Minutes of the Planning Board December 12, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members Don Duhaime and James Nordstrom (after 8:30 p.m.); ex-officio David Woodbury; and, alternate Doug Hill. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nicola Strong, and Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting, were Ken Lombard, Bob Todd, LLS, Burr Tupper, Rob Starace, Brian Dorwart, Christopher Comeau, Brandy Mitroff, Ray Shea, Gregory Comeau, Cyndie Wilson, Al Bell, Albert & Carol LaChance, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Tom Sauser, Jim Edwards, Jeff Hudson, Neil Smith, Robert & Connie Brown, and Dave Walker, PE.
LOCUS FIELD, LLC
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/NRSPR/Condominium
Location: Kettle Lane
Tax Map/Lot # 13/15-7
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, and Rob Starace of Locus Field, LLC.
Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the application before the Board was a condominium application for Lot #13/15-7. He noted that State Subdivision Approval had been received. He further noted that the lot was located off the top of Kettle Lane approximately 400' from Salisbury Road. Bob Todd, LLS, went on to say that the lot was just over 2 acres, 0.62 acres of which was encumbered by the kettle hole protection area put in place as part of the original Kettle Lane subdivision. He noted that all construction on the lot was at the front and did not impact the steep slopes to the kettle hole. Bob Todd, LLS, next stated that each unit would have its own well and septic system and each would be a three bedroom unit. He noted that the lot had previously been approved
with an 8-bedroom septic system. Bob Todd, LLS, concluded by saying that he had applied for the waivers that usually accompanied one of these condex subdivision/site plan applications.
The Chairman stated that the waiver requested was for the traffic, environmental and fiscal studies and the certified erosion control plan which the applicant asserted were either not required for a subdivision of this size or which had been taken care of as part of the original subdivision application, and for the submission of the State Subdivision Approval. Doug Hill asked for clarification that the State Subdivision Approval was a required submission item 15 days prior to the hearing. The Chairman stated that was the case, however, the State Subdivision Approval was now in hand and the Board should keep in mind that the lot was already approved for more bedrooms so he thought the waiver could be granted.
David Woodbury asked what the practical effect of the 15-day deadline was. The Coordinator noted that the 15 days gave the office time to process the application and ready it for hearing but also allowed abutters and the public the time to come to the office to view the plans and accompanying paperwork. David Woodbury asked if anyone had come to the office requesting information on this application. The Coordinator replied that they had not. The Board indicated that they had no issues with this waiver request.
Brian Dorwart asked if the kettle hole was a true kettle hole with an ephemeral pool. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the kettle hole had a high water table and poorly drained soils but no standing water. The Chairman explained that the kettle hole was already protected as part of the original subdivision and there was no change to the site except the subdivision of the house into a condominium
Doug Hill MOVED to grant the waiver to the 15 day deadline for submission of the State Subdivision Approval requested by Bob Todd, LLS, in his memo of October 18, 2006. David Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
David Woodbury MOVED to grant the waivers to submission of the certified erosion and sediment control plan, and the traffic, fiscal and environmental studies requested by Bob Todd, LLS, in his memo of October 18, 2006. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
David Woodbury MOVED to accept the application of Locus Field, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #13/15-7, Subdivision/Site Plan Review, Condex, Kettle Lane, as complete. Doug Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
David Woodbury MOVED to approve the approve the Condex Site Plan, Salisbury Crossing, Tax Map/Lot #13/15-7, Kettle Lane, Locus Field, LLC, 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. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD;
3. Submission of any outstanding application fees and the fees for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be January 30, 2007, 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 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. All site improvements are to be completed as per the approved site plans.
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;
3. Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be submitted;
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 any Permit to Operate/Certificate of Occupancy, or both. No occupancy/use of the building shall be permitted until the site improvements as noted have been completed, and a site inspection and compliance hearing held.
The deadline for complying with the Conditions Subsequent shall be January 30, 2007, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing as noted in item #4 above.
Doug Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Miscellaneous Business and correspondence for the meeting of December 12, 2006, including, but not limited to:
1. Notice of Merger for Paul Dickson and Karen Hanson, 284 Old Coach Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/23 & 7/24, for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator explained that according to RSA 674:39-a a property owner can apply to the Planning Board to allow two or more contiguous parcels to be merged and thereafter considered as one parcel. The lots could only be separated in the future by a subdivision application. The Coordinator went on to say that the law required that as long as the proposed merger did not violate the town's ordinances or regulations the Board was required to approve the request. She noted that the applicants had submitted a completed Notice of Merger form to be recorded at the Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds.
David Woodbury MOVED to approve the Notice of Merger for Paul Dickson and Karen Hanson, 284 Old Coach Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/24 and 7/23. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Application for Appointment received December 1, 2006, for the Board’s action.
(Interview if applicant present?)
The Planning Board Assistant indicated that Mr. Lewin was planning on being present so the Board postponed action on this item.
3. Letter dated November 29, 2006, from Cindy Wilson, 58 Mason Drive, to New Boston
Planning Board, Re: Shaky Pond Development, LLC, McCurdy Road, for the Board’s
review and discussion. (Previously distributed)
The Chairman noted that the Board would wait to discuss this since Cyndie Wilson was likely to be present later in the meeting.
4. Letter received November 29, 2006, from William R. Drescher, Drescher & Dokmo Professional Association, to Town of New Boston Planning Department, Re: Lull Road Corp. vs. Town of New Boston, was distributed for the Board’s information.
5. Letter received December 07, 2006, from Ken Lombard & Burr Tupper, Conservation Committee, to New Boston Planning Board, Re: Wetlands Conservation District Ordinance, for the Board’s information.
David Woodbury asked which way this issue was going to move forward. He noted that it was going to be discussed at the Planning Board's meeting on December 19th but wondered if it was being suggested that the Board discuss the proposed ordinance as if it was to come from the Board or if it was going to be petitioned. The Coordinator noted that the posting deadline for the Board's zoning public hearing had been December 8th and what had been posted with regard to the Wetlands Conservation District was what had been discussed at the November 28th informational session, namely the changes to the existing ordinance that would bring it into compliance with state definitions only. She noted that the posted proposal could be changed at the hearing
on December 19th and sent to second public hearing or the Board could decide to pull their proposal and entertain the committee's proposal instead. She also noted that the Committee had decided to petition the amendment as amended following the November input session. David Woodbury stated that he thought the issue needed to get to the ballot, noting that there would always be some people in favor and some against such a proposal. He did note, however, that there was always a better chance of a proposal passing if the Planning Board endorsed it than if they did not. Doug Hill asked if the Board could do anything with the proposal at this evening's meeting. The Coordinator stated that they could not. The Chairman noted that the Board would have to discuss which proposal - either the one from the Board, or the one from the committee - they could support and if the Board did not like the committee's proposal they could have the committee
continue to work on the matter for a year as discussed at the November session.
Ken Lombard stated that the committee would like to avoid the petition process if at all possible. Burr Tupper stated that the committee had revised the ordinance based on the input received at the November 28th public input session. He noted that the setbacks to do with driveway or impervious surfaces had been removed; the buffer had been reduced to 50'; the structure setback had been reduced to 50' with added language to allow the Planning Board to increase said setback in various circumstances; and the 250' septage/sludge setback had been removed. Ken Lombard stated that these changes had been made in an effort to recognize that not all wetlands were created equal. The Chairman suggested that a structure without a foundation, for instance a woodshed on
sauna tubes, should be able to encroach in the setbacks and the Planning Board should have the ability to allow it. Doug Hill stated that he liked the ordinance much better with the impervious surfaces removed. He asked about the Board's ability to make the structure setback more stringent. The Coordinator explained that this would be based on specific criteria to do with the wetlands, for instance, if the wetland was a designated prime wetland, if it was within the Groundwater Resources Conservation District, a headwater for trout or salmon, a current or potential drinking water supply for the town, and so on. Doug Hill thought that the people against this ordinance would consider these additional factors as a slippery slope because many wetlands could fall within those categories. Ken Lombard stated that it was then up to the Planning Board to make the decision whether or not to increase the setbacks. The Chairman stated that the Board liked
their decisions to be based on science. Doug Hill stated that an ordinance with a set number was much easier to use. Burr Tupper stated that the committee wanted the Planning Board to have the ability to deal with different wetlands differently. The Chairman said that such an ability was essential in his mind because whatever number was decided on as a setback had to be based on science or it meant nothing. Doug Hill agreed that some kind of science was important so an applicant would not be subject to the whims of a different Board in 5 year's time. He wondered if there was a maximum setback proposed. Ken Lombard stated that there was no maximum. He thought that adding the wetland or soils science component would be a good idea, noting that the setback extension could be based on soil science and the other criteria already in the ordinance.
The Chairman asked why septic tanks were required to be 75' away from wetlands. Burr Tupper stated that this measurement remained the same as in the current ordinance. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that there was always a possibility of a leak from a septic tank particularly the ones that come in pieces and are put together on-site. He noted that a failing system sometimes popped the tank lid.
Brian Dorwart suggested that the ordinance should take into account the need to monitor water quality standards. The Chairman wondered if the setback could start lower - at 25' - with the ability for the Board to increase it. He noted that he could not think of any water resource that would not be worthy of a 25' setback but would want the ability to increase that as much as was needed to protect a particular kind of water resource. Brian Dorwart thought this would be a good idea and the additional setback required could be based on water quality standards. He also noted that certain amphibian species required a certain buffer between the wetlands and any development for their habitat.
Ken Lombard stated that it was hard to find any setback numbers at the state level and that the "buffers book" had included 100' which had been deemed excessive so the committee had gone to 50' as an alternative measurement. Burr Tupper noted that a recent recommendation from the Association of Conservation Commissions was for a 50' primary structure setback and that number would be recommended to the legislature.
David Woodbury noted that since the Board could not do anything with the ordinance at this evening's meeting, the committee should get the draft in final shape and be ready to present it at the public hearing on December 19th. The Chairman verified that the draft dated December 11, 2006, was the one that the committee would like the Board to endorse. Ken Lombard stated that with the addition of the soil science language it would be. He noted that the committee could also consider the idea of allowing a structure with no foundation to be within the setback. The Chairman thought that this was possible but noted that even a barn on sauna tubes might have an impact on the wetlands and should still, therefore, be subject to the ordinance. It was noted
that the public hearing on December 19th would be the last opportunity to make changes to the ordinance because at the second public hearing only grammatical or punctuation changes could be made, nothing that changed the intent.
COMEAU, GREGORY J.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/3 Lots
Location: Davis Lane & NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road
Tax Map/Lot # 2/63
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present was Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering. Also present was applicant Gregory Comeau and abutter Christopher Comeau.
Ray Shea submitted revised plans based on the checklist review. He noted that the subdivision proposed was for three lots, one existing and two new. He further noted that the parent parcel, Tax Map/Lot #2/63, was located on the east side of Route 77 and the north side of Davis Lane (a dirt road); was 11.5 acres; and had frontage on both Route 77 and Davis Lane. Ray Shea went on to say that Lot #2/63 currently held an existing house and outbuilding which would remain on 2.8 acres. A new lot of 6.1 acres would be created to the east on Davis Lane and the second new lot of 2.4 acres would be located at the corner of Route 77 and Davis Lane. Ray Shea stated that the existing house on Lot #2/63 was accessed by a common driveway with abutting lot #2/63-1 which had an
easement therefor which would remain unchanged. A water line easement also ran in this area. These easements had been established in 1995 at the time of subdivision of Lot #2/63-1 and no changes were proposed. Ray Shea went on to say that the new lots had proposed new driveways off Davis Lane for which permit applications had been submitted. He also noted that State Subdivision Approval had been received and that the two new lots both had suitable building envelopes meaning that stormwater management plans were not needed at this time. He pointed out the driveways and the Suitable Building Envelopes on the plan.
The Chairman asked if the Board wanted to perform a site walk prior to deciding on the waiver request for the studies. David Woodbury stated that he did not see anything on the plans now that would indicate to him the need for an environmental impact study. He noted that the small subdivisions presented to the Board all seemed to request the same waivers which were appropriate but at some point the studies may be needed for the lots in the aggregate. He further noted the difficulty of requiring these studies since the subdivisions were submitted at different times and had different owners. Don Duhaime agreed, noting that the Board should look at the big picture instead of waiving studies all the time. The Chairman pointed out that the Board had the authority in
the regulations to waive or require the studies as they deemed appropriate. Doug Hill thought that a traffic study for this project may be appropriate but noted that with a lack of critical areas he did not think an environmental study was needed. He further thought that the fiscal impact studies were usually pretty subjective but could get the town some worthwhile information although he did not really feel it worthwhile for two new lots.
Ray Shea noted that 2 new lots adding traffic to Route 77 would have no impact to that road. He also noted that Davis Lane was a gravel road with only 4 or 5 houses on it. He thought that if the Board started to require these studies for minor subdivisions the town would end up with a big pile of reports in the Planning Department that had little value for the town. Ray Shea further stated that the studies for the major subdivisions were worthwhile. He also stated that the Town of Goffstown had a sliding scale for requiring studies whereby a certain number of lots would require no study, a certain number of lots would require a letter format, and another number of lots would require a report format. He thought this might be a workable scenario for New Boston.
The Board determined that a site walk would be needed before they could determine whether or not to waive the studies as requested by the applicant. The site walk was scheduled for Saturday, January 6, 2007, at 8:30 a.m.
David Woodbury MOVED to adjourn the application of Gregory Comeau, Tax Map/Lot #2/63, Davis Lane and N.H. Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, to January 23, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. Doug Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
SHAKY POND DEVELOPMENT, LLC
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/27 Lots
Location: Susan Road
Tax Map/Lot # 15/15
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present was Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering and Al Bell, applicant. Also present were Cyndie Wilson, Ken Lombard, Burr Tupper, and Brian Dorwart.
The Chairman asked about the occurrence of Blanding's Turtles and Hognose Snakes on this property. Ray Shea stated that this property was located adjacent to the Tracking Station and he had discussed the information regarding endangered species with the State when he was working on the Plantier subdivision. He noted that the applicant was cognizant of the possible existence of these animals on this property. The Chairman asked Cyndie Wilson, an abutter to this property as well as a Conservation Commission member, to what extent this subdivision would affect the habitat of these species.
Cyndie Wilson indicated her property line on the plan and noted a brook running from Shaky Pond through a swamp into Place Pond and thence into Campbell Swamp and Bog Brook. She noted the closeness of Blanding's Turtles on the Tracking Station property and submitted some pictures of turtles taken on Place Pond. Cyndie Wilson went on to say that the Fish and Game Non-Game and Endangered Species department had reviewed the Lorden parcel but had not yet become involved on the parcel presented to the Board this evening. She noted that also on the properties in this area were bobcat, snowshoe hares, moose, ducks, beaver and bears. Cyndie Wilson noted that Blanding's Turtles have a wide range to their territory and live for 14 -20 years before they reproduce. She
noted that in New Hampshire they were restricted mainly to New Boston. Cyndie Wilson went on to say that a 300' setback from wetlands where Blanding's Turtles lived to development and the use of bridges instead of culverts were recommended by the State. She noted that the density of this subdivision should be moved away from the wetland areas to other parts of the site.
Cyndie Wilson requested that the developer consider enacting covenants on all the lots in the subdivision that would prevent the removal of the beaver dam, and not allow cutting on either side of the brook, as well as no trapping of the beaver. She noted that if the wetlands could be crossed only once for this development it would be ideal. She was concerned that the open space did not abut any other open space and was fragmented; noting that the abutting property was the Tracking Station and no one knew what might happen to that property in the future. She also pointed out the importance of having uplands included in any conservation easements not just wetlands.
The Chairman thanked Cyndie Wilson for her input and asked Ray Shea to present the plan to the Board. Ray Shea noted that the proposal was for 26 lots with one open space lot on 109 acres +/-. He noted that he had previously mentioned this subdivision when before the Board for the extension of Susan Road and Harvey Lane with One Chestnut Hill Development. He noted that a loop road, Shaky Pond Road, would be constructed to access the subdivision and further noted that of the 26 lots only 4 would be under 2.5 acres, most would be in the 2.8 - 3.5 acre range up to 6 acres. Ray Shea noted that the 10 acre Open Space lot was created mainly to provide some wetland mitigation which NH DES had mentioned in past discussions since there had been a lot of cumulative wetland
impact in this area. He noted that the wetland impact from this proposed subdivision would be 14,000 s.f. with 4 crossings.
Ray Shea explained that the property sloped off to the east with a 150' change in elevation from one side of the lot to the other. He noted that the road had been designed to run with the contours and the grades were really not too bad except in the area of the loop where significant fill would be needed. Ray Shea noted that several options for road design had been discussed so the road would be a loop not a cul-de-sac but they all resulted in the same issues. He went on to note that the culverts proposed were 48" culverts keyed into the ground to leave a natural bed bottom. He further noted that there had been a lot of discussion with NH DES along with the other abutting property owners, LeBlanc and Bussiere, in order to address all the issues that the State
had. Ray Shea ended by noting that Shaky Pond Road would be approximately 2,800' from Harvey Lane or Susan Road to the loop and the lot was approximately 3,000' deep.
The Chairman clarified that the proposal for the culverts was 48". Ray Shea stated that the drainage calculations had indicated that size would handle the runoff. The Chairman asked why a clear span concrete arch was not being proposed. Ray Shea stated that they could investigate that idea. In response to a question from Cyndie Wilson, Ray Shea noted that his discussions with NH DES had taken place within the last 8 months to a year. He noted that DES and the federal agencies were pushing to use the arches because they do not disturb brook beds. Cyndie Wilson pointed out that in addition to the endangered species on this property, there were also black gum trees which should be protected.
Burr Tupper stated that the Conservation Commission's concern was the amount of construction taking place on the east side of town. He noted that the Conservation Commission had just walked the Lorden land (Tax Map/Lot #12/19 & 12/96) and had written to NH DES expressing concern with their wetland crossings, noting that there were several areas of what appeared to be poorly drained soils that were not flagged and there was scouring taking place that could cause future problems for the town. Ray Shea pointed out that culverts were sometimes installed that were not in jurisdictional wetlands.
Brian Dorwart asked if the property's geology had been studied, noting that the majority of the cover in this area was fine grain soils. Ray Shea stated that 30 or 40 test pits had been dug which gave a good sense of the soil types. Brian Dorwart disagreed, noting that a geological study would give a more complete picture of the highly erodible and poorly drained soils than just digging test pits. He noted that erosion problems could be dealt with either by decreasing the density of the development or by having a more aggressive erosion control plan that went a step beyond standard Best Management Practices. He suggested such things as polymer sprays, limiting the amount of open area at one time, flock logs in ditches, siltation ponds with spillways, and so on.
Brian Dorwart noted that using these measures meant that the water leaving the drainage structures was of high quality.
Brian Dorwart went on to say that McCurdy Road and Bedford Road in this area were over capacity for the design of the roads and the increases from these developments were going to make matters worse. He suggested that the Board needed a traffic study that would redesign and reconstruct Bedford Road from McCurdy Road to Klondike Corner. He also thought that there may be the need for a signal at the intersection on Chestnut Hill Road due to the amount of traffic. He further noted that the impacts from these developments reached all departments, not just the Highway Department, and there would be major impact on the school.
Ray Shea pointed out that this was a preliminary application and no studies had yet been prepared. He agreed that this was a good size subdivision and that the applicant was before the Board to get everyone's input and find out what the town's concerns were. Al Bell noted that he had asked Ray Shea to take a look at the surrounding developments and try to figure out what the impact to traffic might be. He noted that he had also done the same thing with the wetlands in taking to DES about the types of culverts to use in the development to cause less impact to the site and the wildlife. Al Bell went on to say that the open space lot had intentionally been set aside where it was to abut the land of the tracking station and to contain both wetlands and uplands.
Cyndie Wilson asked if Al Bell would have a problem with a 75' no cut buffer along the brooks. Al Bell stated that he would consider this but thought that 75' might interfere with the buildable area on some of the lots.
Burr Tupper asked about land for recreation. Ray Shea stated that there would be no active recreation areas, but there would be conservation easements on the two abutting subdivisions for LeBlanc and Bussiere to extend the existing conservation area along Campbell Swamp which would provide passive recreation land. Burr Tupper noted that the number of houses being added to this area meant that there should be some facilities provided for recreation. Ray Shea stated that the landowners had looked at this and there was not a suitable area on the property for such a facility. Brian Dorwart suggested a trail network could be established throughout the area.
Dave Woodbury noted that the Board was ready to schedule a site walk and asked if the centerline of the road was flagged. Ray Shea stated that the road was staked and stationed and the wetlands were flagged. Dave Woodbury suggested that this site walk be combined with the Comeau site walk in January. The site walk was scheduled for Saturday, January 6, 2007, at 9:15 a.m. +/-.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to adjourn the application for Shaky Pond Development, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #15/15, Susan Road, to January 23, 2007, at 7:30 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
LACHANCE, CAROL S. & ALBERT J. Adjourned from 11/14/06
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/9 Lots
Location: NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Lull Road & Middle Branch Roads
Tax Map/Lot # 2/112-2
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present were applicants Albert and Carol LaChance, surveyor Bob Todd, LLS, and engineer Earl Sandford, LLS, PE.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that at the last meeting on this application the Board had discussed the cluster of lots on Lull Road beyond the end of the Class V portion of the road and the need to upgrade a portion of the Class VI road to Class V for this subdivision. Based on the advice of the Board, Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the applicant had met with the Board of Selectmen and determined that the only way to get the subdivision approved would be for the applicant to assume the full cost of the upgrade to Class V. Due to the cost of this requirement, the applicant had asked that Bob Todd, LLS, and Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, look at the options available to reduce the length of the upgrade. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that this would result in less out of pocket expenses for the applicant
and less maintenance for the town in the future. He also noted that Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, had met with the Road Agent this date and could update the Board on that discussion.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that the original hammerhead turnaround design was still proposed for this plan but it had been brought up closer to the end of the existing Class V portion of Lull Road. He noted that the lot configuration had changed to provide two lots with 50' of frontage (cluster lots with reduced frontage not stacked backlots) and another lot with a driveway off the proposed improved section. He further noted that he had discussed this idea with John Riendeau, Road Agent, who was in favor of the design as long as it worked out for plowing purposes. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that the difference of 400' in the length of the improvement from the original 700' to the proposed 300' made a big difference. He pointed out that part of the issue with
the longer improvement was that the Lull Road right-of-way started out at better than 50' and then pinched down to 38' which made it very difficult to provide a full cross section per town regulation and left no room for drainage ditches and so on without entering the subject property and having to remove the stonewall. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the shortened improvement allowed the road to stay in the 50' right-of-way area and also allowed the oak trees to remain that would have been removed with the longer improvement. He noted that the previous, longer design had also required that the road be raised approximately 2' to deal with drainage issues and it would be preferable if that did not have to happen. He asked the Board to consider this design as an alternative to the plan presented to the Board the previous month.
The Chairman pointed out that, as designed, the hammerhead turnaround was before the driveway to Lot #2/112-2-8. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the Road Agent wanted to ask his crew about the plowability of such a design before deciding how best to tweak the design plan. The Chairman thought the turnaround design seemed wrong. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, pointed out that it was no different than with the previous design and noted that as presented this evening the turnaround was at the high point in the road which was the optimal position to back and turn a truck. The Chairman asked why the common driveway to Lots #2/112-2-6 & 7 was not designed at the common lot line. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that this was a preliminary design and they had not looked at all
the details yet. The Chairman noted that if the hammerhead and the driveway swapped places the design would make more sense to him. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that he was more interested in knowing if the Board would approve the concept presented because the details of driveway placement could be worked out later. He noted that this design was dependent on the flexibility of the cluster subdivision regulations for the lot frontages and design. The Chairman thought the design was workable if the common driveway shared the lot line and the turnaround was moved to the other side of the separate driveway. He noted that in order to provide frontage for Lot #2/112-2-8 the turnaround would have to be on the other side of the driveway or the lot would not have any frontage on a Class V road. The Chairman also noted his concern that a plow truck plowing into the turnaround and then backing down Lull Road to turn to head back out to the highway could
misjudge where the edge of pavement was and tear it up with the plow. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that they would be careful to go far enough with the asphalt to make the transition from dirt to tar to avoid the situation just described by the Chairman.
Brandy Mitroff asked why the driveway could not be combined with the turnaround. The Chairman noted that the plow truck would plow snow into the mouth of the driveway and it would make it more difficult for the plow if they had to worry about the driveway as well as the road. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that they could make the design work with the driveway before the turnaround and come back to the next meeting with a workable solution.
Don Duhaime asked where Lull Road went to. The Chairman noted that it continued on as a Class VI road and there was more acreage with the potential for subdivision further down the road. Don Duhaime suggested in that case that it would behoove the town to get a 50' right-of-way in those areas along this applicant's frontage where the r-o-w was currently less than 50'. The Chairman agreed, noting that then the landowner further down Lull Road would have the ability to widen and improve the road as required. Albert LaChance agreed that he would deed an easement for the land needed to provide a 50' right-of-way along the frontage of his property on Lull Road.
The Chairman asked if Albert LaChance would be willing to extend the deadline for Board action on this application as the 65-day deadline had expired. Albert LaChance agreed to a deadline of February 28, 2007.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to extend the deadline for Board action on the subdivision application of Albert and Carol LaChance, N.H. Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Middle Branch Road and Lull Road, Tax Map/Lot #2/112-2, to February 28, 2007. Doug Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to adjourn the application of Albert and Carol LaChance, N.H. Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Middle Branch Road and Lull Road, Tax Map/Lot #2/112-2, to January 23, 2007, at 8:00 p.m. Doug Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
SHB PROPERTIES, LLC Adjourned from 11/14/06
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/7 Lots
Location: Pulpit, Bedford & Campbell Pond Roads
Tax Map/Lot # 12/65
Residential-One “R-1” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present were applicants Tom Sauser and Jeff Hudson along with Jim Edwards of Meridian Land Services. Also present were interested parties Robert & Connie Brown.
Tom Sauser stated that he believed they had satisfactorily addressed all the issues that had come up with this application. He noted that the open items after the last meeting had been: making enhancements to the notes on the plan; having the Road Agent review the detention basin on Tax Map/Lot #12/65-8; making modifications to easements; and, addressing the Browns access issue. Tom Sauser indicated that they had completed the research regarding the ownership of the triangle of land in front of the Brown's property and had addressed the conclusions in their memo dated December 7th. He noted, in brief, that the research indicated that the Browns appeared to have rights to the triangle area; the town may have rights to the land; and the Ciarlas may have some
ownership as well. The recommendation was that the Ciarlas and the town quitclaim deed whatever rights they may have in this area to the Browns so they would have clear title to the property. Tom Sauser noted that SHB Properties would provide two markers to differentiate the Ciarla property from the Brown property and the Browns would prepare the deeds and record them when executed.
Dave Woodbury noted that he had always assumed that when this section of Pulpit Road was discontinued the land would revert to the abutting land owners and the Browns would be free to access Bedford Road and would construct whatever driveway they needed to for their access. He noted his surprise that the Board had not heard from Atty. Prolman for the Browns because it appeared the Browns needed someone to coordinate the issues to determine that the outcome was in their best interests so that they did not damage the value of their property. Dave Woodbury did not think that the town had any ownership rights in this piece of land but would be happy to sign a deed if someone thought otherwise. Connie Brown explained that Atty. Prolman needed the metes and bound description
promised by SHB Properties in order to draw up the deeds. Tom Sauser stated that he would provide the information necessary and the deeds could be prepared and be ready pending the town meeting vote to discontinue that portion of Pulpit Road. Dave Woodbury noted that he could not see a downside to signing the deeds right away and would not necessarily have to wait for town meeting.
The Chairman noted the next issue to discuss was detention basin #2. Jim Edwards noted that this detention basin was proposed in an area which was currently a depressed area between the two driveways to Lots #7 & 8. He noted that the structure would have a controlled outlet but that there was a slight increase in runoff from the site which was not detrimental to the property as a whole. Jim Edwards noted that the maintenance required for the detention basin would be removal of leaves from the grate. He noted that the basin did not affect the road because the road was higher than this area and so the proposal was now to make the maintenance of this basin the property owners' responsibility rather than the town's. Jim Edwards went on to say that should the
25-year storm be exceeded and the property owners had not kept the grate cleaned out the worst that would happen would be that their driveways would wash out but the downstream impacts would be very small due to the size of the watershed overall. He explained that the basin would be located on Lots #7 & 8 but the slopes would be shallow and could, in fact, be mowed by the property owners since it would likely be a grassy area. He further noted that there would be easements or deed restrictions of some kind to allow one or both owners to get on the property to maintain. Doug Hill thought that the property that had the detention structure itself, i.e. the grate, should be responsible for the maintenance thereof. Jim Edwards thought he would still allow the owner of Lot 8 to encroach partly on Lot 7 to maintain the basin.
In response to a question from the Chairman, the Coordinator replied that the outstanding items were getting revised legal documents for final review by town counsel; and, receiving Stantec's sign off of the road plans, along with their confirmation of the bond numbers and a construction monitoring estimate. Jim Edwards stated that he had made all the revisions requested by Stantec. The Chairman thought that everything should be in hand for the next meeting, at which time, barring anything unexpected, this application would probably be approved.
Doug Hill noted the need to extend the deadline for Board action on this application since the 65-day clock had expired. The applicants agreed to an extension for Board action.
James Nordstrom MOVED to extend the deadline for Board action on the application of SHB Properties, LLC, Pulpit, Bedford, and Campbell Pond Roads, Tax Map/Lot #12/65, to January 23, 2007, and to adjourn the hearing to January 23, 2007, at 8:30 p.m. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
HARVEY J. DUPUIS FAMILY TRUST
Compliance Hearing/Major Subdivision/6 Lots
Location: Carriage Road (Susan Road)
Tax Map/Lot # 12/93 & 93/22
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience for the Dupuis Family Trust was Neil Smith.
Neil Smith noted that Susan Road was completed and the conditions subsequent were all finalized with the only outstanding items the need for a 2-year maintenance bond and certification of monuments having been set. He noted that his only concern was that the amount for the maintenance bond given him by the Planning Department was 10% of the original Dufresne-Henry, Inc., bond estimate which had been revised down after-the-fact based on information from D&S Excavating. He stated that they would post a cash bond for whatever amount the Board deemed appropriate. The Board determined that they would research the figures that had been revised but asked Neil Smith if, in order to get an approval tonight, they could include a number in the motion that would not exceed 10% of
the original Dufresne-Henry, Inc., bond estimate amount. Neil Smith agreed.
James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the Major Subdivision/6 Lots of Tax Map/Lot #12/93 & 12/93-22, Harvey Dupuis Family Trust and to release the financial security being held for the subdivision, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of financial security not to exceed $75,187.00, amount still to be determined, and in the form of cash which will be retained for two years as a maintenance security. Said security may require review by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
2. Submission of the original certificate of bounds set for recording at the HCRD, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
3. Submission of any fees required for recording of the warranty deed for the road at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be January 1, 2007, 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.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Doug Hill recused himself from the Board since his subdivision application was next on the agenda.
DOUGLAS HILL CONSTRUCTION, LLC Adjourned from 11/28/06
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/24 Lots
Location: Francestown Road a/k/a NH Route 136
Tax Map/Lot # 5/16
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were applicant Doug Hill and his engineer Dave Walker, PE.
Dave Walker, PE, noted that this was an unusual application since it had two reviews with two different consulting engineers. He noted that the issues from the first review by Stantec had been taken care of, including: changing the grade of the access road to give smoother transitions; adding contour information; adding additional silt fence; adding the location of underground utilities - public service, telephone, cable; adding retaining wall details; adding fire cistern comments; adding spot elevations; and, providing driveway details and drainage reports. Dave Walker, PE, noted that then the plans were sent to Northpoint Engineering who had 31 comments and he could say with a high degree of confidence that they could address all of them. He noted that Northpoint
Engineering were asking for spot elevations, information on treatment swales, checking the drainage report for the 50-year storm, checking the modeling on the detention ponds, adding an easement to a detention pond, checking details on the driveway locations, updating construction notes, adding additional elevations around the cul-de-sac, adding/correcting cistern comments, and updating the materials quantities on the bond estimate. Dave Walker, PE, then noted that there were a couple of details from the Board's checklist review that he would address: showing the cistern, adding notes for erosion control plans for the individual lots; and he had no problem complying with those comments.
Brian Dorwart asked about the grade of the new road at its intersection with Route 136. Dave Walker, PE, stated that the length of the landing had been increased per Stantec's comments to achieve a 3% negative grade off the highway. Brian Dorwart noted that with snow banks and ice in the roadside ditches there was the potential for runoff to enter onto Route 136 from this new road creating an icing hazard. Dave Walker, PE, stated that this was the reason that changes were made based on Stantec's comments in the first place.
Brian Dorwart asked if there was wheeled vehicle access to the detention basins. Dave Walker, PE, noted that access was provided on detention basin #3 via a driveway with a turnaround to get near to the pond. He noted that this graveled driveway would be less than 10%.
The Chairman noted that there were no outstanding items left on the Board's list except for the plan review items mentioned above and that the next meeting would probably see this plan being approved. Doug Hill asked if he agreed to do whatever came back for review comments could he get a conditional approval from the Board. The Coordinator pointed out that the Board still did not have final bonding figures or a construction monitoring estimate from Northpoint Engineering and this was very similar to the SHB Properties, LLC, plan just discussed by the Board. The Chairman noted that the application should be adjourned and an extension would be needed for Board action on the plan. Doug Hill agreed to a second extension of his deadline date for action by the
Board.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to extend the deadline for Board action for the application of Doug Hill Construction, LLC, N.H. Route 136 a/k/a Francestown Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/16, to January 23, 2007, and to adjourn the application to January 23, 2007, at 9:00 p.m. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Doug Hill returned to the Planning Board table.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
2. Application for Appointment received December 1, 2006, for the Board’s action.
(Interview if applicant present?)
Applicant Stu Lewin was present in the audience. The Board determined that his application would be forwarded to the Selectmen for their review.
James Nordstrom MOVED to forward Stu Lewin's application for appointment to the Planning Board to the Board of Selectmen with a recommendation that they interview him for an open alternate position. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
6. Memorandum received December 07, 2006, from Chris Krajenka, New Boston Police Chief, to New Boston Planning Board, Re: Impact Fees, for the Board’s information.
Brian Dorwart noted that he had been present as a Road Committee member but also as a town citizen to express concerns with McCurdy and Bedford Road's levels of service due to the development in that area. He also stated that he thought having meetings with all Boards and departments to review these plans and future planning needs was vital for the town. Brian Dorwart noted that there were newer erosion control measures that could be implemented as part of subdivision designs. He also noted the need for the town to require things that would make these neighborhoods into communities, such as, trails, parks, recreation areas, and so on. He stated that sustainable development should be a goal for the town.
Dave Woodbury noted that many of these issues were mentioned in the Police Chief's memo of 12/7/06.
7. Letter copy received December 7, 2006, from William R. Drescher, Drescher & Dokmo, Professional Association, to John M Safford, Esq., Clerk, Hillsborough County Superior Court, Re: Patrick Golding, et. als. vs. Town of New Boston (Planning Board), was distributed for the Board’s information.
8. Copy of article, Zoning & Planning Constitutionality Checklist For Idiots, September
2000, was distributed for the Board’s information and will be re-copied due to some pages being missing.
9. The minutes of November 14, 2006, were distributed for approval at the meeting of January 9, 2006, with or without changes.
10a. Memo dated December 12, 2006 from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to the Board, Re: Jon Lewis, 666 North Mast Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/64, was distributed for the Board’s information.
10b. Letter dated December 1, 2006, Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Jonathan Lewis, Re: 666 North Mast Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/64, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator noted that Mr. Lewis had come to the Planning Department and explained that he had allowed too many vehicles to accumulate on his property but that now the situation had been brought to his attention he would not add to his inventory until he had sold some of his present stock. He had further noted that he never stored junk vehicles or tires in the natural buffer around the lot, but had parked some cars that were for sale in those areas. The Coordinator stated that Mr. Lewis had stated that he had pulled everything out of the buffer and was endeavoring to come into total compliance with his approved site plan.
11. Copy of the Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting minutes of December 4, 2006, was distributed for the Board’s information.
12. Notice of a public hearing for a cell tower in Concord was noted as being in the read file for the Board's information.
Don Duhaime stated that the LaChance plan was becoming confusing because the applicants spoke only of one "cluster" at a time. James Nordstrom suggested that the Board ask for an overview of the whole plan at the beginning of the next hearing.
At 11:05 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Nicola Strong
Planning Coordinator
Minutes approved:
|