzes had been installing a pond on her property that was near wetlands and since the receipt of this letter she had resolved the issue.
12. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing for August 9, 2006, from the Town of Henniker, Re: installation of a wireless telecommunication facility.
13. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing for August 16, 2006, from the Epsom Board of Adjustment, Re: installation of a wireless telecommunication facility.
14. Schedule a compliance site walk for Jonathan and Jessica Willard, Private School (Little People’s Depot), 20 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #18/20.
A compliance site walk was scheduled for Monday, August 14, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. +/-.
15. Discussion, Re: Scott Elliot, 65 Pine Echo Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/5-2, contracting business.
The Coordinator explained that the Planning Department had learned of Mr. Elliot’s business as part of a subdivision plan submitted by the offices of Bob Todd, LLS. She added that Mr. Elliot’s business was not on file as an approved business in the Town. The Board asked that the standard letter be sent to Mr. Elliot to notify him accordingly.
16. A copy of a letter dated August 15, 2006, from William R. Drescher, Drescher & Dokmo, Attorneys at Law, to Nicola Strong, New Boston Planning Board Re: Jane and John Workman, Drainage Easement Review, Tax Map/Lot #4/41, Thornton and Pine Roads, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Board agreed to release Bill Drescher, Esq.'s letter so the appropriate changes could be made to the easement.
17. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing for August 15, 2006, from the Town of Merrimack, Re: installation of a wireless telecommunication facility.
18. The Coordinator asked the Board if it would be appropriate going forward to send notices to various departments in the Town requesting a timely response to plans sent to them by the Planning Board given the scenario discussed tonight with the Road Committee. James Nordstrom thought this was a good idea as untimely responses were a waste of time and could cause problems as witnessed by the discussion this evening regarding the dam/retention pond for the recently approved Beard Road subdivision. The Board agreed.
The Chairman and Bob Furey endorsed the Lot Line Adjustment Plan noted earlier in item #4.
At 11:38 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted, Suzanne O’Brien, Recording Clerk
| 
