 |
Minutes of Planning Board Meeting of April 25, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, Bob Furey; ex-officio Christine Quirk; and, alternates Don Duhaime and Douglas Hill. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were Cynthia Wilson, Roch Larochelle, Kim Burkhamer, Rob Starace, Sarah Hogan, Linda Pothier, Michael Pare, Jim Edwards, Tom Sauser, Jeff Hudson, Bill Weston, Mark Ciarla, Rick Martin, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Pat Panciocco, Esq., Rick Searle, Mike Ryan, Esq., Jim and Matt Eggers, Wayne and Barry Charrest, Ray Shea, Ken Lombard and Tom Clapp.
POTHIER, LINDA & PARE, MICHAEL Adjourned from 2/28/06
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Kennel/Boarding/Riding Stable
Location: 40 Helena Drive
Tax Map/Lot #3/21
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicants, Linda Pothier and Michael Pare. No abutters or interested parties were present.
The Chairman stated that Town Counsel had prepared an opinion letter for the Board which they had just received this evening and would now review that letter as it pertained to the applicants’ Non-Residential Site Plan issue regarding businesses on Class VI roads. The Board then took several minutes to read this letter. Michael Pare asked if they could obtain a copy of Town Counsel’s opinion letter. The Chairman replied that the Board would need to determine if they should release the letter as it was currently privileged and confidential information.
The Chairman summarized that Town Counsel’s opinion seemed to shift the process to the Selectmen to determine whether a waiver would be considered appropriate as their intent for the use of Class VI roads seemed to be the case. The Planning Board could then move ahead with the site plan. Michael Pare stated that he had been under the impression that the decision rested with the Planning Board. The Coordinator explained that the Board had requested an opinion from Town Counsel before making a decision on the site plan and that opinion came back as being a decision for the Selectmen. Linda Pothier asked if Town Counsel was paid for his services and questioned why this opinion took 12 weeks to be prepared. The Chairman replied that Town Counsel was paid for
these services and was an excellent attorney. The Coordinator clarified that an opinion from Town Counsel had been requested by the Board on March 3, 2006.
The Chairman stated that the Selectmen would be forwarded Town Counsel’s opinion letter which explained that the Selectmen were the entity to make a decision in this matter because the Planning Board was not allowed to grant usage on a Class VI road. He added that the letter further explained that the applicants’ proposed use could not factor in towards a need or responsibility of the Town to improve a Class VI road and that responsibility would be the applicants’. The Chairman noted that the Selectmen may require that the applicants sign off to such an agreement if they considered a waiver to allow the business use off the Class VI road. Linda Pothier stated that she was concerned that if neighbors decided they preferred to have the Class VI road
graded and paved then the responsibility to do so would automatically fall to them even if their business had not caused any damage to the road. Douglas Hill suggested that the applicants consider traffic counts before and after the business was operating if the waiver were granted. He added that from the Board’s standpoint an issue would arise if a patron of the applicants’ proposed business was injured as a result of the condition of the Class VI road and the fact that the Town had provided a waiver for the usage. Linda Pothier replied that she understood but questioned how the condition of the road could be determined now and who on the road had the right to say that it should be improved by the applicants. The Chairman stated that the Selectmen and the Road Agent would be the ones to make such a decision as the Planning Board was not an enforcement board. He noted that the Road Agent would be responsible for determining that traffic
impacts to the road had increased as a result of the proposed business and the language of any waiver considered for the applicants would be up to the Selectmen. He stressed that Town Counsel’s opinion letter did not have a negative tone and that it merely instructed the Selectmen how to craft a mechanism for a waiver based on the proposed business and impacts it could generate on a Class VI road.
Linda Pothier stated that she respected the input that had been provided thus far but was struggling financially at this point because she still could not advertise for upcoming summer horse camps she wished to offer. Michael Pare noted that he knew Helena Drive had been a Class V road in the 1950’s and was then changed to a Class VI road. He wondered if the status was allowed to be changed at any time. The Coordinator explained that the status change was detailed in the Town reports of 1952 and was the result of a Town ballot vote which was the only way a status change was done. The Chairman added that the change was most likely voted in at that time because the Town no longer wished to maintain the road.
Linda Pothier asked what would happen next if the Selectmen decided to grant a waiver for the usage proposed. The Coordinator replied that the application would then be ready for approval by the Board. Linda Pothier asked if the recent site plans she submitted last week had been reviewed so that it could be understood that no further changes were needed beyond the waiver issue. The Coordinator stated that everything discussed at the last meeting was on the most current plan. She added that it was the Selectmen’s request that notes be added to the plan which described exactly what would be offered by the proposed business. Linda Pothier concurred that these specifics had been added so that if, for example, as horse show was held on their grounds and the
trailers damaged the Class VI road it could be confirmed that this usage was not on the Non-Residential Site Plan. She added that she wanted to have assurance that if a neighbor wanted the road improved even if the proposed business had not caused any damage to the road that they could not be forced to make upgrades. Michael Pare added that another scenario would be that a neighbor wishing to subdivide their property and have the road upgraded could place the responsibility on them to make road upgrades because of this application. The Chairman did not think such a scenario was likely. The Coordinator stated that there were many ways to improve a Class VI road to Class V standards, one being a betterment assessment by the Town which could happen at any time and where the neighbors along the road were charged a portion of the total upgrade cost. Linda Pothier noted that they had upgraded their road in the past at their own cost and voluntarily only to
see those improvements inadvertently disturbed by other neighbors on the road. She asked at what point any upgrades they made were protected. The Chairman replied that this was a question for the Selectmen. Michael Pare thanked the Board for their time. Christine Quirk stated that the applicants should contact the Town Administrator on the following day to request time on the Selectmen’s Agenda whose next meeting was Monday, May 1, 2006.
Christine Quirk MOVED to adjourn the application of Linda Pothier and Michael Pare, Public Hearing/NRSPR/Kennel/Boarding/Riding Stable, Location: 40 Helena Drive, Tax Map/Lot #3/21, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to May 9, 2006, at 9:45 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman appointed alternates Don Duhaime and Douglas Hill as voting members of the Board for this evening.
SHB PROPERTIES, LLC
Submission of Application/Preliminary Hearing
Major Subdivision/7 Lots
Location: Pulpit and Bedford Roads
Tax Map/Lot #12/65
Residential-One “R-1” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Jim Edwards of Meridien Land Services and Tom Sauser and Jeff Hudson of SHB Properties, LLC. Interested parties present were Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission and Ken Lombard, Open Space Committee. Abutters present were Bill Weston and Mark Ciarla.
Cynthia Wilson requested a copy of the plan for the Conservation Commission. Jim Edwards provided Cynthia Wilson a copy. Jim Edwards stated that the site was located in the vicinity of the Bedford, Goffstown and New Boston town line convergence. He noted nearby Pulpit Road which he explained traveled off Bedford Road and turned into a Class VI road as did nearby Campbell Pond Road on the south side of Bedford Road. Jim Edwards explained that the applicant proposed to subdivide the site into 7 residential lots and access same by a new proposed cul-de-sac road which would be constructed off Bedford Road. He explained that this would require eliminating a segment of the Class VI portion of Pulpit Road to the Ciarla’s property, upgrading a portion to Class V
and leaving Pulpit Road to the Bedford, NH town line Class VI. Jim Edwards noted that because the site was in the R-1 zone the minimum lot size required was 1.5 acres which required that a 150’ square be on the lots at the front setback lines. He added that the proposed easements that would be needed along the new proposed section of Pulpit Road were detailed on the plans along with topographic mapping, soils and test pits. Jim Edwards further added that 4 K areas were found to be suitable for subsurface systems and three wetland crossings were identified and detailed. He stated that the grades along the proposed road were gentle at 1% and its cul-de-sac length was within the maximum length requirement. Jim Edwards noted that the positioning of the proposed road allowed for ample sight distance in both directions onto Bedford Road and that construction details and cross sections were also provided on the plan set. He addressed the wetland
crossings for the lots and stated that the crossings for Lot #’s 12/65-5 and 12/65-6 were along narrow points at the end of the cul-de-sac. Jim Edwards added that the driveway to Lot #12/65-8, was proposed off Bedford Road. He noted that erosion and sediment control had been addressed for all the driveways and home sites. Jim Edwards wondered if it would be possible to access Lot #12/65-8 by way of an easement through another lot rather than have the driveway off Bedford Road. Douglas Hill asked the location of New Boston Road in relation to the site. Jim Edwards noted its location on the plan. Cynthia Wilson asked Jim Edwards to note the locations of the wetland crossings again and he did so. Douglas Hill asked what types of houses were proposed for the subdivision. Jeff Hudson said that he was unsure of the styles but they would be single family homes. Bob Furey asked what the sight distance was onto Bedford Road from
the proposed road. Jim Edwards replied that there was 400’ of sight distance to the south and 390’ of sight distance to the north. He noted that the access to Lot #12/65-8 was at the extreme southern portion of the lot and at the highest point, therefore, afforded adequate sight distance. Bob Furey asked the reasoning behind not continuing the proposed cul-de-sac through to Bedford, NH. Christine Quirk replied that the Selectmen wished that a portion remain a Class VI road as they did not want through traffic from Bedford, NH. Cynthia Wilson wished to point out that another subdivision was currently being applied for on the Plantier parcel which was located across the street from this one with several homes and driveways off Bedford Road. Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, asked if there was a physical connection to the Bedford, NH, side of town from the site. Jim Edwards pointed out the location of an existing culvert which was
currently in disarray but noted that it was most likely walkable. Roch Larochelle asked what the basis of the discussion was with the Selectmen regarding keeping the new proposed portion Class VI. Christine Quirk replied that the Selectmen’s concern was that for the first part of Pulpit Road which would be totally abandoned the abutters needed to submit letters to the Selectmen that they were happy with the road change. She added that the purpose of not having a through road to Bedford was related to future planning and the fact that a through road was not desired at this time
Jim Edwards stated that the proposed wetland crossings would require a Conditional Use Permit from the Board. Cynthia Wilson clarified that an agent of the applicant had been advised at a recent Conservation Committee meeting that the wetland crossings could not be expedited until the Board approved the permits. She added that NH Fish and Game was stressing that open box culverts be used in environmentally sensitive areas such as the nearby Plantier parcel that may be habitat for species such as Blandings turtles as identified in a biodiversity study done for the nearby New Boston Tracking Station. Douglas Hill noted that Section V-V of the Subdivision Regulations stated that suitable building envelopes must be shown on the plan when detailing stormwater management plans. Jim Edwards clarified that this item was now detailed on sheet #11 of the plan. He added that in regard to open box culverts discussion with other towns and NH DES had revealed that natural bottom
culverts had a tendency to wash out and thus become a safety concern in the event of a severe storm. Jim Edwards explained that in light of this they usually proposed oversize culverts with natural materials put back in the bottom in the event of excessive storm impacts. Cynthia Wilson asked who would be responsible for replacing the gravel bottoms of these culverts after a big storm. Cynthia Wilson felt that ultimately this matter would be a discussion to be had between NH DES and the applicant. Roch Larochelle offered that if inverts were sunk 6” below flow line in the culverts then normal flow would replace any materials lost due to storm impacts. Jim Edwards commented that he felt natural bottom culverts could compromise the integrity of a new road. Roch Larochelle noted that NH DES still struggled with how to address issues such as this.
The Chairman stated that a site walk was warranted and asked if wetlands on the site were marked. Jim Edwards replied that the wetlands were flagged by numbers and that he could station the centerline of the proposed road also. A site walk was scheduled for May 13, 2006, at 8:30 a.m. Jim Edwards then returned to the subject of Lot #12/65-8 and asked if the Board would consider an easement through another proposed lot in order to provide driveway access from the cul-de-sac. The Chairman asked if Lot #12/65-8 had room to provide for its own driveway. Jim Edwards replied that it did but that the building site would have to be at the back of the lot. The Chairman suggested that instead of an easement a 50’ path were used and then Lot #12/65-8 would not
be a backlot because it would have frontage on Bedford Road. He noted that the driveway for this lot and a neighboring proposed lot would then run parallel to each other and be in close proximity but that was not necessarily undesirable. The Chairman noted that even a 25’ path connecting to the cul-de-sac should be ample for plowing and not disturbing other properties.
Abutter Bill Weston was present and stated that he had no comments regarding the application. Abutter Mark Ciarla stated that he supported the applicant’s proposal and the fact that it would turn the existing beginning portion of Pulpit Road over to the residents.
Bob Furey MOVED to adjourn the application of SHB Properties, LLC, Major Subdivision, 7 Lots, Location: Pulpit and Bedford Roads, Tax Map/Lot #12/65, Residential-One “R-1” District, to May 23, 2006, at 9:30 p.m. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
DONALD E. GARRETSON (APPLICANT/OWNER) Adjourned from 3/28/06
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC., RICK MARTIN (APPLICANT)
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/20 Lots
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 52
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Pat Panciocco, Esq., and the applicant Rick Martin. Abutters and interested parties present were Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, Kim Burkhamer, Pat Golding, Mike Ryan, Esq., Rick Searle, Cynthia Wilson, Ken Lombard and Tom Clapp.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that an ongoing issue of the plan was how to configure the proposed intersection at “Pasture Road” and because it had been determined that the entranceway to the subdivision could not be accessed by an originally proposed 50’ strip the plan was revised to show the entrance off an existing crest on Beard Road which offered the required 390’ of sight distance. He stressed that they were working with a situation that was non-standard but was existing. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that there were approximately 16-17 areas of deficiency on Bedford Road where AASHTO standards were not met and that such deficiencies were common on older roads. He added that the existing deficiency at the crest of Beard Road was not being
made worse by the intersection proposal which was likely to encourage traffic on the road to slow down more as it approached this area. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that he did not see how using the existing vertical curve at this location would create a worse situation and, in contrast, if the crest were shaved down some sight lines would be lost. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that with the proposed intersection drainage in that area of Beard Road would be improved. He added that the applicant had also obtained sight easements on the opposite side of Beard Road from the proposed entranceway to the subdivision. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that a decision from the Board as to whether this proposed location would work was necessary so that the applicant knew if he should go forward with that design. He added that he felt this proposal presented significant improvement regarding sight distance unless the existing vertical curve was still an issue for
the Board. Douglas Hill asked what the sight distance was from the intersection with the current design. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that it was 390’ in both directions. He stressed that this design met the required sight distance using an existing situation where, for example, another subdivision in Town, Susan Road, had created a sub-standard situation when that road was constructed. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, reiterated that in the applicant’s case Beard Road would benefit from several improvements due to this proposal such as the road being widened, resurfaced, have improved drainage and no volume issues with snow storage during winter plowing.
The Chairman asked what surfacing was proposed. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that originally a gravel shimmed surface was proposed. Pat Panciocco, Esq., noted that the Coordinator had prepared an offsite calculation for improvements to Beard Road proportionate to the impacts forseen. She added that she herself had done a similar calculation for either condexes or single family homes and arrived at a similar figure of approximately $92-97K and suggested that this money could be paid to the Town to use as they saw fit when they came around to identifying what types of improvements they wanted done. Pat Panciocco, Esq., noted that the offsite improvements proposed in the plan no longer included paving Beard Road to a certain point but rather involved gravel
surfacing, cutting slopes, drainage, etc. She explained that because paving out to NH Route 77 had become a questionable issue regarding what areas would be paved the applicant felt it more appropriate to give the money calculated to the Town. Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, asked if the $97K proposed was above and beyond the
improvements shown on the plan. Pat Panciocco, Esq., replied that it was. Roch Larochelle requested a copy of Pat Panciocco’s, Esq.’s, calculation for the Road Committee. He asked if the traffic numbers were based on 42 standard condex units or an over age 55 community. Pat Panciocco, Esq., replied that the over age 55 community was not a proposal any longer as it skewed the numbers. She noted that single family homes saw an average 10.66 trips per day while each duplex would have 6.57 trips per day or 13 trips per structure, therefore, the calculations of the two scenarios were somewhat similar. Pat Panciocco, Esq., added that she had submitted her calculations to the Board for their review and noted that the results were close to that of the Coordinator’s. Douglas Hill asked
when the applicant would make a decision regarding the types of structures proposed. Rick Martin replied that the $97K improvement money was based on the duplex calculation, therefore, used the higher number. Pat Panciocco, Esq., hoped that in conceding to this higher amount the applicant could make incremental payments that coincided with obtaining Building Permits, however, she understood that this decision would be at the Board’s discretion. Mike Ryan, Esq., stated that he represented some concerned residents on Beard Road and asked what the sight distance would be for a car traveling left onto Beard Road from NH Route 13 at the intersection point looking towards NH Route 77. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that the sight distance would be 390’
Roch Larochelle assumed that the proposed $97K would not go towards the widening of the road as that was already on the plan. He asked what extent of linear distance would be involved in the widening. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that although not addressed on the plan 50’ of slope easement or right-of-way would most likely be agreeable. Pat Panciocco, Esq., noted that this would be assuming that it would be in the applicant’s ability to grant. Douglas Hill asked what the traffic counts would be exiting the subdivision and turning right towards NH Route 13 if duplexes versus single family homes were proposed. Pat Panciocco, Esq, replied that it would be 276 cars for 21 duplexes or 42 units added to existing traffic on Beard Road of 230 cars per
day or 224 cars for single family homes again added to the daily 230 cars. Mike Ryan, Esq., noted that if the applicant considered duplexes the Board should also consider the low density recommendation outlined in the Master Plan for property on Beard Road. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that there was a significant amount of open space proposed on the plan and that he thought density should be based on houses per acre. Pat Panciocco, Esq., added that she was not sure that the Master Plan modified Zoning requirements. Roch Larochelle asked if a fair share assessment determination had been made according to what was considered to be the full build out potential of Beard Road.
The Chairman stated that the first topic the Board needed to address this evening was the proposal of the intersection location as this was the pivotal point of the application. Roch Larochelle noted that an important item raised at the last meeting with the applicant was that the assessed fair share cost should use present costs for road improvements. He added that the Road Committee had also requested an estimate from the applicant regarding what would be required to drop Beard Road’s grade and make it conform to AASHTO standards because in a fair share assessment some of the funds could be used to do so. Douglas Hill noted that the Board voting on the feasibility of the intersection design did not negate those issues. Roch Larochelle thought
that both items should be considered together. Pat Panciocco, Esq., asked if Roch Larochelle was implying that the Town may wish to make their own road improvements concurrently with the applicant’s construction on the road. Roch Larochelle replied that his thinking was that making the intersection as good as it could be was the goal of the Town. The Chairman agreed that a goal of the Town could be to better the proposed intersection further using the fair share contribution provided by the applicant.
Roch Larochelle asked why the intersection sight distance would lessen if the existing crest was graded down. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, explained that at the top of the crest one was better able to look down onto the road whereas if the crest were dropped a flatter vantage point would impinge on sight lines. Douglas Hill asked what the sight distance would be from the intersection if the K values on Beard Road were adjusted to meet AASHTO standards. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, guessed that the sight distance would be approximately 350’ which was what had been included on a previous plan design. Rick Martin noted that the prior plan design covered these issues, however, the Board did not want to allow usage of the proposed 50’ strip. Roch Larochelle stated
that the intersection was currently proposed at an optimum location but the stopping sight distance it provided was unsatisfactory and not safe for through traffic. He noted that traveling east and taking a left turn into the development allowed a car to see an oncoming vehicle but not the one or two cars that may be behind it. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, thought that the presence of the intersection would provide a slowing effect to through traffic. Roch Larochelle noted that distinctions existed between stopping sight distance and sight distance. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, wished to clarify that stopping sight distance was considered a convenience beyond sight distance and not a safety issue once 250’ of sight line distance was achieved. Roch Larochelle commented that this was not necessarily good design practice. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that he agreed but using the initial K values on Beard Road in previous designs the required
390’ of sight distance was not attainable, therefore, the applicant revised the plans to the current design and sought the Board’s vote. He noted that if the Board preferred that Beard Road be lowered more than 3% in grade at the location of the proposed intersection then AASHTO standards could not be satisfied as 390’ of sight distance would not be available. Pat Panciocco, Esq., stated that other than the K value issue this design satisfied AASHTO standards. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE noted that one stipulation that would be needed was that a shoulder of Beard and Pasture Roads be plowed 4’ in for 75’ starting from the point at the intersection so that sight distance was not impacted during the winter season. The Chairman asked if this stipulation went beyond the capabilities of the wing feature on a Town plow truck as the Highway Department should not be required to plow the road under special instructions. Earl
Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that this would not exceed the Town’s standard plowing capabilities and added that a swale would be cut to accommodate the snow. He explained that 22’ was the normal width of a paved road and the applicant was requesting 4 additional feet onto the shoulder, therefore, as the truck plowed the flare points at the proposed intersection the wing would then be dropped for an additional 50’.
Roch Larochelle asked if sight lines at the proposed intersection were measured 10’ or 14’ from the edge of pavement. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that the sight lines were measured 14’ back from the edge of the pavement at a height of 3’6”. Douglas Hill commented that the applicant’s cost per linear foot in the offsite improvement calculation seemed low at $65.00 and felt that $85-$90.00 per linear foot seemed more accurate. The Chairman agreed that the cost submitted seemed low, however, the applicant was not looking for a decision on what the fair share coast should be at tonight’s meeting and, rather, wished to know if the intersection design proposed was workable.
Don Duhaime wondered if the existing crest could be lowered somewhat to a point where it would not be necessary for the Town to grade off 4’ of Beard Road to rebuild it at a later date. The Chairman noted that the Board was not approving anything tonight but asked if Don Duhaime was in favor of lowering the crest which would slightly compromise the availability of 390’ of sight distance, thereby lowering the scope of criteria. Don Duhaime replied that as proposed the intersection was not safe and simpler adjustments to rectify the issue should be explored. The Chairman asked if Don Duhaime would be agreeable to having the crest adjusted even though 40’ of sight distance could be lost. Don Duhaime asked if this sight distance would be lost to the
west of the intersection down Beard Road. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that 40’ of sight distance would be lost in both directions. Don Duhaime did not think that losing 40’ of sight distance presented an issue in contrast to problems he could foresee in the future if the Town decided that they wanted to make further improvements to Beard Road. Bob Furey stated that he questioned, as Roch Larochelle had, why dropping the existing crest at the proposed intersection would compromise sight distance. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, explained that the sight distance afforded by the vertical height of the crest would be lessened as the grade was dropped. Roch Larochelle clarified that the approach to an existing curve in Beard Road would then be approached more quickly if the crest were dropped thus limiting sight distance. Douglas Hill asked how low the crest would need to drop to meet AASHTO standards. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied
that it would need to drop 5’ which was what had been proposed in the applicant’s previous design. Roch Larochelle noted that in order to obtain 390’ of sight distance once the crest was dropped Beard Road would have to be graded down for a significant distance. Bob Furey asked if in lieu of the $97K proposed as a fair share cost would the applicant still be responsible for building the intersection and improving Beard Road. The Chairman clarified that the $97K was really intended for road improvements turning right out of the proposed intersection towards NH Route 13 and that the applicant was responsible per his plan for making improvements at the location of the proposed intersection and down to the paved portion of Beard Road as it approached NH Route 77. Pat Panciocco, Esq., clarified that the improvements proposed on the plan did not include any paving on the applicant’s part and that this would be up to the Town to decide if
they wished to use a portion of the $97K to do so. Roch Larochelle noted that this was why it was critical that the offsite improvement calculation reference current construction costs. The Chairman reiterated that he realized $65 per linear foot was inadequate as a fair share cost, however, this was not an issue that would be considered this evening and the applicant needed direction on whether the intersection as proposed was a workable design and as good as it could be given the existing conditions on Beard Road so that the Town would not have to make corrective improvements to it at a later date. The Coordinator offered that in legal issues the Board sought Town Counsel’s opinion, therefore, technical design issues such as what was being discussed this evening could benefit from input by the whole Road Committee and the Town Engineer. The Chairman agreed that seeking such opinion could be an alternative vote by the Board this evening. Rick
Martin stated that he had addressed the Board’s concern at previous meetings by finding a solution to the sight distance issue and now that he had 390’, more issues were arising. The Chairman noted that the difference now was that the applicant had obtained additional land and possibly had the ability to further improve the intersection design. Rick Martin replied that the design was the best it could be and felt that he had satisfied his obligations. He added that if the Board wanted the crest dropped by 3’ then he was agreeable, however, he would need concessions on the 390’ sight distance requirement. Interested party Kim Burkhamer noted that although Beard Road was a secondary road in the Town the applicant’s proposal would double its traffic volume, therefore, the intersection should be as safe as it could be. Pat Panciocco, Esq., stressed that the crest at the proposed intersection was an existing condition and the
applicant was willing to work with the Town and, possibly, as a more effective measure, in conjunction with the Town, to make improvements. The Chairman asked if paving were done for a short distance to the right of the intersection towards NH Route 13 what impacts that would have on the proposed intersection and if speeds would tend to increase and/or a safer scenario be created. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, believed that safety might be decreased as paving might encourage higher speeds.
Interested party Rick Searle asked how dropping the grade on Beard Road would affect his driveway. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, pointed out on the plan that Mr. Searle’s driveway was further down Beard Road and not in a location that would be affected if the grade were lowered. Roch Larochelle asked if the applicant would be given permission to construct embankments on the north side of Beard Road which would be necessary in addition to slope easements in the vicinity of Mrs. Boyle’s property. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that he was unsure of that answer. Roch Larochelle stated that dropping Beard Road would require easements as it would not appear to work within the existing right-of-way. The Chairman asked Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, if he could discuss the
reality of what could be done on Beard Road considering that the applicant owned property along one side and had adequate width available but without obtaining further easements on the northern side. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that dropping the grade meant losing sight distance. The Chairman asked what the case would be if the road could be realigned. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that it was more a function of the vertical curve and not side to side shifting of the road.
Mike Ryan, Esq., thought that the applicant should be asked how much he was willing to decrease the number of units in the development and how the Board could be willing to lower required standards so that this applicant could maximize his profits. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that there was no standard in writing that stated an applicant was required to improve existing roads. Don Duhaime stated that two months prior the applicant was proposing a cul-de-sac subdivision with a couple of driveways off Beard Road which he thought was the best proposal. He added that subsequently the applicant purchased more land and proposed more units which brought the plan to the current issues being discussed. Don Duhaime suggested that
if the Board was not satisfied with this plan then they should return to the cul-de-sac
proposal and he felt a compromise on this issue might never be reached. Pat Panciocco, Esq., recalled that the Board would need to consider a waiver to the cul-de-sac length for that proposal. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the Board’s consensus had been that the additional length would be approved. Don Duhaime replied that the original proposal had been a condominium complex at that point and he did not think it should be the Town road maintenance responsibility. The Chairman added that for the purposes of the application the applicant had based his traffic study on single family lots in an R-A District. Rick Martin agreed that he was leaving his options open regarding the type of subdivision which was his right. Roch Larochelle asked what the position of the Fire Wards had been regarding
the cul-de-sac proposal. The Chairman replied that the Fire Wards are always concerned about the proposed length of cul-de-sacs in the event of an emergency if power lines were down. Rick Martin noted that he had proposed underground utilities, a cistern and fire sprinkler systems for the structures. The Chairman recalled that a waiver to the cul-de-sac length had been discussed. Rick Martin agreed. The Chairman asked Bob Furey his opinion of the current plan. Bob Furey replied that given the arguments presented this evening he did not think that he could vote in favor of the current design although there may be a compromise. Christine Quirk stated that she was relying heavily on the Road Committee’s input regarding the proposed design and was still not confident in the safety of the road. Douglas Hill stated that Beard Road would eventually see further improvements and felt that it was short sighted to consider a short term
benefit of a cul-de-sac design over an intersection and fair share cost contribution. The Chairman agreed and clarified that whether the intersection was constructed or not the traffic volumes would evolve and with the proposed intersection constructed improvements would be made along Beard Road including drainage upgrades, therefore, it would be more beneficial to have the intersection than not have it. Roch Larochelle stated that operationally he would rather see two intersections as the design could improve existing conditions while taking advantage of the land available. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that they would make judgments on applicable compromises before the next meeting. Douglas Hill asked if the Town Engineer, Road Committee and applicant could arrange to meet before the next scheduled meeting with the Board. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that with the Board’s support on compromises discussed they would run into less conflict
when discussing the same topics with Dufresne-Henry, Inc. He asked if these compromises were explored but determined to be unfeasible if the Board would be against the applicant returning to the proposed cul-de-sac design. The Chairman replied that if that became the case the Board would not be disagreeable. Rick Martin asked if the Board was willing to compromise on the 390’ sight distance requirement. Douglas Hill replied that with the Road Committee’s support he would be willing to accept a lesser measure of sight distance. Roch Larochelle noted that accepting a lesser measure would depend on what type of compromise was presented. The Chairman added that the road design and modifications would need to benefit the Town in the area of the proposed intersection and create a better situation for traffic on the road now and in the future. Douglas Hill asked if another plan was presented if the Road Committee would be willing to
write another letter of opinion to the Town Engineer. Roch Larochelle replied that the Road Committee was always willing to do so. Mike Ryan, Esq., noted that with no intersection proposed the Town could still take the money offered for offsite improvements independent of the design presented. The Chairman replied that this was true, however, the same traffic volume needed to be considered.
Pat Panciocco, Esq., agreed to extend the Board’s deadline for action on the application to June 30, 2006.
Christine Quirk MOVED to adjourn the application of Donald E. Garretson (Applicant/Owner) and Right Way Builders, Inc., Rick Martin (Applicant), Major Subdivision, 20 Lots, Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 52, Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, to May 23, 2006, at 9:45 p.m. and June 13, 2006, at 8:30 p.m. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
DUKE PHILIP J. & HOLLIS A. (OWNER) Adjourned from 3/28/06
STRATEGIC CONTRACTING, LLC (APPLICANT)
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/4 Lots
Location: McCurdy & Joe English Roads
Tax Map/Lot #11/77
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Ray Shea of Sandford Survey and Engineering who represented the applicant. Also present was applicant Rob Starace of Strategic Consulting, LLC. An interested party was Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission. No abutters were present.
Ray Shea stated that at the previous meeting the plan design was submitted under Subdivision Regulations in place prior to the March, 2006, vote by the Town and the Board had allowed a continuance in order that the new Regulations could be incorporated onto the plan. He added that a site walk was conducted two weeks prior. Ray Shea stated that 3 lots met the 0.5 acre requirement for developable area while the fourth lot (#11/77-1) came up short, and, therefore, had its own stormwater management plan which showed the proposed house and leach field location that would meet requirements. He noted that the stormwater management plan was submitted a couple of weeks ago and provided a chart with the proposed driveway location and its sight distance which was adequate. He
added that trimming trees in the nearby area would increase that sight distance somewhat. Ray Shea noted that the applicant had requested waivers to the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies which could not be considered at the last meeting as the plan needed to be updated to the new Regulations before being accepted as complete.
Christine Quirk MOVED to grant the waivers requested for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies and to accept the application as complete. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that he had no issues with the application and felt that the building lots were good ones. Christine Quirk agreed. The Coordinator asked Ray Shea about cost estimates. Ray Shea stated that Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, and Dave Elliot had spoken with the Planning Department regarding how the cost estimates would be prepared for bonding purposes which would ensure that stormwater issues were addressed on Lot #11/77-1. He asked if the bond needed to be submitted prior to the plan’s approval or at the time when Certificates of Occupancy were requested. The Coordinator replied that it was envisioned that lots needing individual stormwater management plans at the time of subdivision would submit bonding as a condition of the subdivision approval
while any lots at the building permit stage would submit then. The Chairman noted that a second 200’ square had to be added to Lot #11/77. Ray Shea clarified that per the Coordinator’s research it was determined that one was needed and it was sketched onto the plan and accommodated by making a slight jog in the lot line.
Bob Furey asked if Ray Shea could review Lot #11/77-1. Ray Shea explained that while much of the area had slopes under 15% the heavy lined area on the plan noted areas in the 16-17% slope range. He noted that an option to move the lot line in order to gain a 0.5 acre of contiguous flat land was considered but they felt it was better to leave the lot as it was with its proposed driveway and leach field locations as they would be 50’ from wetlands which would only require a silt fence. Bob Furey asked if a level spreader would be proposed. Ray Shea, LLS, replied that it would not be needed as the area was not large and could be graded out properly. He noted that the construction on the lot would not change the direction of existing sheet flows. Ray
Shea added that the driveway to the lot was very flat and would run parallel using existing contours.
Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission, stated that a member of the Conservation Commission had attended the site walk and saw no issues. The Chairman asked what form the security would be for the application. Ray Shea replied that it would be cash. Rob Starace asked what the procedure was for bonding reduction. The Chairman explained that this was considered once compliance of the sight was confirmed. The Coordinator clarified that the engineer for the project would need to sign a statement confirming that all work done on the site had complied with the plan as approved and once that statement was submitted CO’s would be issued and the bond reduced or released.
Bob Furey MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plan of Philip J. & Hollis A. Duke, Major Subdivision, 4 Lots, Tax Map #11/77, Joe English & McCurdy Roads, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of five (5) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Submission of security for the ISWMP in the amount of $5,610.00 and in the form of a check.
4. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
5. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application, including the cost of recording documents at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be July 31, 2006, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted 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. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #’s 06-006, 06-007, 06-008 and 06-009, for proposed driveways, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the driveway shall have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft) from the centerline of the road; the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of twenty foot (20’) radii minimum; and, the driveways shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Informational session with Jim Eggers, New Boston Tavern, to discuss a change in use of the Neville Hall building (currently Little Peoples Depot).
Present for this discussion was Jim and Matt Eggers. Jim Eggers stated that he would like to discuss the potential uses for Neville Mill Hall noting that he wished to convert the building into a pub which would allow for non-smoking in the main restaurant and a conversion of its current pub into a lounge area. He added that he had met with the State Health Department to discuss what would be allowable for liquor. He was under the impression that a change in Zoning would be required as the present permit was for catering/school. The Chairman asked what Zone Neville Mill Hall was in. Jim Eggers replied that it was in a Commercial zone. Matt Eggers noted that “bar” or “tavern” was not listed under the Commercial Zoning Regulations. From the audience, Roch Larochelle thought that this would be covered under a business serving food in New Hampshire. Matt Eggers agreed that they were most likely covered under their catering license if this was the case. Jim Eggers stated
that he would propose a covered walkway between the main restaurant and pub so that from a liquor and food service permitting standpoint it would be considered one building. The walkway could also serve as a waiting area for restaurant patrons. The Chairman thought that a proposed pub would fall under the broad scope of a restaurant in a Commercial zone. Jim Eggers stated that he would like to eventually expand the pub’s offerings to include pool, darts, video games, televisions and possibly future activities directly outside such as horseshoes and volleyball which would be where the current preschool’s playground was now located.
The Chairman asked if the parking that would be required with the expansion to a pub was calculated. Jim Eggers replied that he had 43 parking spaces currently and had spoken withJim Dodge regarding the expansion of the parking area to the abutting grassy field. He noted that this field was currently used to handle overflow parking but became muddy at times, therefore, he had discussed resurfacing with hard pack with Jim Dodge and this would add an additional 39 to 40 spaces. He noted that the expected increase in patronage for the pub was 70 persons seated or 90 standing and this was calculated as 73 total parking spaces needed for the pub and restaurant based on the 3:1 ratio in the Zoning Ordinance which he met with a proposed 79 spots after parking expansion.
Roch Larochelle asked Mr. Eggers if he had reviewed the State Driveway Permit restrictions. Jim Eggers replied that he had not. Roch Larochelle explained that Mr. Eggers would need to speak with District 5 as his restaurant was located on a State route. The Chairman noted that this would be a requirement of the Board also at the time an application was submitted.
Douglas Hill asked if the current septic would be compromised by the proposed pub. Jim Eggers replied that it would not and that the current system was 50’ X 50’/15,000 gallons which accommodated 100 people. He noted that he would like to expand one corner of Neville Mill Hall outwards into the current garden area at the front to square off the building and add a location for a large cooler. Jim Eggers noted that this would not impact any parking area and would square off the building while addressing an ongoing drainage problem under the bathrooms. The Chairman asked if the parking lot would remain gravel. Jim Eggers replied that for the short term it would. The Chairman noted that paving the parking lot would increase runoff and was not
preferred noting that gravel allowed for gradual absorption. Jim Eggers asked how much exterior lighting would be required as the parking expanded. The Chairman replied that the present lighting seemed satisfactory and as he recalled was not intensive. Jim Eggers noted that he would equalize the lighting as parking area was expanded.
Jim Eggers stated that he would do construction specifics for the site. The Chairman explained that the Board would require a Site Plan with a footprint for the proposed expansion of Neville Mill Hall. Jim Eggers noted that in 1997 a Site Plan was prepared in conjunction with the Library issue and again in 1998 by Sandford Survey and Engineering for the septic system. He added that he had prepared a composite sketch that combined the two plans. The Chairman asked if the composite sketch was done to the appropriate scale. Jim Eggers replied that they were but that he would speak with Sandford Survey and Engineering to confirm the specs but wondered if the Board would accept what he had drawn up or if he would have to hire a certified draftsman. The Chairman
replied that he would think the plans would suffice, however, if they were modified by the applicant they could not have an old stamp on them. Jim Eggers stated he would take the stamp off. Bob Furey asked if Mr. Eggers had copies of the Non Residential Site Plan Review so that he was aware of what was required on the plan. Jim Eggers replied that he did. He thanked the Board for their input.
Christine Quirk recused herself as her application was up next.
QUIRK, THOMAS P.
FRIENDLY BEAVER CAMPGROUND
Compliance Hearing/Subdivision & NRSPR/10 Tent Sites
Location: 88 Cochran Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #7/11
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Christine Quirk and her sons, Wayne and Barry Charrest.
The Chairman asked if the outstanding fee of $91.00 had been paid. The Coordinator replied that it had. The Chairman asked for clarification that the revised plans were supposed to show a single handicapped ramp and remaining gravel and side slope work. The Coordinator explained that some site work was still required around the building at the campground. Christine Quirk clarified that since that was noted they had obtained their new bobcat and all remaining work was done. The Chairman accepted Christine Quirk’s confirmation.
Bob Furey MOVED to confirm that Thomas P. Quirk, Friendly Beaver Campground, has complied with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan to expand the existing campground by adding ten tent sites, Tax Map/Lot #7/11, 88 Cochran Hill Road and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Hand amendment of the existing approved plan relative to the handicapped ramp.
The deadline date for amendment of the plans shall be May 31, 2006.
Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 25, 2006
1. Approval of minutes of March 28, 2006, with or without changes, distributed at the April 11, 2006, meeting. (No Copies)
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of March 28, 2006, as written. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Driveway Permit Application for Norman & Barbara Gagnon, Laurel Lane, Tax Map/Lot #12/110-1, for the Board’s action. (Drive by prior to meeting)
The Chairman recalled that the Road Agent had issues regarding the above noted driveway’s location on the site. The Coordinator stated that Board member James Nordstrom had driven by the site and did not think that there was adequate sight distance to the south from the driveway. He had noted that if the driveway was relocated more towards the middle of the lot frontage further toward an existing curve in the roadway then sight distance would be satisfactory. The Board agreed and stated that the Gagnons should be required to submit an amended driveway permit application.
3. Discussion, Re: Travis Daniel’s Planning Board member status.
The Coordinator stated that Travis Daniels had informed her that because he was not able to attend meetings on a regular basis anymore he would be willing to become an alternate Board member if a current alternate would like his position. Don Duhaime agreed to apply for full member status. The Coordinator noted that this would need to be ratified by the Selectmen and would forward a letter to them from the Board. She added that Board officers needed to be elected at the Board’s next meeting and that it was possible that James Nordstrom would not be able to continue in his current position of Vice Chairman. She noted that the Board should plan to arrive at the next meeting at 6:45 p.m. to elect officers.
4. Copies of miscellaneous correspondence, Re: Steven R. Ouellette, Carriage Road Tax Map/Lot #12/93-30, circular driveway, were distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator stated that the above noted correspondence stated that the Ouellettes had been given consent to build a circular driveway on their lot by the Road Agent at the time. She asked what measures the Board wanted to take given this information. Douglas Hill noted that another resident of Carriage Road had been notified that they needed to remove their circular driveway. The Coordinator explained that those residents procedurally applied for a circular driveway which was then denied which was in contrast to this case where these residents felt they received the implied consent of a Town official (the Road Agent) without mention of the standard permitting process. The Chairman felt that the driveway should have been built according to what was detailed on the
Driveway Permit. Don Duhaime added that the implied consent could be considered hearsay and asked if the Road Agent had been consulted on the matter. The Planning Assistant replied that the Road Agent had not seen the letter of correspondence but that she believed that this driveway had never received final approval even though a Certificate of Occupancy was issued. Don Duhaime felt that better proof of the consent should be submitted. The Board determined that they would seek Town Counsel’s opinion on this matter.
5. A copy of a letter dated April 18, 2006, from Dennis Sarette, Building and Zoning Official, Re: Commercial use and propane recycling, 89B Clark Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/119, was distributed for the Board’s information.
6. A copy of the Notice of Decision from the Zoning Board of Adjustment, Re: Carol Hayse and Richard Herget, Tax Map/Lot #14/128, was distributed for the Board’s information.
7. A copy of a letter received April 19, 2006, to Peter Hogan, Planning Board Chairman, from Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, Re: Planning Board Appointment, was distributed for the Board’s information.
8. The minutes of April 11, 2006, were distributed for approval at the meeting of May 9, 2006, with or without changes.
9. Discussion, Re: site plan amendment for Right Way Builders, Friendly Haven Farm, Tax Map/Lot #5/29, Beard Road.
The Coordinator explained that the condex on the site was not yet completed but it had been determined by the applicant that the proposed parking for the units which had been approved on the plan did not offer enough privacy at the rear of the condex, therefore, he proposed to amend the plan by moving the parking spaces to the setback line and constructing walkways to the units at the front of the lot. The Chairman asked if this meant that the parking spaces would be relocated to the area of the retaining wall on the plan. The Coordinator replied that was correct. She asked if the Board preferred to schedule a hearing to discuss this change or if the revision could be considered on Miscellaneous Business at a subsequent meeting. Christine Quirk thought that the
revision could be considered on Miscellaneous Business since a site walk to determine compliance was still needed.
10. Endorsement of a Condex Site Plan for Salisbury Crossings, Hopkins Road, Tax Map/Lot #13/15, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman and Board member, Bob Furey (in the Secretary and Vice Chairman’s absence) endorsed the above noted Condex Site Plan.
11. The Coordinator stated that Dennis Sarrette had resigned as Building Inspector and that an interim inspector, Ed Hunter, who had been a fire inspector in Goffstown, NH, had taken his place until a permanent Building Inspector could be hired. Christine Quirk noted that she had spoken with Building Department Assistant Shannon Silver and offered the consultation services of her husband Thomas Quirk, if needed, to help with any electrical questions as he was a master electrician and the interim inspector had no electrical or plumbing experience.
12. The Coordinator stated that 49 people attended the recent Master Plan meeting which went well and discussed topics including future land use. She noted that Southern New Hampshire Planning was scheduled first on the Agenda for the Board meeting of May 25, 2006, and wished to discuss the potential of getting a committee to work on Regulations once the Master Plan was finalized. The Coordinator added that it was very important that Planning Board members participate in this aspect as they referenced the Regulations all the time. She further added that on June 13, 2006, the Master Plan Committee would present the Master Plan and that the Board would receive copies beforehand so that constructive discussion could ensue.
The Chairman asked if the Master Plan Committee had discussed the topic of low income housing as he had recently read an article in a Goffstown, NH, newspaper that asked how the New Boston Planning Board could be so concerned about low income housing and support the recent re-zoning of two lots that had the status of Manufactured Home Park. The Coordinator replied that a misconception regarding affordable housing was that it implied poverty level residents when it was geared more toward middle class income since the average home costs in New Boston had risen to the point that a family income needed to be at least $112K to support a mortgage.
13. The Coordinator stated that the Driveway Regulations were on the agenda for the next meeting date of May 9, 2006, and that Board members should let the Planning Assistant know if they needed any copies of the draft ahead of time so that they were prepared for the discussion.
At 10:50 p.m. Bob Furey MOVED to adjourn. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien,
Recording Clerk Minutes Approved:
| |
