Minutes of the Planning Board November 14, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were alternate member Douglas Hill; and, ex-officio David Woodbury. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nicola Strong and Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting, were: Ed Gilligan, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Bob Todd, LLS, Albert LaChance, Graham Pendlebury, Pamela Ryan, Sandi van Scoyoc, Tom Sauser, Jeff Hudson, Jim Edwards, Connie & Robert Brown, Mark LeBlanc, and Ed Colburn.
LACHANCE, CAROL S. & ALBERT J. Adjourned from 10/10/06
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 in the audience were applicant Albert LaChance and his surveyor, Bob Todd, LLS, and his engineer, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE.
Bob Todd, LLS, began by noting the changes to the plans since the last meeting regarding the common driveway for the cluster of lots off N.H. Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road. He also noted that he had incorporated the checklist corrections and had made changes to the Lull Road improvement proposal based on discussion with the Road Agent.
Bob Todd, LLS, began on Sheet 1 of the plans and noted that the turnaround on Lull Road had been moved to the west and the driveway on Lot #8 had been moved closer to the lot's easterly bound. He further noted that the turnaround was larger and a drainage easement had been added to allow the stormwater from the road to drain over the lot to a natural swale to the wetlands. He also added that the 100’ buffer had been added to the lots on Lull Road.
Bob Todd, LLS, next noted that on Sheet 2 of the plans the driveway to the 3 lots in the cluster off Weare Road had been re-designed and submitted with erosion and sediment control plan details. He also noted that the cost of the bonding had been submitted. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the plan was to have a combined driveway in the central access strip although access strips had been provided for each lot. He pointed out that the central strip was where the wetland crossing was originally proposed and the same structure designed for the road would be used for the driveway. Bob Todd, LLS, went on to say that the driveways cleared the wetlands and there would be no further impact on the wetlands from grading including for the driveway.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the 2 lots off Middle Branch Road had been made bigger since he had failed to consider the 100’ buffer requirement in the Town’s ordinance. In order to make the building envelopes reasonable, Bob Todd, LLS, noted that he had moved the lots lines to the west to increase the lot size.
With regard to other matters, Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he had provided the algorithm proving the lot density per the Town’s cluster regulations by including a lot density size chart on Sheet 3 of the plans. He noted that the lots had been resized for the State’s subdivision regulations and the plans had been sent back to the State for review and amendment of the State Subdivision Approval.
Bob Todd, LLS, noted that Sheet 4 showed the Lull Road improvement design as prepared by Earl Sandford, LLS, PE. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that since the plans were prepared they had received a letter from the Planning Department providing input from the Road Agent who was requiring pavement for the full length of the Lull Road improvement. He noted that while he would let Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, speak to this matter he wanted to point out that a cost estimate had been prepared for the improvement and the pavement requirement more than doubled what the applicant had anticipated his fair share of the cost would be. He noted that the applicant had acknowledged the need for the upgrade of Lull Road but for the applicant to bear the full cost of the pavement would go beyond the
rational nexus providing that the applicant pay his fair share of the cost. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the applicant was willing to put in 50% of the cost of the improvement which might even go beyond his fair share and asked the Planning Board to consider this offer.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the bond estimate for the Lull Road improvements was $43K+/- before contingencies if pavement was included. He noted that $17K of that amount was based on just regrading the existing road. He noted that the plans presented showed the grading out of the hump in the road, and adding drainage which would require raising the road a foot or two. He noted this improvement would extend approximately 750’ beyond the edge of existing pavement. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that the improvement involved a 22’ wide road with 4’ shoulders on each side. He noted that his plan tried to follow the existing road in a reasonable fashion while addressing the Road Agent’s concerns with the high point in the road and
getting drainage from the south side of the road to the north side.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that he had two questions for the Board: 1) how much should the existing road be changed to make a highway type design, and 2) how much cost should be borne by the applicant.
The Chairman noted that the Board of Selectmen would be asked to take on a Class V road following these improvements. Dave Woodbury wondered if this road was already Class V only gravel rather than pavement. The Coordinator stated that the Road Agent had told her the Class V, town-maintained portion of this road ended at the existing turnaround area on Lull Road and the road in front of the proposed lots was Class VI. David Woodbury stated that he did not know if the Board of Selectmen would require pavement on this section of the road. He pointed out that two existing lots apparently on the Class VI portion of the road would benefit from the upgrade as well as the applicant. He noted that his question was whether or not the applicant was responsible for the
whole cost of the improvement or if there was the need for the rational nexus.
The Coordinator noted that there was a difference between an upgrade of a road from Class VI to Class V status, which would require the applicant that needed the Class V road to pay for the entire cost of the improvement, and an improvement to an existing Class V road which did generally utilize the Town’s formula to calculate the applicant’s fair share of the cost. She noted that the way the plans had been presented she had assumed the upgrade from Class VI to Class V was being proposed. The Chairman stated that he would reject the rational nexus theory because without this improvement the applicant did not have the required frontage needed to subdivide in the first place.
Doug Hill asked what the cost of improving this section without pavement would be. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that the cost would be $17K+/-. He noted that the pavement added an additional $22K+/- to the cost.
Doug Hill asked if the applicant could approach the Selectmen to ask for a release of liability from the town to continue to use the Class VI road. Dave Woodbury stated that the use of the release of liability had historically been used for single lots and he did not know if the Selectmen would approve 2 or 3 lots using that procedure. He thought that the more lots that were proposed using the release of liability scenario the less attractive it would be to the Board.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the first time they had met with the Board they had received a consensus that a gravel surface for this road would be fine. The Coordinator pointed out that a letter had been sent in May informing the applicant that the Road Agent would require pavement on the road. Albert LaChance confirmed receipt of that letter. He asked if there was any way a Class V road could be defined as non-paved since there were obviously other dirt Class V roads in town. Dave Woodbury stated that knowing what he did of the Road Agent’s requirements for roads he did not think that a gravel surface would be acceptable. Going back to the issue of paying for the improvement, Dave Woodbury thought that a good reason this applicant should not pay for
the whole thing was the existence of 2 other homes on that stretch of road already. The Chairman asked how those lots were created. The Coordinator stated that without researching the files she was unsure as to why those lots were built upon on a Class VI road. Both Bob Todd, LLS, and Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, thought that it was unfair that the other property owners would receive what amounted to a windfall by having the road upgraded which could increase their property values.
Dave Woodbury suggested that there were levels of Class V roads in town, the best being the ones constructed for new subdivisions. He suggested that the applicant should be asked to pay for the total cost of bringing the Class VI road up to the most minimal Class V standard and the rational nexus should be applied to anything required above and beyond that to get the road to pavement. The Chairman disagreed, stating that without the improvement there was no frontage for the lots.
The Coordinator suggested that since the discussion revolved around an existing town road the Selectmen and Road Agent should be asked to decide the matter.
Dave Woodbury asked if Lull Road had the potential to see more traffic. The Chairman replied that the Dodge family owned a lot of land further down Lull Road and it could be subdivided some day.
Dave Woodbury noted that the figures before the Board indicated that the most minor improvement would cost about $17K and the cost to get to pavement would be $43K. He thought that the Selectmen would be more inclined to go with the higher number but the question to be resolved was who would pay that cost. The Chairman thought that the Road Agent should be asked to comment on the plan since he did not think he would require the full 22’ width here. The Coordinator noted that the Road Agent had looked at the plan and the 22’ was his recommendation. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the improvement proposed 22’ with 4’ shoulders and noted that it would get a little tight where the knoll in the road was because of the stone walls in this
location.
The Chairman suggested that the applicant get together with the Road Agent and the Board of Selectmen to discuss the issue and to look at what kind of road design would really fit in this area. Dave Woodbury thought that the Selectmen would probably want to see a pretty standard road along the frontage of this proposed subdivision.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, asked what the Board accepted as security. The Coordinator replied that bonds, insurance bonds, letters of credit and cash/check were the usual methods of submitting security. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the applicant was concerned that if he subdivided the land but then waited a while before making any improvements he might fall foul of future subdivision regulation changes. The Coordinator explained that State statute provided that an applicant would not be subject to any changes in the zoning ordinance or subdivision regulations for four years following the approval of a subdivision as long as active and substantial progress had been made on the subdivision within 12 months. This was what was known as vesting. She noted that the New
Boston Planning Board did not have a regulation describing what active and substantial meant but the applicant could probably request at the time of approval that the Board specify what it would mean in his case for everyone’s clarification. It was suggested that perhaps the wetland crossing installation and Lull Road improvements might suffice. Doug Hill thought that the applicant should do those improvements necessary so that if for some reason he disappeared someone else could come in and get a building permit for one of the lots with no worries.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that if the road off Weare Road had been installed it would have been called Pumpkin Lane. He wondered if the common driveway to three lots should have a name. Dave Woodbury stated that the town had an ordinance governing road names, private roads and the like. The Coordinator stated that she would check this out before the next meeting.
Doug Hill MOVED to adjourn the hearing for Albert & Carol LaChance, Tax Map/Lot #2/112-2, N.H. Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Middle Branch Road and Lull Road, to December 12, 2006, at 8:30 p.m. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Meeting with Sandi VanScoyoc to discuss Livable Walkable Communities New Boston Action Plan.
Sandi van Scoyoc was present as Chairman of the Foot Traffic and Road Safety Committee and the Livable Walkable Communities Committee to ask for feedback on the Livable Walkable Communities Plan if the Board had any. She noted that she had been visiting different Boards to share the plan with them. She also noted that if the Board members had not yet had time to read the plan they could call her with any ideas.
Sandi van Scoyoc noted that the committee took feedback from the Town and used the same objectives as listed in the newly adopted Master Plan. She noted that the two committees were going to blend into one since the Livable Walkable Communities part was mostly completed. She noted that the Foot Traffic and Road Safety Committee would continue to work and look for grants and other sources of funding to carry out their projects.
Sandi van Scoyoc noted that one of the things that would be coming up was the footbridge from the Millpond Conservation Area to the Post Office area. She noted that the committee had been told there would be a 5 year wait for funding for this project but they had recently learned that if the Town approves some of the matching funds in 2007 they could move ahead with the project. She noted that the total required town match was $46K which was 20% of the total project cost. The whole cost of the project was stated to be in the $180K range. Sandi van Scoyoc stated that the committee had pursued this grant before the final community forum for the Master Plan update because they were encouraged by Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission (SNHPC) to do so. She
noted that this money from the State was offered every other year but due to State funding shortages the State was not offering the program again until 2009 so the Town of New Boston was lucky to get the funding that they did this year.
The Chairman asked where the bridge would be constructed. Sandi van Scoyoc stated that there were a couple of possible places to locate the footbridge: the first was on the Tavern property currently owned by the Eggers and they had tentatively agreed to the idea; the second was the town property that was purchased for possible library use. She noted that the committee was very interested in getting walkers off N.H. Route 13 which was a very busy road with no sidewalks. Sandi van Scoyoc noted that the bridge would be open to bicycles, cross country skiers, etc.
PENDLEBURY, GRAHAM & RYAN, PAMELA
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Massage Home Business
Location: 269 Tucker Mill Road
Tax Map/Lot # 2/12
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the property owner and applicant, Graham Pendlebury and Pamela Ryan.
Graham Pendlebury stated that the proposal was for an in-home massage therapy business. He noted that the existing parking area on site was enlarged a little to allow for safe entry and egress. He noted that the location of the property was the third house on the left when heading north after the Tucker Mill Road/Dougherty Lane intersection. He further noted that the road was not terribly busy and with only one customer at a time there would be plenty of room for parking. Graham Pendlebury stated that there were exterior lights on the house that would light the driveway and the walkway into the house. He noted that the only change to the property was the proposed sign at the end of the driveway which they may install in the spring. The Chairman pointed
out that as far as the sign was concerned, the Planning Board would approve the concept and the location and the Building Inspector would approve the size and issue the sign permit.
Dave Woodbury asked what would happen when the next customer arrived and the previous customer was still there in terms of parking since Graham Pendlebury had mentioned only one parking space. Pamela Ryan explained that there was generally a half hour between clients to allow time to clean the room and so on and to relax a little before the next massage. Graham Pendlebury stated that the business was proposed to take place in a room in the basement.
The Coordinator asked how many clients a day Pamela Ryan could see based on her listed hours of operation. Pamela Ryan stated that she expected to see 3 or 4 people a day but had given a wide range of hours to accommodate her clients’ different schedules.
Graham Pendlebury stated that there were no real changes to the outside of the property, noting that there was currently a hardpack driveway. He noted that the plan showed the snow removal areas.
The Chairman asked the Board if they thought a site walk was necessary based on the fact that Graham Pendlebury had indicated all the site improvements were already in place. The Board determined that since this was a very minor application with little traffic impact or noise they did not see the need for a site walk.
The Chairman ran through the requirements of Section 319 of the Zoning Ordinance to do with home businesses, noting that the proposed business was an accessory use; that the proposed business was to be operated by Pamela Ryan alone although there could be two on-premises employees who do not reside on the site; that the proposed business would be carried on within the principal building; that there would be no exterior storage of materials or variation from the residential character of the principal structure; that the proposed business would not have an adverse effect on the environment or the surrounding properties in excess of the normal residential use in the neighborhood, as a result of such things as, but not limited to, noise, vibration, odors, heat, glare, smoke, dust, lights, soil,
water or air pollution, or electrical or electronic interference of any kind beyond the property; that traffic would not be generated by such activity in greater volumes than would normally be expected in the neighborhood; that parking was proposed off-street; and, that the business would not occupy more than 40% of the total living space of the dwelling. He noted that with all that being said the proposed business could be approved under the Non-Residential Site Plan Review Regulations as a home business.
Doug Hill MOVED to approve the Application for Graham Pendlebury & Pamela Ryan, to operate a massage home business from 126 s.f. of the existing dwelling at 269 Tucker Mill Road, Tax Map/Lot #2/12, per the submitted plan presented to the Board. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
SHB PROPERTIES, LLC Adjourned from 10/24/06
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 in the audience were applicants
Tom Sauser and Jeff Hudson and Jim Edwards of Meridian Land Services. Also present were
abutters Connie & Robert Brown.
Tom Sauser stated that they were present to get a final approval on their subdivision. He noted that the bond estimate form had been updated with the wetland crossing information; slope and drainage easement information had been submitted; and Stantec’s engineering comments had been addressed.
Jim Edwards went through Stantec’s review letter dated November 14, 2006, in number order.
1. & 3. Jim Edwards noted that they could indicate on the plans that Parcel A was unbuildable but felt that the Z linking it to Tax Map/Lot #12/65-3 should suffice.
2. There were no easements on Sheet 2 with lines to change as the Stantec letter called for.
4. The drainage had been changed from leaching catch basins to an open drainage system. Drain manhole 2 had been moved but the cross section had not been changed so that had been corrected.
5. A note had been added to indicate that silt fence and drain manholes could be installed in the no disturbance zone but the intent was to keep the area natural and not turn it into lawns.
6. Stantec was under the impression that cistern was required for this subdivision when the applicants were planning on installing sprinkler systems. The Board noted that the sprinkler systems would be fine.
7. Stantec had asked for the leaching catch basin on Sheet 8 to be removed but they had left it in. He noted that leaching basins had been incorporated on Lots #4-7 for roof drainage which helped to offset the drainage impact within the project. He noted that it was spelled out within the drainage calculations that the roof drainage catch basins were not part of the road system.
The Chairman asked who would be responsible for repairing these basins if they failed. Jim Edwards stated that it would be the homeowners’ responsibility.
8. The grate on the outlet control structures shown on Sheet #8 had been called out as galvanized mesh grate.
With regard to the drainage portion of Stantec's letter Jim Edwards noted:
1. The applicants wished to ask for a waiver which Stantec stated they would not recommend granting. The issue was that the post-construction runoff was greater than the pre-construction flow. Jim Edwards stated that the property involved a piece of a very large watershed in New Boston, Goffstown and Bedford which collected down to the stream running along the back of the SHB property, then across Campbell Pond Road and across Bedford Road into Campbell Pond. He noted that the drainage was not analyzed at all exit points but was concentrated on the areas in which construction would take place. Jim Edwards noted that there were two methods to slow down water on-site - retention when the water is held and goes back into the ground, and detention when the water is held and let go. He noted that the plans showed detention and there were limited areas to work in. He noted that small culverts in the driveway wetland crossings acted as a form of detention and also noted that
large box culverts did not provide any detention.
Jim Edwards noted that the detention basins were covered by easement. He also noted that the increase in runoff from the site was only 0.24 c.f.s. which was a very small increase and that the plan collected, detained, and put back into the ground whatever drainage it could. He thought it was reasonable and appropriate and asked the Board for their feedback.
Doug Hill asked if box culverts were not used in the subdivision, would there still be this issue? Jim Edwards thought that there would not because smaller bore pipes would detain more water.
Dave Woodbury thought that if Stantec had just heard everything Jim Edwards had to say regarding the size of the drainage area, and so on, they may not be as adamant regarding the zero increase in runoff.
The Chairman thought that the situation was partially created by the use of box culverts intended to preserve wildlife corridors and habitat. He thought that the seemingly insignificant increase in flow off the site was more than offset by the benefits to the wildlife created elsewhere and he would be inclined to grant the waiver.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to grant the waiver request for SHB Properties, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #12/65, Bedford, Pulpit and Campbell Pond Roads, to allow an increase in runoff from the site based on the discussion with Jim Edwards at this hearing. Doug Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Jim Edwards noted that he was not sure why the "n" values for smooth bore HDPE pipes listed in Stantec's letter were mentioned since the acceptable range listed was from 0.009 to 0.19 and the plan showed pipe with an "n" value of 0.12 which was within the range. He noted that they would add a detail regarding the trench backfill procedure as requested by Stantec.
3. Jim Edwards noted that Stantec's final point was that the pre- and post-development subcatchment areas were different. He noted that this was because the area of the houses was taken out because of the roof drains and dry well leaching basins. He noted that he would be happy to discuss the matter with Stantec.
The Coordinator asked about the detention basin shown on Lot #12/65-8 which was a long way away from the road and appeared to be on private property. Jim Edwards stated that the town would have access to maintain that basin. The Coordinator noted that this was a very unusual design being so far off the road and she was unsure whether the Road Agent would even be interested in taking on this maintenance. The Chairman asked if the basin failed or got filled who would be aware of the situation. Jim Edwards stated that some maintenance would be needed to make sure that the basin was not altered in any way and to make sure that the outlet structure did not become plugged with debris. He noted, however, that even if the structure did get plugged the drainage would
still have somewhere else to go. Dave Woodbury asked if there was any alternative that did not require town maintenance of the structure and were there any negative impacts to the town should the detention basin fail. Jim Edwards stated that there would be no effect downstream if the detention basin failed. He noted that Campbell Pond Road was already blown out and the flows from this area of the site were extremely small - 7.3 c.f.s. total in the 25 year storm. Doug Hill did not think that there was enough required maintenance for the town to worry about taking this on, noting that it would only require checking on a regular basis that the drain was not clogged up. The Board was worried about the distance from the road of this structure and that the property owner may not understand the easement on the lot that would allow the town access to maintain the basin.
The Chairman asked if there was any way around this situation. Jim Edwards stated that there was not since the basin had been located in the low point and the drainage was designed there with what they had to work with in terms of topo. He further noted that the control was necessary so that the discharge from the property was maintained as indicated in the previous discussion regarding runoff. The Board determined that the Road Agent should be asked for his opinion on the plans.
Dave Woodbury asked about the status of the Brown driveway off Pulpit Road. Tom Sauser noted that the ownership of a small triangle of land to the west of Pulpit Road was still uncertain and that the research needed to determine ownership would probably take between 8 - 12 hours to complete. Dave Woodbury did not think that the Planning Board could grant the subdivision approval without resolving this access issue. He did not want the Selectmen to find themselves in a situation where they could not abandon that section of Pulpit Road because the Browns did not have a driveway.
Tom Sauser suggested that this was a change in direction from the Selectmen as they had previously approved the upgrade of a portion of Pulpit Road from Class VI to Class V and had told SHB Properties that it was not their responsibility to resolve whether or not the remaining portion of Pulpit Road would be abandoned. He noted that Mark Ciarla was willing to grant the Browns an easement for access over their property to Bedford Road. Connie Brown noted that she and her husband did not want an easement; they wanted to own the land that their driveway accessed over. She stated that if it was determined that Mark Ciarla owned the land in question he was prepared to give it to the Browns. Tom Sauser stated that it was not clear that they would be able to determine
ownership and he did not think it was SHB Properties, LLC's, responsibility to resolve the issue. The Board disagreed, noting that the entire project was for the benefit of SHB Properties, LLC, and if they were not proposing this subdivision the subject of discontinuing a portion of Pulpit Road would not have come up.
Tom Sauser noted that there were three options open to the town - 1) discontinue Pulpit Road; 2) leave it as is; or, 3) leave it as is but inform the abutters that there would be no further town maintenance. He noted that these three options were discussed with the Selectmen at their meeting earlier in the year. Dave Woodbury stated that he wanted to see the Brown's issue resolved before the subdivision was approved. Tom Sauser noted that the cost of the deed research was likely to be between $500 - $750. He asked what would happen if it was determined that the town owned the land in question. The Board stated that it seemed as if whoever owned the land would deed it to the Browns. Tom Sauser asked what would happen if the title to the land was unclear. Doug Hill thought that then the town would have to deal with the matter.
Dave Woodbury stated that the Selectmen did want to discontinue a portion of Pulpit Road but did not want to cut off the Brown's access. Tom Sauser stated that it was not necessary to abandon that portion of Pulpit Road. Dave Woodbury stated that the Selectmen agreed to allow the upgrade of a portion of Pulpit Road to Class V in exchange for abandoning this section of the road. He noted that the Selectmen had always been very clear that they did not want both portions of the road to exist. Jeff Hudson stated that the other option was to leave the road as it and no longer plow or maintain it. Connie Brown wondered why she was being punished, noting that SHB Properties, LLC, wanted to build their subdivision and it was not fair that the town could turn around and
leave them, the Browns, on their own for plowing and maintenance. She noted that she had spoken to the Road Agent and the area they proposed for their own driveway to Bedford Road seemed to be preliminarily OK.
Jeff Hudson stated that SHB Properties, LLC, would put forward $500 for the deed research if the Browns would agree to work with their attorney to get legal documents drawn up based on what was discovered. Tom Sauser noted that as part of their research they would provide the metes and bounds for the area of land in question so the Brown's lawyer could then draw up the relevant deeds. Connie Brown agreed that they would prepare the necessary deeds. The Chairman suggested that if SHB Properties, LLC's surveyors were out in the field at an opportune time they could set the pins for this piece of property as well. Tom Sauser stated that was only a possibility if it worked out with everyone's schedules.
The Coordinator noted that there were a few remaining issues that the Board should probably discuss with the applicants. She noted that a lot of discussion took place during the preliminary application regarding the driveway to Lot #12/65-8 coming off Pulpit Road while the frontage was on Bedford Road. The applicants received a Dredge and Fill from the State and added a note #17 to the plan which read: "Vehicle access to Lot 12-65-8 shall be from a new driveway extended from the proposed cul-de-sac "Pulpit Road" entirely within the lot boundaries." The Coordinator asked the Board if they thought this note was explanatory enough. The Board agreed that this note should be elaborated on to show that the wetland crossing was designed to prove
frontage for the lot and not to indicate that the lot could be built on.
The Coordinator next noted that Plan Note #16 read: "Lot 12-65 lies within a coarse grained stratified drift aquifer per map titled 'Saturated Thickness, Transmissivity, and Materials of Stratified Drift Aquifers in the middle of Merrimack River Basin, South-Central New Hampshire', by Joseph D. Ayotte and Kenneth W. Toppin (1995). The use of road salt is prohibited from the proposed road and lots." (Emphasis added.) She noted that she had never seen such a note on a plan before and while such an idea was obviously important in aquifer areas she wondered how anyone could police the lot owners use of salt on their driveways. The Board determined that the note should be changed to refer to limited salt use.
The Coordinator noted that as part of the Standard Dredge & Fill Application there was mention of a threatened species of snake - the Eastern Hognose Snake - in this area. She noted that what was not mentioned was what this meant. The Coordinator wondered if there were development techniques in construction that should be employed to help this snake - like box culverts for the turtles, etc.? Tom Sauser stated that the box culverts were what NH DES wanted to see for both the turtles and snakes.
The Coordinator stated that the R-1 district allowed for single or two family or multi-family dwellings but there were different minimum lot sizes for each. She noted that it appeared that the lots in this subdivision were sized for single family dwellings (note #3 on the plans included the contiguous upland area acreage of 1.125 acres which is the minimum amount for a 1.5 acre lot. A 2 acre lot would require 1.5 acres contiguous upland). The Coordinator went on to note that only one lot, #12/65-4, was close to the minimum size (1.563 ac.) and that it appeared as if all the other lots met the lot size and contiguous upland area size for one or two family dwellings in this district. She wondered if some kind of note should be added to the plans so that no one could
assume in the future that a duplex could be built on Lot #12/65-4. She thought that this would be especially helpful to the Building Department. The Board agreed that a note should be added to the plans that no duplex could be built on Lot #12/65-4.
The Coordinator next noted that a letter had been received from Dwight Sowerby, Esq., of Bill Drescher, Esq.'s office and asked if the Board wanted to release the letter to the applicant or summarize the content.
Doug Hill MOVED to release Dwight Sowerby, Esq.'s letter dated October 25, 2006, to the applicants. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to adjourn the application of SHB Properties, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #12/65, Bedford, Pulpit and Campbell Pond Roads to December 12, 2006, at 9:00 p.m. Doug Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
INDIAN FALLS, LLC Adjourned from 10/24/06
Compliance Hearing/Major Subdivision/14 Lots
Location: Bedford, McCurdy & Campbell Pond Roads (Indian Falls Road)
Tax Map/Lot # 12/89
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Mark LeBlanc.
The Chairman noted that while he was generally dissatisfied with Indian Falls Road he recognized that it was built as designed.
Doug Hill MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of Indian Falls, LLC’s Major Subdivision of 14 lots on Tax Map/Lot #’s 12/89, McCurdy, Campbell Pond and Bedford Roads, subject to:
CONDITION(S) PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of financial security in the amount of $32,000.00, and in a form
acceptable to the Planning Board 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.
Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Miscellaneous Business and correspondence for the meeting of November 14, 2006, including, but not limited to:
The Board jumped to Miscellaneous Business #15 since Ed Colburn was present in the audience for this item.
15. Driveway Permit Application for Alexander Clark, Lewis Road, Tax Map/Lot #11/113, for the Board’s action. (Alexander Clark to be present)
The Coordinator noted that a driveway permit application had been submitted for the above-noted lot and that said driveway was proposed to be off a Class VI road. She noted that the applicant would need to approach the ZBA for a variance and the Board of Selectmen for a release of liability but in order to do those things the Planning Board needed to first deny the driveway permit application.
Ed Colburn noted that Alexander Clark wanted to build his retirement home on this lot on the very back corner of the property. He noted that the lot was 89 acres and was bisected by Lewis Road. Ed Colburn said that Mr. Clark had looked at various options for building on this land, noting that the property had 1,000' on Joe English Road. He noted that to get to the proposed building site from Joe English Road would require 2 large wetland crossings. Ed Colburn stated that the proposal to use Lewis Road would mean the least impact to the property. He noted that there was an existing old stone box culvert on Lewis Road that might need some upgrade and there was a second area along Lewis Road that would need a crossing of some kind to State and Town standards.
Ed Colburn stated that the proposal would involve about 1,200' of Lewis Road and the driveway to the proposed house would then only be about 100'. Doug Hill asked if the property owner realized that Lewis Road would have to remain open to the public. Ed Colburn stated that Mr. Clark knew that snowmobilers, 4-wheelers, horseback riders and so on currently used the road and that there may be more traffic if an improvement was made. He closed by saying that Mr. Clark had owned the land for a very long time and had always planned to retire there.
Doug Hill MOVED to deny Driveway Permit Application #06-037 for Alexander Clark, Tax Map/Lot #11/113, Lewis Road, because the driveway is proposed off a Class VI road. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
1. Approval of minutes of October 3, 2006, and October 10, 2006, with or without changes, distributed at the October 24, 2006, meeting. (No Copies)
Dave Woodbury MOVED to approve the minutes of October 3, 2006, & October 10, 2006, as written. Doug Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Discussion, Re: Cover Sheets.
The Coordinator noted that SHB Properties' subdivision application was a very good example of a concern she had with major subdivisions when the Board got to the end of the subdivision process and there were still a number of outstanding issues that required discussion that had not yet been addressed by the Board. She explained that once she had done the checklist review of the subdivision plans, any other items that needed discussion were added to the covers under separate headings because the Board had to discuss them. The Coordinator asked if the Board had any suggestions on how to get these items on the table for discussion sooner in the process. She noted that the first meeting was not a good time to get into the details because sometimes the questions were answered
during the applicants' presentations to the Board. She thought, however, that when the cover sheets were prepared for the second meeting those issues that had been carried forward should be discussed right away. The Coordinator suggested that the Board could consider beginning a hearing with the things the Board wanted to go over first rather than asking the applicant straight away what they had new for the Board. The Chairman thought that was a workable suggestion.
Dave Woodbury thought it would be a good idea to give copies of the cover sheets to the applicants to give them some preparation time. The Chairman did not think that was a good idea. Doug Hill pointed out that there may be a question on the cover sheet that the Board did not think was an issue but the applicant went ahead and did a bunch of work on it anyway having thought it was a concern. Then it would be the Board's fault that the extra money and manpower had been spent on what was, in fact, a non-issue. Dave Woodbury stated that under the Right-to-Know Law if the applicant demanded a copy they should have one. The Coordinator agreed absolutely, noting that the cover sheets were public documents and available to anyone who requested a copy.
Doug Hill thought that after the second or third meeting a brief could be prepared by the Coordinator that outlined the major issues that might still be discussion topics for the Board. The Chairman thought that if he went through the cover sheets in a more methodical fashion he could start with the items for the Board to address. The Coordinator wanted to stress that she did not intend for anyone to read the cover sheets word for word. She also noted that she very much appreciated the fact that the Board did not turn to her for answers all the time but emphasized that she was always available to answer anything the Board questioned and would, of course, jump in if she had information on a subject.
3. Schedule a compliance site walk for Seff Enterprises& Holdings, LLC, Waldorf Estates, Foxberry Drive, Tax Map/Lot #8/84.
The site walk was scheduled for Saturday, November 18, 2006, at 8:30 a.m.
4. Schedule a compliance site walk for Harvey Dupuis Family Trust, Susan Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/93 & 12/93-22.
The site walk was schedule for Saturday, November 18, 2006, at 9:15 a.m. +/-
5. Letter dated November 1, 2006, from Robert Starace, Locus Field, LLC, to New Boston Planning Board, Re: request for one year extension on conditions subsequent for the subdivision of Kettle Lane, Hopkins Road & Salisbury Road, for the Board’s action.
Doug Hill MOVED to approve the extension request from Robert Starace, Locus Field, LLC, for a one year extension on the conditions subsequent for the subdivision of Kettle Lane, Hopkins and Salisbury Roads, to November 1, 2007. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
6. Letter dated October 26, 2006, to New Boston Planning Board from Earl J. Sandford, L.L.S., Re: driveway compliance for Tax Map/Lot#6/32-26, Swanson Road, for the Board’s action.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to confirm compliance R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, for the driveway installation to Lot #6/32-26, Swanson Road. Doug Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
7. Letter received October 26, 2006, from Christopher L. Krajenka, Chief of Police, Town of New Boston, Re: cul-de-sacs, was distributed for the Board’s information.
8. Letter received October 26, 2006, from John Riendeau, Road Agent, Town of New Boston, Re: cul-de-sacs, was distributed for the Board’s information.
9. Email received October 26, 2006, from Board of Fire Wards, New Boston Fire Department, Re: cul-de-sacs, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman thought the letter from the Fire Wards could be fleshed out a little further. He also noted that the letter was not on letterhead which looked a little strange. The Coordinator thought that she had seen a version on letterhead and stated they would look into it. Doug Hill stated that he did not understand the 1,000' hose issue, wondering if it meant that if there was a fire at the end of a 1,000' cul-de-sac the truck would set up at the end of the road and would have to reach down the road to the location of the fire. The Chairman stated that the Fire Wards were not communicating the fact that when the fire truck hooks to the cistern the hoses across the road blocked access to one end of the road effectively cutting off access. The Board thought
that if this was part of the reason for the 1,000' cul-de-sac length, the Fire Wards could articulate it a little better in a letter.
10. 2006 CIP Committee meeting minutes for October 11 & 18th, were distributed for the Board’s information.
11. Wetland Ordinance Sub-Committee meeting minutes from October 25, 2006, were distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman requested a copy of the draft ordinance. The Coordinator stated that she would supply same.
12. Cluster/Open Space Ordinance Committee meeting minutes from October 25, 2006, were distributed for the Board’s information.
Doug Hill noted his concerns that the Committee should be careful to make sure that the regulations were written to encourage this type of development. He noted that certain of the requirements seemed to be becoming more onerous, for instance, not allowing the buffer area around the subdivision to be included in the open space calculation. The Coordinator stated that the committee had reviewed past cluster subdivision plans and thought the subdivisions that proposed open space running around the outside of the lots were not providing the kind of contiguous chunks of open space the committee was looking for.
13. Daily road inspection reports dated August 28th & 31st, September 1st, 5th, 14th & 18th, from Stantec, Re: Highland Hills, were distributed for the Board’s information.
14. The minutes of October 24, 2006, were distributed for approval at the meeting of November 28, 2006, with or without changes.
16. Letter dated November 14, 2006, from Patricia Panciocco, Wiggin & Nourie, PA, to the Board, Re: Right Way Builders Subdivision, Beard Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
17. Letter dated October 25, 2006, from Scott & Robyn Elliott, to the Board, Re: home business, 65 Pine Echo Road, for the Board’s information.
The Board noted, based on the information provided by the Elliott's, that they did not fall under the home business or the home shop requirements of the Town's Zoning Ordinance. The Board determined that a letter should be sent that informed the Elliott's that there were no requirements for site plan review based on this information at this time.
Doug Hill mentioned a site plan that had been worrying him - Bill Matheson on Mont Vernon Road. He noted that the parking did not look how he had imagined it would look based on the site plan that had been presented to the Board. The Chairman also noted his concerns with this property and asked to see the site plan at the next Planning Board meeting.
18. Read File: Public Hearing from the Town of Dublin Planning Board for November 16, 2006, Re: telecommunications tower.
19. The Coordinator noted that the Planning Board's approval of the New Boston Tavern site plan was being appealed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the hearing would be held on Monday, December 4, 2006, in the Town Hall. The Chairman asked who was bringing the appeal and the Coordinator replied that it was abutter Dan MacDonald.
Respectfully submitted,
Nicola Strong
Planning Coordinator
Minutes approved:
| 
