Minutes of the Planning Board November 28, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members James Nordstrom, Bob Furey and Don Duhaime; ex-officio Dave 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, Burr Tupper, Jack Munn, SNHPC, John Greenwood, Stu Lewin, John & Cathy Leonard, Jim & Claire Dodge, David Ely, Ken Barss, Jr., Brian Towne, Willard Dodge, and Rodney Towne.
DOUGLAS HILL CONSTRUCTION, LLC Adjourned from 10/24/06
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. The applicant Doug Hill was present in the audience, as was abutter Cathy Conk Ryder.
The Chairman noted that the revised plans had been sent out to the town’s new consulting engineer, Northpoint Engineering, and the Board would hear back before the next meeting. He asked if Doug Hill had anything that he wanted to discuss. Doug Hill noted that the checklist correction items from the Coordinator would be made on the plans. The Coordinator noted that the wetland crossing plans had been submitted.
James Nordstrom noted that the application was coming up to the 65 day deadline for Board action and asked if Doug Hill would have a problem granting the Board an extension. The Chairman suggested that the new deadline should be the next Planning Board meeting of December 12, 2006. Doug Hill stated that since no approval would be granted tonight he had no problem granting an extension to the next Planning Board meeting.
Bob Furey noted an item called out on the Board's cover sheet regarding the driveways. The Coordinator explained that the Subdivision Regulations require driveways to be shown on the plans and on this set they were shown on the profile sheets not the subdivision plan sheets. She noted that this was really for the Board's information. The Board confirmed that as long as the driveways were shown somewhere in the plan set it was acceptable.
James Nordstrom MOVED to extend the deadline for Board action on the application of Doug Hill, Tax Map/Lot #5/16, N.H. Route 136 a/k/a Francestown Road, to December 12, 2006, and to adjourn the application to December 12, 2006, at 9:45 p.m. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Doug Hill took a seat at the Planning Board table.
Miscellaneous Business and correspondence for the meeting of November 28, 2006, including, but not limited to:
1. Approval of minutes of October 24, 2006, with or without changes, distributed at the
November 14, 2006, meeting. (No Copies)
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of October 24, 2006, as written. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Endorsement of a Site Plan for Pamela Ryan and Graham Pendlebury, 269 Tucker Mill Road, Tax Map/Lot #2/12, by the Planning Board Chairman & Secretary.
The Chairman noted that the plans would be endorsed at the end of the meeting.
3. Discussion, Re: Stormwater Management Plans Bonding Requirements (Willard Dodge to be present).
The Planning Board Assistant noted that Willard Dodge wanted to be present for this discussion. The Board postponed discussion until Willard Dodge was present.
4. Discussion, Re: William Matheson’s Site Plan, 506 Mont Vernon Road, Tax Map/Lot#14/116-2.
The Coordinator noted that the deadline for completion of the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan for Bill Matheson on Mont Vernon Road had expired and despite letters from the Planning Department he had not contacted the Board to inform them of his plans. The Chairman noted that the Board had also wanted to review this plan to determine if Bill Matheson was in compliance since it looked like a lot of junk vehicles were parked on the lot.
The Board looked at the approved plan and noted that, from what he had seen driving by the property, there appeared to be parking taking place on areas of the site that were not designated for parking according to the plan. The Chairman stated that Bill Matheson had designed this plan and it appeared he was not abiding by it and also that he was disregarding the Planning Board by ignoring the letters from the Planning Department. He recalled that a bond had been posted for the property. The Coordinator noted that the bond was to cover the cost of the loam and seed and the gate that were requirements of the plan but which had not been in place when Bill Matheson had requested a compliance site walk and hearing for the property. James Nordstrom expressed doubt that the
Town could even use a bond such as this to fix issues on private property. Doug Hill noted that it was taken more as an additional incentive for the property owner to do the right thing than for the town to go in and do the work. Dave Woodbury noted that the Board could revoke the plan and James Nordstrom agreed noting that non-compliance with the site plan and not fulfilling the conditions of approval were both grounds for revocation.
Doug Hill thought that the site had the potential to look even worse in a few years and it might be appropriate for Bill Matheson to revise the site plan now to include more parking.
Dave Woodbury suggested that a certified letter, return receipt requested, be sent to Bill Matheson detailing the deficiencies of the site and setting a specific agenda time for the Board to discuss revoking the plan. The Coordinator asked if the Board would want to send a letter stating that there was a possibility of plan revocation if Bill Matheson did not come into compliance rather than immediately scheduling the revocation. She noted that revocation required a hearing with notices sent to the abutters at the town's expense.
The Board agreed that the Coordinator should send a letter explaining that the parking was not in compliance and the loam and seed and gate installation had not yet been completed. The Board also agreed that the letter should set a time specific for Bill Matheson to respond to the Board so that he had the opportunity to come into compliance and if he ignored that step then the Board would consider plan revocation.
R.J. MOREAU COMMUNITIES, LLC
Compliance Hearing/Major Subdivision/32 Lots
Location: Wilson Hill Road (Popple & Swanson Roads)
Tax Map/Lot # 6/32 & P/O 9/22
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was John Greenwood of R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC. Also present were Popple Road residents Stu Lewin, and John & Cathy Leonard.
The Chairman noted that the Planning Board had conducted a site walk and noted two issues, the first of which was a granite bound at a lot corner that was too high. John Greenwood stated that the crew had run into ledge but the bound would be cut to make it lower. The Chairman noted that the other issue was an area of erosion which had been loamed and seeded and fertilized to stabilize it. Doug Hill stated that the silt fence was still in place and was now buried so it would need to be cut out at some point. John Greenwood said that he would leave the silt fence in until the area was completely stabilized and then remove it.
Popple Road resident Stu Lewin wondered if Popple Road would continue to suffer erosion problems similar to Byam Road. The Chairman assured Mr. Lewin that Popple Road had been constructed to different standards than Byam and Doug Hill pointed out that the Town would hold a 2-year maintenance bond for the road. Residents John & Cathy Leonard noted that despite the recent heavy rains Popple Road seemed to hold up nicely and they were pleased with the road overall.
The Chairman asked in what form the maintenance bond of $90,675 would be submitted. John Greenwood noted that it would be a surety bond that would be submitted before the end of the week. John Leonard asked if the applicants were all done with the Planning Board. The Chairman stated that they were but the road would have to have a hearing with the Board of Selectmen for acceptance.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the Major Subdivision/32 Lots of Tax Map/Lot #6/32 & p/o 9/22 and to release the financial security being held for the subdivision, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of financial security in the amount of $90,675.00, and in the form of a surety bond, 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 any fees required for recording of the warranty deed for the roads and the slope and drainage easement at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be June 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.
James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
5. Faxed letter received November 15, 2006, from J. Daniel Tatem, Construction Coordinator, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., to Nicola Strong, New Boston Planning Board, Re: Waldorf Estates, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator noted that this letter had arrived prior to the Foxberry Drive site walk but the Board had not yet been given a copy of it.
The Chairman asked about the agreement with Paula Martel for a driveway off Foxberry Drive. The Coordinator stated that to her recollection the matter had been addressed as part of the approval and it was considered a private agreement for Ms. Martel to enforce.
6. Email received November 20, 2006, from David J. Preece, AICP, Southern NH Planning Commission, to New Boston Planning Board, Re: CTAP Training & Registration, for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator noted that if any Board members were interested in attending this conference they should let the office know so they could register them.
7. November 13, 2006, Wetlands Ordinance meeting minutes, were distributed for the Board’s information.
8. November 13, 2006, Cluster Ordinance meeting minutes, were distributed for the Board’s information.
PUBLIC INPUT SESSION ON PROPOSED WETLAND CONSERVATION DISTRICT AMENDMENTS
The Chairman read the public notice. Present were Committee Members Burr Tupper and Ken Lombard, Jack Munn, SNHPC, Jim and Claire Dodge, Ken Barss, Jr., David Ely, Willard Dodge, Stu Lewin, and Brian Towne.
Burr Tupper noted that the Wetlands Conservation District Committee was made up of members of the Open Space Committee, Planning Board, Conservation Commission, Piscataquog Watershed Association, with help from the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission (SNHPC).
Burr Tupper noted that one of the committee's goals was to take the existing Wetlands ordinance and simplify the language and one of the ways to do this was to remove the soil type descriptions. He went on to say that the wetlands definition had been updated to reference the State's definition throughout. He noted that as part of the Master Plan update a questionnaire had been sent to the townspeople and 92% of respondents were in favor of protecting the river; 80% were in favor of setting aside wetland corridors; and 81% were in favor of wetlands protection.
Burr Tupper noted that portions of the Piscataquog River were protected by the State shoreline protection act and further noted that a Comprehensive Shorelines Commission had recommended wetland setbacks for all primary structures. He stated that the Wetlands Conservation District Committee had looked at ordinances from other towns in the state, some of them neighboring to New Boston.
Burr Tupper asked why wetlands should be considered important and noted that they were valuable for recreation, groundwater levels, habitat, silt absorption and so on. He noted that wetlands act as a sponge for floodwaters and the proposed ordinance was intended to protect the wetlands to allow them to continue in those capacities.
Burr Tupper noted that the boundaries of the district were defined as wetlands and perennial streams consistent with State and Federal law. He noted that the district also included poorly drained and very poorly drained soils. He went on to say that the boundary appeals section in the ordinance remained the same as the current ordinance except that the cost of any appeal would be paid by the applicant/landowner.
Burr Tupper noted that the proposed draft included definitions of Certified Wetlands and Soils Scientists and poorly and very poorly drained soils. He noted that the section on changing water levels remained the same as current.
Burr Tupper moved on to the new section regarding setbacks. He noted that the current ordinance specified setbacks for septic tanks and leach fields of 50' from poorly drained and 75' from very poorly drained soils and that had remained the same in the proposal with the details of appurtenant piping removed. He noted that the draft proposed a 100' structure setback and added a woodland vegetative setback of 75'. Burr Tupper went on to say that a 250' setback for application of septage or sludge was included in the draft. He also noted that the 100' structure setback was the recommended distance from the "Buffers for Wetlands and Surface Waters: A Guidebook for New Hampshire Municipalities" report. He went on to say that there was no mention of
fertilizer setbacks since they were too difficult to police.
Burr Tupper noted that the section on Conditional Use Permits for wetland crossings remained the same as the current ordinance but the section regarding non-conforming lots had been changed from requiring a Special Exception from the ZBA to a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Board. He noted that this kept all issues to do with wetlands within the Planning Board's purview.
Burr Tupper next noted that the draft contained exemptions for existing residential structures with the restriction that they could not be added on to closer to the wetland resource being protected under the ordinance.
Burr Tupper ended by saying that the proposed ordinance built on what was currently in place without being too onerous and with the intention of protecting the town's wetlands.
Dave Woodbury asked what the most significant change in the proposal was from the current ordinance. Burr Tupper stated that the inclusion of setbacks was the key area of change. He noted that currently there was no structure setback in New Boston. Dave Woodbury then asked about the changing water levels section, noting that in emergency situations it may be important for the town to be able to drain a wetland area and there was no governmental exemption included. Jack Munn noted that this section was left as it was in the current ordinance and had probably been there for 20 years. He further noted that this section was difficult to administer and seemed more restrictive than quite a few other towns and that it would probably not be enforced.
Doug Hill thought that going from no setback to 100' was significant. He also noted that there was a lot of discussion about open space subdivisions but this setback requirement would have the effect of making lots bigger. He agreed that different towns had many different setbacks but they all ate up land and created bigger lots. He thought that this proposal might be counterproductive on certain pieces of land in town. Burr Tupper noted that the draft was being presented for Planning Board input and further noted that the 100' was suggested in the Buffers Report as previously noted. When asked about other town's setbacks, Burr Tupper noted that they ranged from 50' to over 100'.
Doug Hill asked about driveways. Burr Tupper stated that the ordinance did not apply to driveways. Doug Hill stated he was confused about how a wetland crossing could be granted if there was a wetland setback in place. Jack Munn noted that an exemption had been added to the ordinance for wetlands less than 200 s.f. Doug Hill asked if there was a setback for gravel driveways. He noted that the Town of New Boston required a paved apron which might fall foul of the impervious surfaces section. The Chairman thought that under the proposed ordinance a lot owner would need a clear path 150' wide to put in a driveway. Doug Hill foresaw a lot of CUP's being submitted to the Planning Board.
Jim Dodge thought that a setback for tar but not for gravel did not make any sense. He noted that a gravel driveway would leach sand into the wetlands and that NH DES preferred to see tar driveways. He wondered how the committee could just throw out the 100' number with no idea of how much land in New Boston would be affected by it. He further noted that on his land alone this ordinance could impact 200 acres and that he considered it stealing his land. Jack Munn stated that the 100' came from the scientific literature. Jim Dodge asked someone to show him the detrimental effects the current ordinance had in the town to get everyone so excited over enacting these setbacks. Burr Tupper stated that developers were looking at land that was questionable for
building lots and pointed out that one goal of the proposed ordinance was to protect the rights of the existing property owners. Jim Dodge stated that he paid property taxes so he would like to protect his own wetlands. Burr Tupper stated that he appreciated Jim Dodge's input and noted that the draft was based on the Master Plan recommendations.
Jim Dodge asked if the committee had looked at the number of acres that would be impacted by this ordinance. Jack Munn stated that could be done using the new map that SNHPC had prepared as the Wetlands map for New Boston. Doug Hill noted that the map was not accurate and a soil scientist would certainly find more wetlands on any given property. Burr Tupper thought that the Open Space Subdivision proposal may compensate to some degree the setback requirement in the wetlands ordinance.
Burr Tupper reiterated that the 100' structure setback was taken from a State recommendation but that other towns used 50' so perhaps New Boston could use 50' as well. He noted that the town needed to set a stake in the ground and work from it. Doug Hill thought that a 100' setback might be OK along rivers, streams or around ponds but thought it too restrictive from poorly drained soils. The Chairman wondered what was detrimental about the Apple Barn's operation which was a commercial entity right on top of the river. He noted that he had a problem with always saying the river needed a bigger setback. Burr Tupper stated that at some point the town would have to consider enacting a setback and it might behoove the Board to be proactive now. He pointed out
that there was a large watershed area that needed protecting. The Chairman thought that it was important to decide just what the wetlands needed protection from. He noted that a lot of the town was wet and that there were some wetlands that deserved 0' and some that deserved 100' setbacks.
Burr Tupper stated that it was up to the Planning Board to set a number that could then be modified as needed. He noted that impacts to wetlands over time could lead to flood hazards and impaired functions and values of those wetlands. Jim Dodge again asked for examples in town where wetland issues had occurred that had not been successfully taken care of by the State or the Conservation Commission.
Burr Tupper reiterated that the committee's recommendations were based on the charge by the Planning Board and the recommendations of the Master Plan. He thought that sooner or later the State would mandate setbacks and offered that the town could be proactive now in setting a number that was right for New Boston or wait and be told what to do.
Don Duhaime asked about existing septic systems. Burr Tupper stated that they could be replaced in the same location. He added that the ordinance was designed to make sure that development took place wisely in other areas of town.
Claire Dodge stated that it would be helpful to have copies available of the current ordinance with the proposed changes rather than a clean copy. The Coordinator stated that
Claire Dodge could get such a copy from the Planning Department. Claire Dodge next noted that the list of soil types had been included in the original ordinance as an aid to landowners and developers to see what soil types were on their land. She thought the list should remain. She next noted that the septic system setback had been changed to remove reference to appurtenant piping which had been in place so that the exit pipe from the house to the tank and leach field could be no closer than 75' to very poorly drained soils and 50' to poorly drained soils. Claire Dodge noted that the house could have been constructed within those setbacks but the proposed ordinance would now require the whole house to be 100' away. She wondered if the committee realized what a big change they had effected going from a
non-existent setback to 100'. She suggested that a change should be made to the bonding requirement so that the Planning Board approved the bond rather than the Selectmen as was currently included in the ordinance.
Claire Dodge wondered about changing the Special Exception for non-conforming lots to a CUP, noting that it seemed unusual to do so. Jack Munn noted that the current ordinance included the provision for applying for a Special Exception but that meant that if a property owner needed a wetland crossing and also wanted to build a structure in the Wetlands Conservation District they would have to go before two Boards to get approval to do so. He noted that the proposed ordinance allowed the Planning Board to handle both aspects and thus streamlined the process. Claire Dodge wondered if that was legal. Jack Munn stated that it was.
Doug Hill thought that a bigger issue than the structure setback was that of driveways. Ken Lombard stated that the idea of the setback was to allow the buffer area to absorb some runoff before it got to the wetland itself. Jim Dodge noted that a gravel driveway did not absorb much runoff. Ken Lombard noted that it did better than tar.
Jim Dodge noted that the town had heard a number of times that the State would be mandating setbacks and he wondered why the town could not wait for the State to finally decide on the number rather than rushing to do something now.
Jack Munn stated that the committee's intent was not to divide the town over universal setbacks if there was a better way to approach the matter. He noted that this method was one that most other towns seemed to use in one form or another but perhaps the town was not ready to establish structure setbacks.
Claire Dodge stated that when the Planning Board proposed to strengthen the wetlands regulations just a few years ago there were 50 or 100 people at the public hearing that thought there were more than enough current regulations and that the town should not be more restrictive than the State. She noted that the amendment was dropped. She said she did not know what the people who responded to the Master Plan survey were thinking but she thought that what was being presented now was basically the same proposal as last time and there would likely be the same outcome at the public hearing. Claire Dodge went on to say that a big issue in town was the enforcement of the existing regulations and she did not see the sense in adding more regulation when the current ones were not
enforced. She further noted that most of the past problems had occurred because the State did not have the manpower or money to enforce its regulations on a local level. Claire Dodge noted that the current wetlands ordinance was enacted to give the town some local authority. She stated, however, that the town was also lacking in manpower and money to enforce the current regulation and should not add more regulations. She further noted that the Planning Board should have a better ear to the ground as to what the public was looking for.
Dave Woodbury asked what the Planning Board was expecting to do with this proposal tonight. The Coordinator explained that this was a public input session and the Board was holding public hearings on December 19th. She noted that because the posting deadline for the public hearings was December 8th, before the Planning Board's next scheduled meeting, if any changes were proposed to the draft tonight, or if the committee was charged with discussing further changes, the Planning Board would not see them prior to the posting.
The Chairman suggested that the committee continue to refine the ordinance and get it ready for next year, just in case what was being proposed was too hasty. He noted that he would rather not propose something just to make the deadlines but would rather take the pressure off the committee and work on it over the next year, perhaps getting input to establish flexible setbacks. Burr Tupper stated that was the Board's decision to make. Dave Woodbury noted that there would probably never be agreement on the setback issue but wondered if there were other fixable things in the ordinance that would be worth doing this year. The Coordinator suggested that at the very least the definition of wetlands should be changed to match the State's definition. Burr Tupper
thought the soil types could be removed since the information was available elsewhere. He reiterated that the committee's goal had been to simplify the ordinance as well as enact the setbacks. He noted that it was important to do the right thing for the town and he did not want to rush through something unacceptable. He thought the committee could come up with something that could meet the needs of the majority of the townspeople and if it took a year he had no problem with that. Ken Lombard agreed. Burr Tupper noted that the committee had met many times and had the basis of a good document that could be used to move forward. Jack Munn thought it would be very helpful to have the audience members at tonight's meeting present at the committee meetings to provide their input.
James Nordstrom thought it likely that there were a few items in the draft presented by the committee that should be done this year over and above the definition change and wondered if the amendment could still go forward just removing the setbacks. The Chairman thought it would be better to make the changes required to be consistent with State law and wait on the rest of the proposal to try to get consensus. Burr Tupper thought that whenever the setback issue came up again the Planning Board could consider a mailing to ask specific questions about the setbacks. He noted that the Master Plan questionnaire got a 25% response rate which was very good. The Chairman noted that if he was a property owner of 800 acres on which he paid taxes he would not care what 25% or
50% of the town thought should happen to his land. Jim Dodge stated that the meetings held for the Master Plan by a few people in the spring should not be considered indicative of what the majority of the town thought.
The Chairman thanked the committee for their work on the ordinance.
PUBLIC INPUT SESSION ON OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (CLUSTER)
The Chairman read the public notice. Present were committee members Ken Lombard, Burr Tupper, David Ely, and Willard Dodge, along with Jack Munn, SNHPC, and Brian Towne, and Rodney Towne, New Boston residents.
Jack Munn presented the Board with an up-to-date draft of the Open Space Ordinance. David Ely noted that the section of the Zoning Ordinance was to be renamed the Open Space Development Standards instead of the Cluster Residential Development Standards. He noted that the existing Cluster ordinance had been revised to make it more palatable since the committee had noticed it was not really being used in town. David Ely noted that the committee was made up of Planning Board, Conservation Commission, Open Space Committee, Master Plan Committee with help from Jack Munn, SNHPC. He then read through the Purpose section of the proposed ordinance.
David Ely noted that as late as that day the committee had been working on the ordinance to try to provide the right definition of affordable housing. The Chairman asked how a developer with 30 acres and 15 lots could possibly have the incentive to provide affordable housing. David Ely stated that the developer would still get 15 lots under the proposed ordinance but noted that the road may be shorter thus lowering the infrastructure costs while maintaining open space for the town. He also noted that the proposed ordinance offered incentives that would increase the possible number of lots that could be achieved. David Ely noted that affordable housing was one of the incentive items. The Chairman noted that a developer looking to maximize his profits could do so
by building a bigger house. He wondered what would be the incentive not to do that, noting that it would probably take more than gaining one extra lot.
David Ely stated that there were a number of incentive options that would grant a 5% bonus: affordable housing; increasing the open space over the minimum requirement; linking trails and/or wildlife corridors; protecting valuable natural resources; up to a maximum of 20% bonuses.
David Ely next noted some of the definitions changes, stating that there was a definition of Home Occupation just for the Open Space Subdivisions that was different than the existing Home Business and Expanded Home Business definitions from the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that the committee thought that since the lots in an Open Space subdivision would be smaller, the requirements for a home occupation should be more restrictive. The Chairman noted that his definition was similar to the factors the Board considered when determining whether or not a business proposal needed to undergo site plan review. David Ely noted that a new definition had been added for Low Impact Development to allow for innovative stormwater management approaches.
Doug Hill pointed out that the cul-de-sacs shown in the graphics in the ordinance were too long based on current town standards and would almost certainly cause confusion. Ken Lombard agreed that a different picture was needed. Doug Hill asked how the density allowed under the proposed ordinance matched up with the existing cluster standards. James Nordstrom noted that the proposal was consistent with the current ordinance. He asked if the current ordinance required wetlands to be removed from the total acreage before calculating the number of lots possible for the subdivision. David Ely stated that it did.
Jack Munn noted that the buffer between structures and the perimeter of the lot was not to be counted in the open space. He noted that the committee looked at old plans and thought the buffer did not provide any usable or very accessible open space and since it really acted just as a buffer it should remain as such. He noted that it could be shown as contiguous to the open space but could not be counted as part of it. Doug Hill thought this meant the buffer area would have to be included as an easement in the lot deed. He also thought that if the buffer could not be included in the open space that "lost" land would have to come from somewhere else which would take more acreage out of the developable area. The Coordinator noted that the buffer was
really intended as a setback to provide area between two different use intensities. She noted that the current ordinance did not require the buffer to be included in the open space but most of the surveyors included it anyway. She also noted that the lot lines of the interior lots could be right up to the perimeter lot line of the parent lot and the buffer provided a 100' setback between structures and the perimeter lot line it was not intended to provide a buffer between the interior lot lines and the perimeter lot line. She noted that an easement would not be necessary.
David Ely stated that a change had been made to the frontage requirements, noting that the frontage had increased to 150' to allow for two 50' rights-of-way to be installed more comfortably if a loop road was to be constructed on the property. He went on to say that the right-of-way width could be reduced from the standard in consultation with the Fire Chief, Police Chief and Road Agent.
David Ely recapped the density enhancements again for the Board, noting that a 5% enhancement could be achieved for the following things, up to a total of 20% enhancements: more than the minimum open space set aside; trails and wildlife corridor linkage; natural resource protection; agricultural protections. At this point the Chairman noted that he particularly liked this inclusion. David Ely stated that Master Plan questionnaire respondents had indicated that they liked New Boston because it was an agricultural town. Rodney Towne strongly disagreed with this statement from the audience, noting that New Boston was not an agricultural community and that the proposal before the Board would not make it any better. He noted that the open space would not remain open
in the future and advised the Board to take a look at the towns of Hudson and Nashua to see what problems could occur. He stated that cluster housing created issues that were real problems, for instance, multiple failures of septic systems on small lots. Rodney Towne noted that the Board may think that cluster housing would make the future better for the town but it would only help for a short while. David Ely stated that the recommendation of the Committee were based on input gathered during the Master Plan update process, recommendations from Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission and the ideas of Smart Growth. Rodney Towne stated that was all well and good but the bureaucrats in the future may not feel the same way about the town’s open space as those in office did now. The Chairman reiterated that the agricultural incentive was a good thing.
David Ely continued with the list of incentives: viewshed protection; historic resource protection; architectural design standards; and affordable housing were all included as things that could gain a developer a 5% enhancement. David Ely noted that the committee had been working on the ordinance for 4 or 5 weeks and were not quite done with the affordable housing part yet. He thought that one more committee meeting would allow time for this to be finalized. He also noted some miscellaneous enhancements such as minimizing driveways, giving money to town departments for the impacts of the development and so on. The Chairman thought the minimizing driveways idea should be deleted, noting that the Board would be inundated with common driveway requests. The
Board determined that substituting common curb cuts for common driveways would be better.
The Chairman thought that there should be areas set aside in these developments for commercial activity, specifically small grocery stores. David Ely agreed that the town should consider more mixed use but thought that the size of the subdivisions the town typically saw would not support commercial development in every subdivision. He did think that a store positioned correctly could serve three or four open space subdivisions, however.
David Ely noted that the Ownership and Management section of the ordinance contained a provision that the town could own the open space. He asked, based on previous comments, if this was something the Board wanted to continue to include in the ordinance. The Board determined that this provision should be removed since it was not certain that future town officials would feel the same way about the open space and also because of the fact that once the town owned the land it was removed from the tax rolls.
The Chairman asked if the open space ordinance proposed allowed for backlots since he thought they defeated the purpose of a cluster development. Doug Hill noted that the lot size could not be reduced to one acre if 200’ of frontage was required. He noted that because the frontage of the lots in a cluster development was already reduced there was no need to allow backlots. The Coordinator suggested that a new definition should be written for this section since the lots the Chairman was talking about were not backlots as defined by the current zoning ordinance, they were reduced frontage lots in a cluster development that had the physical appearance of backlots.
David Ely stated that the committee would meet again to make the minor revisions as discussed at this input session and would also finalize the affordable housing issue. The Coordinator reiterated the concern raised at the previous input session that due to the posting deadlines for the December 19th public hearing the Board would not have a chance to review an amended draft before the posting date. The Board was comfortable from the discussion at this evening’s meeting that the changes were minor enough that they did not need to see the revised draft before posting.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
3. Discussion, Re: Stormwater Management Plans Bonding Requirements (Willard Dodge to be present).
The Board returned to Miscellaneous Business #3 since Willard Dodge was now present. The issue was to do with taking the bond for stormwater management plans at the time of subdivision rather than at the time of building permit. Willard Dodge stated that he had checked with the other Steep Slopes Committee members and all of them thought that the bond would be required to be submitted at the time of building permit. He thought that there had been a misstep between that recommendation and what the Planning Board was currently doing. He offered as an example the property owner who wanted to subdivide their land for their children who may not build on it for 10 years or more. Willard Dodge noted that in this instance a bond being held for that long would no longer
offer the right amount of protection for the town since the amounts would be too low and he also wondered why the town would want to hold a bond for that long and have to monitor it. He stated that since the stormwater management plan had to be tracked anyway by the Building Inspector it would be no problem to add the requirement of submitting the bond at the building permit stage.
The Chairman asked how Willard Dodge’s suggestion would help in the instance where a person was given a 5 acre lot and cut trees and cleared for a driveway and then went to the Building Department for a permit at which time the Building Inspector would ask for the bond for the stormwater management plan which covered work that had already been done. Willard Dodge stated that the town needed a way to deal with that scenario regardless of whether the bond was submitted at the time of subdivision or building permit application. He stated that the Planning Board taking the money at the time of subdivision defeated the whole purpose behind the ordinance being written the way it was.
The Coordinator stated that her recollection of the committee’s discussions was that the initial idea was to require the submission of the bond at the building permit stage but the Building Department was not familiar with the process of taking bonds and establishing special accounts and monitoring these things so it was felt that the Planning Board was the best place for the bonds to be discussed. She then noted the committee was adamant that the whole process should not be onerous for the applicant so it should be a one-step process not requiring someone to come back to the Planning Board for review of the bond once the building permit was applied for. The Coordinator noted that she really did not care if the applicant had to come back to the Planning Board but noted
that the committee had been strongly against needing a two step process.
The Chairman suggested that the applicant should be given the option of submitting the bond at the subdivision stage or the applicant could postpone submitting the bond until the building permit stage on the condition that the figures were updated after the first two years and then again when the building permit was applied for. He asked how this change should be accomplished. The Coordinator noted that someone would have to write the language to change the Subdivision Regulations and a public hearing would be required. The Chairman suggested that the committee should take first crack at writing up a proposal to change the regulations.
Doug Hill expressed concern that the bond could probably not be used for work on private property anyway. The Chairman asked if Bill Drescher, Esq., could be asked that question. The Coordinator stated that she could ask him about it but noted that he had reviewed the regulation when it was proposed in the first place.
9. Proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for Town vote March 2007, for the Board’s review and discussion.
11. Required adoption of new Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator noted that the only change to the zoning ordinance other than wetlands and cluster was the Building Inspector’s suggestion to add the fences around swimming pools to the definition of structure so that they would require a building permit. The floodplain development ordinance changes had been sent from OEP and had to be made to stay in compliance with the NFIP Program. The Board approved the changes as presented to go to public hearing on December 19th.
10. Letter received November 27, 2006, from Shelia and Frederick Cleveland, Re: Renshaw and Jon’s Auto Sales, North Mast Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/64, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that the neighbors to Jon’s Auto and the Renshaw auto sales lot had complained that cars and tires were being stored in the buffer areas and that there were more vehicles than the site plan allowed. She also noted that a balloon had been flown on Jon’s Auto site with an advertising sign suspended from it. She noted that a letter had been sent from the Planning Department to Jon Lewis 2 or 3 weeks prior but no response had been received. No correspondence had yet been sent to Mr. Renshaw.
The Board determined that this matter should be dealt with as discussed for Bill Matheson’s site plan earlier in the meeting. Letters should be sent to each lot owner detailing the non-compliance with the approved site plan and offering a deadline by which the Board should be notified as to how the site would be brought into compliance. If such correspondence was not received the Board would then discuss the revocation process.
12. New Boston Master Plan Summary pamphlet, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman and Secretary signed the plans listed above in Miscellaneous Business Item #2.
The Chairman noted Stu Lewin in the audience and asked him if he was waiting for a particular item to be discussed. Stu Lewin explained that he was interested in applying for an alternate position on the Board and wanted to see a meeting or two before submitting his application.
At 10:45 p.m. Dave Woodbury MOVED to adjourn. James Nordstrom seconded the
motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator
Minutes approved:
| 
