Planning Board
Minutes of 01/24/2006
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, James Nordstrom, Travis Daniels; ex-officio Dave Woodbury; 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 Linda Pothier, Michael Pare, Jon and Heather Strong, Cynthia Wilson, Kathy Conk Ryder, Peter Ryder, Raymond Critch, LLS, Dave Walker, PE, Jim Dodge, Jay Marden, Ken Lombard, Rick Kohler, Amy Alexander, Shayna Bernard, Dana Moody, Brian Holt and Brian Pratt.
POTHIER, LINDA & PARE, MICHAEL
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. Abutters present were Jon and Heather Strong. Interested parties were Cynthia Wilson of the Conservation Commission and Jay Marden.
Linda Pothier stated that she proposed to offer riding lessons on her property and had no interest in operating a dog kennel but did offer in-family dog sitting in their home. She explained that she also wished to offer a horse back riding camp two days a week for four weeks in the summer. The Chairman asked if hours of operation were proposed. Linda Pothier replied they were not. She added that they would give carriage rides in the evening if a client requested it, however riding lessons could not be offered in the evening because their arena was not illuminated. Linda Pothier further added that they did not receive dog drop-offs late in the evening. She noted that she could forward reference letters from past clients if the Board preferred. Linda
Pothier stated that the existing barn on their property incorporated the stables and that they might consider building a new barn in the future. Abutter Jon Strong stated that when he received the notice letter regarding this application he was under the impression that a dog kennel was one of the proposals, however, if the applicant was only dog sitting a few dogs in her home at one time then he was not opposed unless the number of dogs, noise level or amount of parking were to increase on the site. He asked if the application was approved would the applicants be able to construct a dog kennel on the property in the future or would further requirements be imposed. The Chairman replied that the applicants would not be able to add a kennel according to what they proposed on the current application which was inside house dog sitting. He noted that a number of additional safeguards would be required if a kennel was requested by the applicants in the future and
that the applicants would also need to come back before the Board to amend their Site Plan.
Dave Woodbury noted that according to the tax maps some frontage on Helena Drive was on a Class V road while other sections were Class VI. The Coordinator stated that the Town’s maintenance ended at the entrance to an existing gravel pit on Lot #3/7-1 and that residents of
Helena Drive had signed releases of liability although she was unsure of the date they were signed. Jay Marden asked if East Lull Place was also considered a Class VI Road from the intersection of Helena Drive to the Piscataquog River. The Coordinator replied that was the case. Jon Strong thought that the Class V portion of Helena Drive ended 15’ before the applicant’s property line. James Nordstrom asked Dave Woodbury his thoughts on Helena Drive’s road classification relative to the application. Dave Woodbury replied that he wondered if a new release would need to be signed by the applicants as inferred by the Coordinator. The Coordinator stated that current releases stated that they would need to be re-applied for by any new owners, therefore, it was up to the Selectmen if they
required additional releases. She added that another issue was whether a business could take place according to the usage proposed on the site or if only “a single family residence” usage applied. Dave Woodbury thought that a single family residence with a home business was still considered a single family residence. Jay Marden asked if the application was for a home business. The Chairman replied that a Boarding/Riding Stable was not considered a home business and was its own classification allowed in an “RA” District. Linda Pothier remarked that she recalled signing a release of liability for Town maintenance on Helena Drive when she bought her property.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she had any other comments regarding the application. The Coordinator replied that the applicant had taken the Town’s tax map at a scale of 1” = 800’ and photocopied it at a scale of 400% which was not easily measured with a ruler on the page. Jon Strong asked if the site had been surveyed by a professional as certain structures on the property were already fairly close to assumed property lines and any future additions could approach setback lines. Linda Pothier replied that it had not because a surveyor who had viewed the site could not find a marker to begin measurements from and as a result the cost to survey would have been $10K. The Chairman noted that the Building Inspector would be responsible for
monitoring any additions even if the Board approved that type of proposal. Douglas Hill added that if the applicants proposed additions to the site in the future a survey would be required. The Chairman further added that in that case the applicants would also be required to come back before the Board with a request to amend their Site Plan to include such addition(s).
The Chairman asked the applicants if they advertised their dog sitting services. Linda Pothier replied that they did advertise their services in two local bulletins and at several veterinary offices. The Chairman noted that such advertisement would imply a kennel service. Linda Pothier replied that their services did not involve a separate dog facility and that the dog sitting occurred in their home which was why she could not justify spending $10K in survey costs for a kennel. The Chairman asked where the dogs were allowed outside. Linda Pothier replied that the dogs used a fenced in yard which encompassed one third of an acre on the site. The Chairman asked the proximity of the fenced area to the lot line of the nearest abutter. Linda Pothier
replied that the side of the fence that aligned with the rear corner of their house was closest to an abutter, namely those present at tonight’s hearing, therefore the fence was as close as their house. She added that there was a wooded buffer between her property and the abutters’ and showed the distances on the plan. Heather Strong asked if there would be a limit to the number of dogs allowed on site for dog sitting if the application were approved. The Chairman replied that there would be because more than four dogs would warrant a separate kennel with greater restrictions. James Nordstrom asked what a reasonable figure would be for the number of dogs the applicants would have in their house in any given week excluding dogs they owned. Linda Pothier thought that three dogs would be the maximum although there could be a situation where dogs waiting to be picked up by their owners overlapped with dogs recently dropped off, therefore, six
dogs for one or two days at a time could be the case. The Chairman noted that it was important to account for such situations because if the Site Plan stipulated that three dogs other than their own could be on site and six resulted due to an overlap scenario then it could become a code enforcement issue. Michael Pare reiterated that the dogs would be minded inside their home and not in an outside kennel. Dave Woodbury thought that the maximum number of dogs allowed should be noted on the plan. The Chairman noted that the overlap scenario presented was an example of how six dogs could be on site without the usage being considered as a kennel. Dave Woodbury thought that the theory of a kennel had been established for this application. Jon Strong noted that the kennel aspect was what had concerned him, however, if the applicants did not propose to operate their business any differently than they had been doing then he was not concerned unless the
traffic and noise were to increase as would be the case with a true kennel. He added that his remaining concern had been that if the Board granted the status of “kennel” to the applicants’ business then at some point they could incorporate a true kennel on site without any further stipulations. Linda Pothier reiterated that the dog sitting service was intended as “in-family dog sitting” and not a “kennel”.
James Nordstrom believed there were two main points to consider, the first being that a limit needed to be stipulated on the plan regarding how many dogs could be looked after on site and secondly what the hours of operation should be. He noted that the applicants were not proposing any improvements, new structures or uses. The Chairman added that even though the situation was unlikely to occur some mechanism should be in place that would trigger the applicants reapplying with the Board for Site Plan Review if the usage turned into an actual kennel scenario. He further added that examples of these trigger mechanisms could be complaints regarding excessive barking and/or traffic increase to the site related to the business or if a Building Permit was applied for to
construct a kennel on site. The Chairman stated that he did not want the impression given this evening that the Board was considering the approval of a kennel. He added that he assumed the hours of operation for the proposed in-family dog sitting and the Boarding and Riding Stable should coincide. Michael Pare thought that the latest ride that would be offered from their home would be 9:30 p.m. and that was likely to occur only on holidays or for a special occasion. He asked if they were hauling their horses off site early in the day if that needed to be factored into the Site Plan stipulations. Douglas Hill replied that only customer related services needed to be considered. Linda Pothier stated that she never gave early morning rides and that most clients dropped their dogs off after work hours. She suggested a 6:30 a.m. earliest drop off time for the hours of operation.
The Chairman asked the Board if a site walk was warranted. Cynthia Wilson of the Conservation Commission noted that because there were a lot of existing wetlands in the area of the site the Commission would like to attend the site walk with the Board if they chose to hold one. Travis Daniels thought that a site walk should be scheduled. James Nordstrom agreed. The Chairman asked if any exterior lighting was proposed on the plan. Linda Pothier replied that there was existing exterior lighting all around the house and at the front of the barn, however, clients never went to the barn because they would bring the horses or carriage out to house for rides. The Chairman asked the abutters present if they had any considerations that they would like the Board to
address at the site walk that was to be scheduled. Jon Strong replied that there were not as there were no new structures proposed. Heather Strong noted that the Class VI road issue could become a problem if traffic increased for the business. Jon Strong stated that he felt the key points had been discussed this evening for the application that addressed a kennel versus in-family dog sitting.
A site walk was scheduled for Saturday, February 11, 2006, at 8:30 a.m.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Linda Pothier and Michael Pare, NRSPR, Kennel/Boarding/Riding Stable, Location: 40 Helena Drive, Tax Map/Lot #3/21, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Linda Pothier and Michael Pare, NRSPR, Kennel/Boarding/Riding Stable, Location: 40 Helena Drive, Tax Map/Lot #3/21, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to February 14, 2006, at 9:00 p.m. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill recused himself from the Board as his application was up next.
DOUGLAS HILL CONSTRUCTION, LLC
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Preliminary Hearing/Design Review
Major Subdivision/24 Lots
Location: Francestown Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/16
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Raymond Critch, LLS, and Dave Walker, PE, of Bedford Design Consultants and the applicant Douglas Hill. Abutters and interested parties present were Kathy Conk Ryder, Peter Ryder, Jay Marden, Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission, and Ken Lombard, Open Space Committee.
Raymond Critch, LLS, stated that the property proposed for the 24 lot subdivision totaled 70 acres and was located on Route 136 south of Tucker Mill Road. He added that 24.5 acres were proposed as open space with one lot being larger at 6.8 acres and harboring an existing house and barn that was formerly known as the Kritzon property. Raymond Critch, LLS, noted that the cul-de-sac length proposed was 2,925’ with a proposed cistern on site and underground utilities per the Fire Department’s recommendations. He added that the plan showed one wetland crossing that would be required which totaled 1,635 s.f. and that under the proposed regulations eight lots would require individual erosion control plans because wetlands would need to be crossed to access the lots. Raymond Critch, LLS, explained two lots fell under the 0.5 acre building envelope requirement because the change in the criteria from the 20’ difference in elevation versus 1,000 s.f. of contiguous flat land
changed their configurations. He added that the applicant had submitted to the NHDOT for driveway access and that NHDOT would require drainage studies on the final plan. Raymond Critch, LLS, noted that they were waiting for DES Site Specific and State Subdivision Approval. He stated that Meridien Land Services, Inc., would be flagging the wetlands, doing the soils analysis and submitting the application for the wetland crossings. Raymond Critch, LLS, added that the proposed road had been staked and the applicant wished to discuss not only the proposal and design review at tonight’s meeting but the possibility of having the plans forwarded to the Town Engineer for review.
Dave Walker, PE, stated that the road design gave limited sight distance at a certain location which he noted on the plan and because of that limitation the applicant proposed a retaining wall on Lot #5/16 so that its banking could be cut back. He added that the road was proposed as paved with a width of 22’, 4’ shoulders and open drainage with slopes ditching into three detention ponds and terminating to a cross culvert under NH Route 136. Dave Walker, PE, described the proposed road as a simple design with one wetland crossing and grades going from 8% to 1% and then back to 8%. Dave Woodbury asked the length of the proposed cul-de-sac. Raymond Critch, LLS, replied that the length was 2,925’. Dave Woodbury recalled that 1,000’ was the
maximum length currently allowed. The Chairman noted that 1,000’ was the maximum cul-de-sac length allowed without a waiver request. He asked the Coordinator what the longest cul-de-sac length was currently in the Town. The Coordinator replied that it was 2,600’. James Nordstrom clarified that this was on Dane Road. Dave Woodbury surmised that Dane Road’s cul-de-sac length was accepted long before the Town gave more thought to such measures. He asked the applicant the justifications for requesting a waiver to the maximum cul-de-sac length. Dave Walker, PE, replied that they had previously discussed this item with the Board and that having this cul-de-sac length would allow them to affect minimal acreage in light of the open space proposed. The Chairman recalled that a looped road was discussed as an option, however, its design would be at the expense of the open space proposed. Dave Woodbury noted that he was
not an ex-officio on the Board at the time this issue was discussed and asked if the Board was agreeable with this justification. The Chairman replied that they were in agreement and that the justifications presented made sense for this particular application and layout in contrast to the impacts of a looped road proposal. He added that, as designed, this plan’s subdivision would not be visible from NH Route 136 except for the existing barn which was aesthetically desirable. Dave Woodbury stated that he was agreeable to the justification presented if it was a matter discussed with the Board and agreed upon at a prior meeting. The Chairman noted that if the applicant had gone with the looped road design he would have netted two additional lots. Dave Woodbury asked if the opinions of the Fire Department had been considered. James Nordstrom replied that they had and that the cul-de-sac length had been discussed also. Douglas Hill stated
that the Fire Department’s input was not based on a looped road versus a cul-de-sac road. The Chairman clarified that the Fire Department was concerned that if power lines were down they could not access a cul-de-sac road of the proposed length in a timely manner which was why the applicant proposed underground power lines and the Fire Department in turn recommended a cistern and sprinklers. Interested party Jay Marden asked if the plan proposed both means of fire fighting water supply. The Chairman replied that the plan proposed a cistern.
Jay Marden asked how the open space proposed on the plan would be owned. Douglas Hill replied that each lot owner would own 1/24th of the open space. Jay Marden clarified that this meant that the land was not owned by the Town and wondered who the Town would deal with if issues ever arose with the open space land. Douglas Hill stated that legal documents would be drafted that would detail these matters. Jay Marden asked what the layout of the lot with the existing farm was. Raymond Critch, LLS, replied that the farm lot consisted of the entire frontage of the proposed road to a certain location which he noted on the plan. Douglas Hill wished to point out that an interior stone wall on the site was not a lot line.
Interested party Kathy Conk Ryder asked if covenants would be established for the existing farmhouse. Douglas Hill replied there would be covenants that stipulated the purchaser could not tear down the house and barn in the hopes that it could be restored. Cynthia Wilson asked if these covenants would also stipulate no further subdivision on that lot. Douglas Hill replied that such a restriction would be in place. Kathy Conk Ryder asked if the applicant proposed the removal of trees on the site in light of the open space proposal. Douglas Hill replied that trees would only be removed for building sites and driveways as he wished to keep as many trees as possible. Cynthia Wilson asked if the proposed open space would be accessible to the public or if only
lot owners of the subdivision could use it. Douglas Hill replied that he would not have issue with it being open to the public, however, he was unsure of the legalities involved. He added that by its design the open space was only accessible by crossing through a lot owner’s property. Cynthia Wilson noted that the open space abutted the proposed road, therefore, the public could park there. Douglas Hill stated that there was a cistern proposed in that location which was not supposed to be blocked. The Chairman stated that the 24 lot owners may not want the public accessing the open space through their lots. Douglas Hill noted that it was a State law that a property owner could not be sued if someone slipped and injured themselves as a result of walking across their property. Cynthia Wilson asked if sidewalks would be constructed for the owners of lots near the proposed cul-de-sac to enable their access to the open space. Douglas
Hill replied that he preferred to not have sidewalks and keep a more rural character.
Kathy Conk Ryder asked if the applicant would be selling the lots for building only. Douglas Hill replied that he intended to build all the homes on the lots but could not say that with absolute certainty. Jay Marden wished to congratulate the owner/applicant and Bedford Design Consultants for an excellent subdivision design proposal. The Chairman agreed that this cul-de-sac road was a good design in comparison to the conventional subdivision option which would have taken the proposed road back out to NH Route 136.
Peter Ryder stated that he lived “downstream” from the proposed subdivision and asked about the drainage issues for the proposed subdivision. Douglas Hill replied that the existing brook located near the proposed subdivision would have no direct effect on drainage and that he would be addressing any drainage issues in the swamp area noted on the plan. Dave Woodbury noted that during the clearing process in construction runoff tended to increase. Raymond Critch, LLS, stated that a full drainage study was submitted with the application.
Ken Lombard congratulated the applicant on his plan design adding that it showed concern for the aesthetic value of the property. A site walk was scheduled for February 11, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. +/-. Raymond Critch, LLS, stated that the proposed road and cross culverts had been staked. He asked if the Board wished to have the driveways staked for the site walk. Douglas Hill noted that he had not yet applied for driveway permits. James Nordstrom thought that if the proposed road was properly stationed then the Board could correlate the driveways. Cynthia Wilson asked if the wetlands had been flagged. Raymond Critch, LLS, replied that the wetland flags were still visible and that he could also provide a sheet with the wetland flag numbers. He then
asked the Coordinator if the construction estimates required for the CUP’s needed to be itemized or if one total could be given. The Coordinator replied that a combined total was acceptable.
Kathy Conk Ryder asked when construction would commence if the subdivision was approved. Douglas Hill replied that he hoped to begin construction in the summer of 2006. He then asked the Board if the plans could be forwarded to the Town Engineer for review. The Board thought that it would be better to follow the usual routine of forwarding the plans once the application was accepted as complete which would occur once a final application was submitted. Raymond Critch, LLS, noted that by that time the State Subdivision Approval should be in and possibly the wetland crossing permit, however, he was unsure if Site Specific would be ready. Raymond Critch, LLS, clarified that the final application submission would be what the Town Engineer reviewed. The
Chairman replied that was correct.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Douglas Hill Construction, LLC, Preliminary Hearing, Design Review, Major Subdivision, 24 Lots, Location: Francestown Road, Tax Map/Lot# 5/16, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to February 28, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill reclaimed his seat on the Board.
This will be a work session for the Planning Board regarding the Driveway Regulations.
The Coordinator stated that she had distributed a memo to the Board at the last meeting regarding the scope of the Planning Board’s discretion in reference to acting on applications and how much information should be requested in order to do so. She suggested that parts of that memo could be related to the Driveway Regulations discussion. The Coordinator noted, for example, that at the last meeting the Board had spent a long time trying to come up with a list of criteria for granting a waiver to the regulations. She suggested instead that having some discretion available to the Board by referring to the broad purposes of the regulations and the tone of the document would be more useful. The Coordinator added that in regard to sight distance
200’ had worked as a policy since the Town had been doing Driveway Permits and since the Board took over this responsibility in 1997. She further added that this sight distance never posed any safety issues and that it provided a history and background rather than trying to justify a new number. The Coordinator noted that she had distributed copied comments to the Board from Jack Munn, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, and Todd Mueller, concerned resident.
James Nordstrom asked if the Town had any formal setback distance requirement from the edge of pavement when permitting driveways. The Coordinator replied that they did not. She added that another issue regarded enforcement and inspection where the Road Agent was currently relying on the Board. The Coordinator further added that under the new Regulations the Board’s role would become more administrative while the Road Agent’s would be more hands-on inspection. She noted that given the current Road Agent and situation she did not think that the Board could stop doing inspections because of compliance issues. The Chairman agreed and stated that language to the effect of “…the Board or its designee…” in regard to performing
inspections would allow flexibility for who the Board, as the responsible party, preferred to accomplish those tasks as they presented themselves. James Nordstrom noted that these suggestions were contrary to the idea of uniformity that the Driveway Regulations sought to establish and that an ongoing question had been what the Board’s role was to be in contrast to the Road Agent’s regarding Driveway Permits and inspections. He then stated that he looked at the land use perspective only when inspecting driveways currently and that the Board would needed to better define its responsibility going forward.
Dave Woodbury stated that the Coordinator’s memo to the Board dated January 23, 2006, noted her frustration regarding the lagging completion of the Driveway Regulations. He suggested that the Board strive to identify particular issues in the Regulations this evening and how they could be resolved, such as sight distance. Dave Woodbury asked if there was a list of known issues that the Board could methodically address. The Coordinator replied that the Town had always had a policy on sight distance and putting that in writing was what Section 9.4 addressed. Douglas Hill thought that if the 200’ sight distance policy became regulated then it could mean more trees might need to be cut down when driveways were constructed. Dave Woodbury clarified that
the only items that needed to be addressed in Section 9.4 were sight distance and setback lines. James Nordstrom agreed and added that an acceptable combination of the two was the goal. Don Duhaime thought that the 14’ setback measure was too conservative and suggested 10’. Douglas Hill noted that the contention point on setback lines was who would verify the measurement and how that would be written within the Driveway Regulations.
The Chairman clarified that 200’ was the standard measure used in the past. The Coordinator added that there was no specific setback measure that had been used by the previous Road Agent. Dave Woodbury thought that because the Town had had success with the 200’ measure that was likely to continue. The Coordinator explained that the reason an increase sight distance had been entertained was to increase safety per AASHTO Regulations. Douglas Hill noted that he had built seven houses in Town and had never had sight distance mentioned to him by either Road Agent when constructing the driveways. He added that he was certain that he had less than 200’ of sight distance for two of those homes. The Coordinator stated that other towns had
different regulations that fluctuated between 150 – 400’ of sight distance required or 10 times the posted speed and the Board had been challenged to pick a measure based on a scientific basis. Dave Woodbury thought that experience should prevail and that the Board had determined in the past that 200’ of sight distance had been acceptable along with the suggestion of a measure from 10’ back from the edge of pavement. He thought that leaving the height/eye level open-ended would allow for some discretion.
The Coordinator stated that the next issue involved the Board’s versus the Road Agent’s responsibilities regarding Driveway Permits. She explained that Section 7.3 dealt with the Board verifying that all necessary items were submitted for Permits and that in looking at the history of the property (Section 7.4) they were determine if there were any issues which would then be flagged on the application and forwarded to the Road Agent and Planning Board (Section 7.5). The Coordinator stated that the Road Agent would review sight and drainage issues and the application would then go back to the Board for their review (Section 7.8). Dave Woodbury asked if the Road Agent needed further guidance from the Board regarding possible drainage issues on Driveway
Applications. James Nordstrom replied that the current Road Agent was unwilling to review such issues. The Coordinator added that regarding the recent Driveway Permit Applications for Thibeault Corporation/Byam Road the Road Agent had not done any specific review and stated that he supported the Board’s discretion. Douglas Hill suggested that the Road Agent did not have the necessary backup information that the Driveway Regulations could provide to support his inspections. Dave Woodbury thought that the Road Agent might need a clearer directive and that it was the Board’s obligation to give him that authority. The Coordinator noted that the Board could argue correctly to an applicant the various standards that must be complied with when constructing a driveway because it had been policy since 1997 and supported by meeting minutes. The Chairman felt that the Road Agent should be supplied with a checklist so that he knew what he should be
reviewing. Dave Woodbury and Douglas Hill agreed that this would be most helpful to the Road Agent. The Chairman added that such a checklist would also be helpful from a compliance standpoint and that the “checker” should still be listed as “the Board and/or its designee”. The Coordinator explained that such language would still make the Board the responsible party. Dave Woodbury suggested that “the Planning Board’s designee” offered flexibility in who could be appointed as the choice may change going forward with subsequent Boards. The Coordinator asked how the Board would be aware of any problems if they were the entity doing the inspection. The Chairman replied that compliance complaints could serve as notification. The Coordinator stated that this would be too late in the process and it would also mean that Section 7 would need to be re-written.
Don Duhaime stated that the Bedford Road issues at the sharp curve across from his house meant that thousand’s of dollars were being spent to scrape along a ditchline because of serious icing issues in the winter. Dave Woodbury asked how the Driveway Regulations draft should be addressed this evening so that work could progress. The Chairman suggested that the responsible party who would address what Section 7 outlined should not be formally named because although the Board could not hire the Road Agent they were bound by his work. The Coordinator suggested the language “Road Agent or the Board’s designee”. Dave Woodbury thought this was a reasonable suggestion. James Nordstrom clarified that in Section 7 the word
“Road Agent” be replaced with “Road Agent or the Board’s designee”. The Board agreed. The Chairman asked what the case would be if the Road Agent asked for an alternative designee in his place. Dave Woodbury replied that that would fall outside of the scope of these Regulations and that if the Road Agent was found not to be doing his job then his overseers, the Selectmen, would need to address that issue.
The Coordinator stated that the next issue involved Bob Todd’s suggestion that “traveled way” and “road/street/highway” were being used interchangeably which was confusing. The Coordinator stated that the definition of “road/street/highway” in the Driveway Regulations was taken from the Zoning Ordinance for consistency. She suggested that Bob Todd’s concerns could be addressed by adding the words “…”road/street/highway” shall include the “traveled way”…” at the end of the definition. The definition of “right-of-way” could be deleted. The Board agreed. In Section 4, Scope, the Coordinator stated that Town Counsel had written the final paragraph which
reiterated the third paragraph before it, therefore, that could be deleted. The Board concurred. The Coordinator continued with Section 6 and suggested that the term “resurfacing” be replaced with “paving or repaving” to avoid confusion. She noted that Bob Todd had also pointed out that in Section 9.9 “The flare shall be within property boundaries.” which would then affect Section 9.11 and alter 5’ to 10’. The Coordinator stated that Selectman Gordon Carlstrom questioned the language in Section 9.16 which read “No drainage may be discharged onto a public road and must be tied into any roadside drainage” and suggested two separate sentences “No drainage may be discharged onto a public road”. “All drainage must be tied into any roadside drainage”. The Board agreed.
The Coordinator asked the Board if they felt a conflict existed between Section 9.10 and 9.25. James Nordstrom stated that both sections cited the 3% negative grade phrasing. He suggested that the drainage language from Section 9.25 be included in Section 9.10 and eliminate 9.25. Douglas Hill asked if in Section 13.3 the temporary driveway permit was extended to one year. The Coordinator stated that it had been. She added that the last of Bob Todd’s questions regarded Section 11.6 and a reasonable requirement for a driveway for two lots. James Nordstrom replied that it was possible to approve a common driveway for two lots that was not to NFPA standards and that the criteria was not the number of lots but the standard of the driveway if a two lot
subdivision warrants a driveway to NFPA standards that was one scenario and if it did not then Section 11.6 was irrelevant. Douglas Hill questioned Section 14.2 where if an applicant wished to pave an existing driveway they would need to regrade it to Town standards. The Coordinator stated that this was one of the larger points of contention currently for the Road Agent as significant problems had arisen when people paved existing gravel driveways. James Nordstrom likened the scenario to a non-conforming use change. The Chairman pointed out that other issues could arise concerning existing culverts and ditchlines faced with driveway regrading issues.
The Board decided that they would address the rest of the issues at an upcoming meeting.
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/29 & 5/29-1
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Rick Kohler of Robert B. Todd Land Use Consultants who represented the applicant. An abutter present was Shayna Bernard.
Rick Kohler stated that the applicant proposed a lot line adjustment between Lot #’s 5/29-1, a “Commercial” zoned parcel of 8.5 acres located north of Lot #5/29 which was zoned “Residential-Agricultural”. He noted that the northern boundary of Lot #5/29 was also the zoning district boundary between “Commercial” and “Residential-Agricultural”. Rick Kohler stated that the applicant proposed to move that northerly boundary line southerly by 220’ which would parallel an existing stone wall. He explained that Lot #5/29-1’s acreage would increase from 8.5 to 10 acres and Lot #5/29 would decrease from 3.7 to 2.01 acres. Dave Woodbury asked what the implications were of a lot that was to be a mixture of
“Commercial” and “Residential-Agricultural”. Rick Kohler replied that any use of the residential portion of land would need to comply with the Zoning Ordinances of its district. Dave Woodbury asked the Coordinator if there was not a policy against such lots. The Coordinator replied that although there were not many lots of this type in the Town there were no regulations against it as long as the correct usages were applied. She asked if the Sizemores understood that they could not expand their commercial business into the “Residential-Agricultural” portion of land they were obtaining. Rick Kohler replied that this was understood and that both Rick Martin’s and the Sizemores intent was to create a buffer zone between the residential and commercial uses on the sites given the condex proposal occurring on Lot #5/29. James Nordstrom clarified that 1.6 acres of Residential-Agricultural” land would be
merged with the “Commercial” lot. The Chairman added that the Sizemores were attempting to create a buffer in order to avoid any future complaints from owners of the proposed abutting condex subdivision. Rick Kohler concurred that if approved a 200’ separation would exist between the two Lots.
Abutter Shayna Bernard asked if the lot line adjustment were approved, could that portion of land acquired by the Sizemores become commercially zoned at some point in time. The Chairman replied that this could only be achieved if such a proposal went on the Town ballot and was successfully voted for. Shayna Bernard asked if such a scenario had occurred before. The Chairman replied that it had. Shayna Bernard stated that she was a direct abutter to that land. She asked if such a proposal would go before the Board first or to the ballot. The Chairman replied that the proposal would come before the Board first for their approval or disapproval and then on to the ballot. Dave Woodbury noted that there were a number of similar scenarios on the 2006
ballot. Jay Marden asked if such proposals would go before the deliberative session held each February before going onto the ballot. The Coordinator replied that they would not be heard in deliberative session as such items would have already been address at the public hearings held by the Board.
The Chairman stated that the application and plans dated 1/03/06, were not reviewed and that State Subdivision Approval needed to be amended in order to drop Lot #5/29 further below five acres. He added that the applicant had stated that the application had been submitted to the State, however, the submission of this approval was required at least 15 days prior to the meeting and was just received today, therefore, the application could either be denied as incomplete or withdrawn and resubmitted by the applicant. Rick Kohler requested to withdraw the application. The Chairman noted to Shayna Bernard that she would be receiving another notice letter when the application was resubmitted. He added that speaking with the applicant directly regarding her concerns might be
helpful.
MOODY, DANA & McKENZIE, AARON
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/3 Lots
Location: Clark Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #8/122
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Brian Pratt of True Engineering and the applicant Dana Moody. An interested party was Cynthia Wilson of the Conservation Commission.
Brian Pratt stated that the site consisted of 17.49 acres with an existing house and that the applicant proposed a three lot frontage subdivision with no new road(s) and two new lot lines. The existing house would remain on the lot in between the other two. He added that the lots would range in size from 3.08 to 7.67 acres and have their own wells and septic systems with frontages and driveways off Clark Hill Road. Brian Pratt stated that there were no wetland impacts associated with this proposal. He noted that NHDES State Subdivision Approval for the two new lots was received on January 3, 2006. Brian Pratt stated that the minor comments presented by the Planning Department presented new issues to the applicant but noted that three waiver requests had been
submitted in writing to the Board. He explained that the first waiver request was for the requirement of Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies justified by the fact that only two new lots were proposed with no new road and an increase in traffic of approximately 20-30 car trips per day. Brian Pratt added that because there was no wetland impact there was no environmental impact. He continued with the second waiver request which was the requirement of stone monumentation for the front lot lines and explained that an existing stone wall with drill holes was on site, therefore, it would be more appropriate to use this means rather than destroy the wall to place new monuments. Brian Pratt stated that the third waiver request regarded the drainage report and noted that the southern lot may have minor disturbance of critical areas within 50’ of poorly drained soils and 75’ of very poorly drained soils. He requested guidance on a single
lot analysis as the applicant did not wish to construct a detention pond for one house.
The Chairman asked Cynthia Wilson if the Conservation Commission would prefer a site walk on this property. Cynthia Wilson replied that they would. She asked if the soil types listed as B1, B15, B20, etc. were wetland markers. Brian Pratt replied that they correlated with the wetland flaggings. Cynthia Wilson asked if a soils mapping conversion table could be inserted on the map. Brian Pratt replied that he would do so. James Nordstrom asked why the applicant had applied for State Subdivision Approval (SSA) on Lot #8/122. Brian Pratt replied that because a fair amount of the 7.6 acres on that Lot included wetlands the applicant felt that obtaining SSA was warranted. Cynthia Wilson requested a copy of the SSA. Brian Pratt stated that he
would supply a copy.
James Nordstrom asked if the site was recently logged. Brian Pratt replied that it was and that the wetland scientist had observed the site prior to and after the logging. James Nordstrom asked if the areas that were logged were designated as building sites. Brian Pratt replied that this was a possibility although he was unsure of the limits of the cutting. Cynthia Wilson asked if the logging was done to make the building sites clear of trees. Brian Pratt replied that the logging was done for economic reason in July of 2005. Cynthia Wilson asked if any trees were cut from the lot that would retain the existing house. Dana Moody replied that some dead or dying trees were removed from the parent lot while logging was performed on the remainder of the
site for economic reasons.
Douglas Hill asked if there was an existing cistern in the area of the site. Brian Pratt replied that he was unsure. The Chairman stated that he had no issues with the waiver requests for Traffic and Fiscal Impact Studies. James Nordstrom noted that it would be more appropriate to reserve judgment on the waiver request for the Environmental Impact Study until after a site walk was held. Brian Pratt asked what the scope of an Environmental Impact Study would be if it were performed by a wetland scientist. The Chairman replied that it was dependent on the building envelope of the site on the lot involved. Brian Pratt thought that the house built on the proposed lot in question would stay out of any critical areas. The Chairman stated that the Board
would prefer to view the site before making any determinations. A site walk was scheduled for February 11, 2006, between 10:15 and 10:30 a.m.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Dana Moody and Aaron McKenzie, Minor Subdivision, 3 Lots, Location: Clark Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/122, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to February 28, 2006, at 7:30 p.m. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2006
9a. Discussion, Re: Carriage Road.
Addressed with Item #9b.
9b. A copy of an Email received January 13, 2006, from Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, to the Planning Department, Re: Carriage Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., was present for this item. She stated that when she site walked Carriage Road with James Nordstrom and Planning Assistant Michele Brown they determined that there was less than 200’ of visible sight distance from the entrance of Susan Road as you looked left onto Carriage Road. She added that because Susan Road was likely to become a cut through road in the future and not remain a cul-de-sac with five house lots this sight distance was a concern. Amy Alexander stated that on the morning that she viewed Carriage Road she and James Nordstrom determined that an alternative improvement solution was possible that would not affect the abutter 400’ away from the entrance at Susan Road and improve the situation for the abutter’s driveway directly across the street from Susan Road. She noted that Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, of Sandford Survey and Engineering was concerned that changing the K value in the roadway would increase the danger for
traffic traveling toward each other on Carriage Road. Amy Alexander added that her contention to that concern was that she traveled on her own side of the road and if adding a dividing line for traffic was deemed helpful for this situation then she did not feel the developer would have an issue in doing so. Her second point regarded Earl Sandford, LLS, PE,’s issue that the 13.68 K value designed by T.F. Moran was not adequate, however, according to AASHTO’s policy on geometric designs of highways and streets for local rural roads traveled between 25 and 35 m.p.h. the K value was appropriate. Amy Alexander noted that contractors did not first put their PVI’s in a road and grade to that. She noted that this scenario was similar to that of Greenfield Road where the improvements made were deemed the best for the Town. The Chairman did not think that the K value issue was not relevant because two cars coming toward each other near the
curved section of Carriage Road could not see each other at a certain point anyway. Amy Alexander noted that at the site walk the Planning Assistant had driven the road and could not see her or James at the intersection as she came around that curve because of a sun factor at that time of day. She suggested that because Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, felt the 13.68 K value was deficient she suggested dropping the grade three feet at approximate station 27+00 which would improve the driveway of the lot across the street from the Susan Road intersection and not affect Lot #12/93-23. Amy Alexander noted that the abutter’s concerns about blasting might not be warranted as blasting might be avoidable in lieu of ledge hammering.
Dave Woodbury noted that at a prior meeting with Roch Larochelle of the Road Committee present another problem identified with the improvement to Carriage Road was stopping sight distance in comparison to traveling sight distance and which concern had more merit, therefore, the consideration of getting a third opinion was entertained. The Chairman noted that the developer was unwilling to pay for a third opinion. Amy Alexander asked for clarification of the stopping sight distance concern. The Chairman replied that Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, had argued that the K value created a safety issue for children who might play in the road. Dave Woodbury added that Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, argued that Amy Alexander’s modifications to Carriage Road increased the danger
factor for children playing in the road because it would decrease visibility for motorists. Amy Alexander stated that the current conditions on Carriage Road created the same problem. She noted that her concern based on the arguments by the abutters was those driving on and playing in a road needed to assume some responsibility. The Chairman added that the homes on Carriage Road had significant setbacks and kids would need to wander far from their homes to play in the road. Douglas Hill stated that he was not arguing the case either way but thought it likely that children would ride their bikes
on Carriage Road. Amy Alexander stated that a driver on a road was typically thinking of things that could be in the road to avoid as they drove, however, the Planning Assistant was not able to see due to the sun as she came around the curve on Carriage Road approaching the Susan Road intersection and this was her main concern. She reiterated that if Susan Road were to remain a 5 house cul-de-sac she would not have as much concern, however, as a through road many cars would be turning right off Susan onto Carriage and the likelihood of being rear ended was possible yet not as serious an accident as for cars turning left out of Susan onto Carriage that could have a “T-bone” collision. The Chairman agreed that when he viewed the intersection from his vehicle turning left onto Carriage there was clearly a sight
distance issue. James Nordstrom agreed and added that there was a solution to improve this problem that differed from the approved plan. He noted that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., could modify the improvement to Carriage Road taking into account the distance to abutters, increase sight distance and have only one driveway impacted. James Nordstrom further noted that similar to the scenario of Greenfield Road such improvement could be made with As-Builts supplied afterwards.
The Chairman stated that this issue began when abutters complained that the developer had not informed them of the impending improvements to Carriage Road and that they had suggested a three-way stop at the intersection with Susan Road. Amy Alexander stated that she would strongly recommend against a three way stop on a through road. The Chairman added that Carriage Road was not a 12’ wide road and had sufficient shoulders with homes that had generous setbacks. He added that Susan Road needed to have adequate sight distance.
Dave Woodbury noted that a compromise to the approved plan seemed to exist and that construction in the field with an As-Built Plan seemed to be a solution to this issue. The Chairman asked how Carriage Road should be improved. Amy Alexander replied that she could try to minimize abutter impact by seeing how far they could pull the road out at Station #28 to reduce the peak curve. She added that the contractors were good to work with.
The Coordinator stated that at the last meeting when this item was discussed Roch Larochelle stated that the Road Committee would review the issue and their input was not back to the Board yet. James Nordstrom recalled that the Road Committee was to determine the more important sight distance issue- stopping or traveling. Dave Woodbury stated that he felt the Road Committee’s services were valuable and that he would not feel comfortable making a decision on this item without their input. Amy Alexander noted that the Road Agent had been present at the site walk with James Nordstrom and the Planning Assistant. James Nordstrom reiterated that the site walk confirmed that a sight distance issue existed, however, there appeared to be a solution that differed from
the approved plan and his opinion on that had not changed. Amy Alexander noted that the alternative solution to the plan did not differ more that 6” at the PVI from the approved plan versus the major changes that needed to be made on Greenfield Road. She clarified that such changes were the purpose of an As-Built Plan. The Coordinator noted that because this was a fairly significant design change T.F. Moran should change the drawing on the plan to coincide what would be happening in the field. Dave Woodbury stated that the Road Committee should be supplied with a copy of the best description of these changes. The Chairman asked what the case would be if the contractor refused to pay for the design changes. The Coordinator replied that it was better that the Board legally and technically request these changes be made and if the contractor refused then the Town Engineer could request field changes. James Nordstrom clarified that in this
way the Board would be on record stating that the contractor was unwilling to employ the design engineer to alter the plan and the Board would then consult with the Town Engineer to assure that the road was fixed appropriately.
Amy Alexander noted that she felt the Road Committee would agree with what was discussed this evening.
1. Approval of the minutes of December 13, 2005, with or without changes, distributed at the meeting of January 10, 2006. (No Copies)
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of December 13, 2005, as written and including hand amendments on page 8. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Driveway Permit Applications for Thibeault Corp. of N.E., Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-1, 6/41-2, 6/41-4, 6/41-5, 6/41-6 & 6/41-7, were distributed for the Board’s action.
Certified driveway plans available at office (Drive-by prior to meeting)
Brian Holt of Thibeault Corporation was present for this discussion. The Chairman asked how much the above noted lots were selling for. Brian Holt replied that they were approximately $100K each. James Nordstrom asked the Coordinator if the driveway plans had been revised and the guardrail issues addressed. The Coordinator replied that the plan still stated that 275’ and 133’ of guardrail in locations along Byam Road would be removed for Lot #’s 6/41-1, 2, &4. Brian Holt replied that in order to increase the aesthetic view from the sites some shoulders would be opened and sloped 4:1 in order to remove the guardrails. James Nordstrom did not think that the old plans showed any proposed grading to change the slopes behind the
guardrails. The Coordinator clarified that these were the same plans. Brian Holt noted the area in question on the plan which showed the slope proposal. He added that this area was also topographically mapped. James Nordstrom stated that the applicant should speak with the Selectmen as they had accepted the road based on the inclusion of the guardrails before the approved change. Dave Woodbury agreed that this issue became the business of the town at this point. Brian Holt agreed and added that other areas slated for guardrail removal were only for the construction of driveways on the lots. Dave Woodbury suggested that the proposal of removing the larger portions of guardrail be submitted to the Town Administrator and to the Road Agent for the Lots in question. James Nordstrom asked if the Road Agent had signed off on any of the above noted driveways. The Coordinator replied that he had not. Douglas Hill asked what the
maximum grade was for the driveways. Brian Holt replied that it was 10% and was noted on the driveway profiles.
Travis Daniels MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #’s 05-030, 05-035
And 05-031 for a Tax Map/Lot #’s 6/41-5, 6/41-6 and 6/41-7 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. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. A copy of a letter received January 12, 2006, from Ken Lombard, Open Space Committee Chair, to all town offices and boards, Re: “The Dollars and Sense of Saving Special Places”, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator noted that this presentation would be held Friday, January 27, 2006, at the New Boston Community Church at 7:30 p.m.
4. Daily road inspection reports dated November 14th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 22nd, 28th, 29th, 30th, and December 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 12th, 13th, 15th, and 20th, of 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc. Re: Daylily Lane, Karen M. Morin Revocable Trust, were distributed for the Board’s information.
5. A daily road inspection report dated December 29th of 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc. Re: Highland Hills, was distributed for the Board’s information.
6. Daily road inspection reports dated November 28th and December 29th, of 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc. Re: Hutchinson Lane, were distributed for the Board’s information.
7. The minutes of January 10, 2006, were distributed for approval at the meeting of January 24, 2006, with or without changes.
8. The Planning Board in New Hampshire, A Handbook for Local Officials, January 2006, by NH Office of Energy and Planning, was distributed for the Board’s information, reference and future use.
10. A copy of a memorandum dated January 20, 2006, from David Preece, SNHPC, to the Board, Re: Affordable and Workforce Housing: Challenges and Barriers, was distributed for the Board’s information.
11. A copy of a letter dated January 13, 2006, from NHDES, to Jaqueline Bussiere, Re: request for more information for Indian Falls Road subdivision, Tax Map/Lot #12/89 was distributed for the Board’s information.
12. A copy of a letter dated January 13, 2006, from NHDES, to Mark E. LeBlanc 2004 Trust, Re: request for more information for Indian Falls Road subdivision, Tax Map/Lot #12/89 was distributed for the Board’s information.
13. The Coordinator noted that documentation for the Dodge cell tower Site Plans needed a couple more signatures by the Chairman and Secretary which had been overlooked.
14. The Coordinator reminded the Board that on Tuesday, January 31, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., there would be a presentation on Housing and Economic Development in the Town Hall that was worth attending.
At 10:38 p.m. Travis Daniels MOVED to adjourn. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O'Brien
Recording Clerk Minutes Approved:
|