MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD JULY 11, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice Chairman James Nordstrom. Chairman Peter Hogan arrived several minutes later. Present were regular members, James Nordstrom and Don Duhaime; ex-officio Christine Quirk and alternate Douglas Hill. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, (at 8:15 p.m. +/-), Planning Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were James Eggers, Matt Eggers, Dan MacDonald, John Magruder, Christine Pedzik, Bill Foster, Brandy Mitroff, Gail Parker, Jay Marden, Dave Ely, David Preece, Roch Larochelle, Cynthia Wilson, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Rick Martin, Bob Todd, LLS, Marcy Morton, Frank Welton, Binny Clark, Ken Lombard, Tom Clapp, Pat Golding, George and Donna Chretien and Charles Grandll.
RAGAMUFFIN’S PROPERTIES, LLC
by James Eggers
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Restaurant
Location: 35 Mont Vernon Road
Tax Map/Lot #19/6
Commercial “Com” District
James Nordstrom read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicant James Eggers and his son Matt Eggers. Abutters and interested parties present were John Magruder, Dan MacDonald, Christine Pedzik, Bill Foster, Brandy Mitroff, Gail Parker, Jay Marden.
James Eggers stated that since the last meeting he had learned that due to the close proximity of the existing restaurant and Neville Mill Hall no construction to attach the two buildings was required in order to extend the liquor license. He noted that a slab at the corner of Neville Mill Hall was still proposed for a cooler along with decorative exterior fencing. Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission, asked if the outdoor deck noted on the plans was existing. James Eggers replied that it was. He added that another proposal was the additional parking spaces which he intended to place around the existing septic system on the site. James Eggers further added that he would like to delay graveling the grassy field area currently used for overflow parking until his parking requirements were
confirmed but that he intended to have 43 additional parking spaces with proper signage installed to direct traffic flow in and out of the parking lot. He noted that NHDOT had informed him that the existing entry was sufficient for 2 car in-and-out traffic. James Eggers stated that he would like to further develop an access for plowing which was existing. He noted the existing exterior lighting on the plan with one additional proposed fixture for the parking lot. He returned to the subject of snow removal and noted that it was currently pushed into the grassy field area, however, without a gravel base it tended to become muddy during a thaw. James Eggers stated that he proposed a fence around the existing septic so that proposed parking spots in that area would not infringe on it.
James Eggers then turned to the subject of noise generated from the business and proposed sports bar. He added that a bull horn fire alarm did not produce noise that could be heard from the outside. James Eggers stated that he would like to have live music on Friday and Saturday nights at the proposed sports bar and possibly Karaoke on Thursdays and Sunday evenings along with standard fare such as a pool table, video games and darts. Abutter John Magruder, representative of the HB Cerruti Trust, which was the duplex site across the street from the applicant, wished to clarify that the proposal was for a 95 occupancy sports bar in the existing Neville Mill Hall. James Eggers replied that the maximum capacity for standing patrons was 95, however, he expected 50-75
typically. John Magruder asked what hours of operation were proposed. Matt Eggers replied that the hours considered for the sports bar were 3:00 or 4:00 p.m. to midnight seven days a week. The Chairman asked if 12:00 a.m. would be closing time. Matt Eggers replied that 1:00 a.m. would be last call and that closing time would most likely extend to 1:30 a.m., however, he now saw closing times at the restaurant between 9:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. depending on the evening. The Chairman stated that he asked the question because the hours of operation would be part of the Site Plan. He referenced the example of another applicant for the former Shipwreck’s Restaurant whose hours were until 2:00 a.m. to include employee clean up times. Matt Eggers stated that the hours would most likely be proposed to midnight during the week and until 1:30 a.m. Friday and Saturday. John Magruder was concerned that the tenants of his abutting duplex
property would have complaints regarding traffic off the site once the Police Department went off duty in the Town at 11:00 p.m. Douglas Hill noted that the State Police assumed coverage after 11:00 p.m. and any repeated complaints would most likely result in the State Police being in the area consistently. The Chairman agreed that such an issue would become a self-regulating scenario.
Matt Eggers stated that he wanted the proposed sports bar to be a local gathering place and not just a bar. John Magruder wondered if this meant that the applicant would market to local patrons only and not outside the area. An interested party asked if live music would only be detectable outside the building when the doors opened. Matt Eggers replied that was the plan and that he had contacted a friend who specialized in sound studio work to design a system for the proposed sports bar that would reduce noise and echoes. Douglas Hill suggested a double door for the sports bar which would aid in quelling noise and noted that he could understand abutters not wanting to be subjected to band noise at 12:00 a.m. Jim Eggers noted that noise reverberated through
windows more than anything else and that the windows in the structure faced the river and not the street. Jim Eggers noted that they strived to work with abutters when live music was held at the existing restaurant and once received a noise complaint that they handled immediately by moving the band’s location away from the street side of the restaurant.
Douglas Hill asked if the structure was currently air conditioned so that windows would not need to be opened. James Eggers replied that it was. The Chairman agreed that the noise must be reasonably contained in the building which should be added to the plan as there was no noise ordinance in the Town. An interested party asked if the bar in the existing restaurant would remain. Matt Eggers replied that it would although the bar would become a layover type lounge and the entire restaurant would be non-smoking if the sports bar was approved. Christine Pedzik asked about fire exits. James Eggers replied that there was a fire exit facing the street which would not be used for standard entry. Douglas Hill asked if the pole with an exterior light near the shed on the site was proposed or existing. Jim Eggers replied that it was existing.
Interested party Bill Foster asked what age demographic the applicant would target for the sports bar. Matt Eggers replied that they currently saw patrons aged 35-55 at the restaurant and considered an age range 25 years and up for the sports bar noting that 21-25 year olds were statistically more troublesome and that they sought to maintain a controlled atmosphere. He added that if it became necessary he had backup plans to employ doormen and bouncers otherwise he would police the sports bar himself as he did now at the restaurant. Jim Eggers noted that when the business conducted an outside feature such as the annual river roast they would employ a police detail as they had done previously.
Abutter Dan MacDonald stated that the comments he wished to make were strictly as an abutter and not as Fire Chief or speaking for the Fire Wards. He noted that he was shocked and surprised when he learned that a 95 seat sports bar would be proposed and felt that the house he owned where his sons and another couple currently resided would decrease at least 50-60% in value and be unmarketable. Dan MacDonald stated that he had lived in the Town since 1975 and was aware that the music, traffic, etc., was already affecting abutters and would only become worse with a 95 seat sports bar. He added that a fence on his property was six feet in height, however, the house sat at a 12’ elevation, therefore, noise generated from the sports bar/restaurant site could still carry
easily onto the property. Dan MacDonald stressed that he was very concerned about this proposal and he had never anticipated the prospect of 95 patrons traveling on an already unsafe road. He asked if the Police Department had offered their input on the matter. The Chairman replied that they had not done so as of yet. James Eggers noted that NHDOT had approved the proposal. Douglas Hill stated that this was likely because the site was located on a State road. James Eggers stated that he was equally shocked by Dan MacDonald’s comments as he had discussed his intentions with him very early on in the process. Dan MacDonald replied that he had been under the impression that James Eggers intended to move the restaurant bar and capacity over to Neville Mill Hall, not increase that capacity to 95. Matt Eggers noted that 55-60 patrons were more realistic than the approved occupancy of 95. Dan MacDonald replied that nevertheless
the applicant was licensed to hold 95 patrons in that structure and not wanting to get personal in his commentary, reiterated that he was very shocked by this proposal. Matt Eggers wished to note that there would not be traffic or impact to abutters from glaring headlights at 2:00 a.m. as patrons would be out of the establishment by 1:30 a.m. Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission, asked if parking delineation could be realigned to deal with headlight concerns of abutters. James Nordstrom stated that according to the Zoning Ordinance the parking layout proposed would require a variance at the outset as there were requirements for buffer distances between adjoining properties, for example, of 15’. James Eggers did not think this would present an issue as he had 12’ currently. James Nordstrom thought that according to the plan design the edge of the parking to the property line appeared to be less than 12’.
James Eggers replied that he had not sat down with the draftsman who drew the plan but that a 12’ buffer existed. James Nordstrom cautioned that the applicant may be faced with extending the buffer to 25’ based on the history of the adjoining pieces and current zoning. James Eggers still did not think such a requirement would be an issue as he had options where the parking design was concerned. Douglas Hill asked if every parking spot shown on the plan was required by regulation. James Eggers replied that they were in addition to three more in order to meet the specifications for the additional 95 capacity sports bar. James Nordstrom stated that based on what was presented in the plan the applicant needed to be cognizant of the Zoning Ordinance which allowed for various setbacks and was unsure what this scenario would require. Douglas Hill asked if the applicant would consider the option of decreasing the capacity to 60 versus
95. Matt Eggers replied that if he could have 95 patrons in the proposed sports bar every day he would, however, this was most likely not going to be a realistic number for the business. The Chairman noted that the minimum setback requirements would not need a variance and that if the applicants approached the ZBA they were likely to receive one. James Eggers agreed that he could move the setback further without seeking a variance to do so. Dan MacDonald noted that he had not had a problem up to now regarding parking and headlights but that if the cars came closer to his property line there would be such an issue. Matt Eggers suggested that “Back-in parking only” signs could be installed just as there were currently “Head-in parking only” signs for other areas on the site.
The Chairman asked Dan MacDonald if he had any further comments. Dan MacDonald stated that noise, loitering and engine revving generated by patrons of the current 22 seat bar in the restaurant was a problem and wondered what the impacts would be when that number was multiplied to 95. The Chairman clarified that Dan MacDonald would like to see a shift in parking alignment on site as far from the property lines as reasonable. Dan MacDonald further clarified that he would like to see the proposed parking penetrate the property lines as little as possible by changing the parking delineation angles or reducing the number of parking spots. Christine Pedzik suggested that more dense foliage might also quell noise and lights that could impact abutters. Matt Eggers
commented that he was perplexed by the notion of past experiences abutters noted of noise, screeching tires and rowdiness. The Chairman concluded that the parking buffer as it stood would not meet current Zoning Regulations and he did not get the impression that the applicant wanted to reduce the number of parking spots but if the design was first changed to meet Zoning and secondly to reduce impact to abutters that would be a good point to move forward from. Dan MacDonald stated that he recalled times in the past where a band at the restaurant affected those beyond abutters and that he knew James Eggers had contacted residents on Mill Street in efforts to work with them regarding noise issues, however, the current proposal was a big step and something that affected those residents beyond the abutters into the Town center. He suggested that those residents should also be made aware of the issue at hand as they may not understand the concept of the extent of the
project. The Chairman added that the applicant should also better specify a realistic schedule for the hours of operation on the plan rather than stating seven days a week until 2:00 a.m. Matt Eggers replied that 2:00 a.m. would not be the closing time, however, he did not want to specify hours in the event that there was a sports game that ran over time. The Chairman stated that he was not trying to dictate the hours the applicants should have but suggesting that they specify something on the plan. Matt Eggers felt that 12:00 a.m. during the week and 1:30 a.m. on Friday and Saturday evenings would be a reasonable specification. He added that they did everything possible to quell noise and avoid conflicts which he felt was their responsibility as business owners. Douglas Hill reiterated his suggestion for double doors on the sports bar in order to suppress inside noise as 95 people was a lot to deal with. Matt Eggers was not favorable to
spending more money for the plan to be changed for such additions. The Chairman replied that the Board allowed hand amendments to plans for certain items such as this. He explained that the Board sought to address the concerns of the Town and abutters and would likely hear discussion on input from the Police and Fire Department at the next meeting with the applicant. The Chairman added that it was the Board’s responsibility to assure that all issues were addressed as the opinions of abutters were important. James Eggers stated that he did not want conflict with his abutters but he also needed to make money in order to run a successful operation. Dan MacDonald added that he did not want to be out of business as a property owner and renter either. Matt Eggers stated that in the year and a half that they had owned and operated the site they had experienced no problems other than one call from an abutter regarding noise. James Eggers
noted that he had extended first option to Dan MacDonald to purchase his property.
Cynthia Wilson asked if there were any regulations for street lighting as it affected abutters, i.e., light pollution. James Eggers replied that one additional exterior light was proposed for the parking light which would be a cone light that would cover or “halo” the parking area. Cynthia Wilson asked if this was noted on the plan. James Eggers replied that he first wanted to see what would happen with the redesign of the plan and the Zoning issues. He added that he had some options to explore which had not been his first choice but that parking could be reconfigured which he then quickly described by referencing the plan. Cynthia Wilson clarified that if parking remained parallel with the river it could alleviate some of the headlight issues.
Matt Eggers noted that as traffic moved through the parking lot it was inevitable that headlights would make 360o turns at some point.
Interested party Gail Parker stated that she was speaking on behalf of Freedom Crossing, LLC, and wanted to discuss the issue of the open ditch pattern that ran from the site to the mill downstream. She noted that the previous owner of the site had filled in a portion of this ditch which created a stagnant area that had caused a backup onto nearby lowlands during the recent rain event in the spring. Gail Parker added that in light of impending plan revisions she was concerned that more blockages could result and requested that consideration be given to installing a culvert along the river. Matt Eggers replied that they had walked the area in question with NHDES as they had originally planned to rescale the rear portion of the parking lot and fill in this ditch which NHDES
agreed with as it would free up the flow of water on the opposite side of the ditch at the bottom which was impeded by the current drainage pattern. He noted that this would also dry up a wet area nearby. James Eggers noted that the natural flow along this ditch pattern was currently inhibited and the dam along Gail Parker’s rock wall determined the height of her property after which the land descended 12’, which was why her land bore the impact of the drainage flow.
Jay Marden asked where the middle of the southern branch of the river was located on the plan and wanted to clarify that the applicant owned to the west side of the river and then crossed over to the eastern side. James Eggers replied that was correct. Jay Marden asked what the two dotted lines extending to a funnel represented. James Eggers replied that they were elevation lines of the river. Cynthia Wilson asked if the land on the other side of the river owned by the applicant was dry land. James Eggers replied that it depended on where the water was at a given time, however, the water had never gone beyond the point noted as the 100 year flood level during the spring 2006 rain event.
Don Duhaime stated that he was still concerned about the intent of the applicant to host live bands with no outside security in addition to the probability that younger patrons in their early 20’s might frequent the sports bar. Matt Eggers replied that he planned to host cover bands that played old rock, country, jazz and blues, not heavy metal that might attract a younger more troublesome clientele. Don Duhaime asked Matt Eggers if he thought that 95 people warranted employed security. Matt Eggers replied that at this point he did not think so, however, if they got to a point where it was warranted he had plans in place. He added that in checking with the Police Department they had informed him that there were no ordinances which required security for that
capacity. Matt Eggers further added that when he had inquired about security for the annual river roast held on the site the Police Department had informed him that security would only be a requirement if there were over 500 people in attendance and that statement held true for this year’s river roast event also. Don Duhaime asked if the applicant would not prefer security for their own piece of mind. Matt Eggers replied that he used employees for security while trying to foresee issues that could arise and if they did he would reevaluate a certain situation which might involve not hosting a certain band again, offering different music or hiring security.
The Chairman asked when the applicant thought revisions would be done on the plan. James Eggers replied that he could have the revisions done in two days. Douglas Hill asked when the Fire Wards would offer their input regarding the plan. Dan MacDonald replied that the Fire Wards met once a month and contact would be made within that time frame. Brandy Mitroff asked if the Board would hold a site walk to review the parking lot issues. The Chairman replied that a site walk would be scheduled at a subsequent meeting once the pending revisions to the plan had been made.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Ragamuffin’s Properties, LLC, by James Eggers, NRSPR, Restaurant, Location: 35 Mont Vernon Road, Tax Map/Lot #19/6, Commercial “Com” District, to August 8, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
This will be a meeting with representatives from SNHCP and/or the New Boston Master Plan Committee to discuss future land use in the Master Plan update.
Present for this discussion were Dave Ely, spokesperson for the Master Plan Committee and David Preece, Executive Director, SNHPC. Also present were Master Plan Committee members Marcy Morton, Ken Lombard, Frank Welton, Christine Pedzik, and Binny Clark.
Dave Ely stated that he wished to review the latest draft of the Future Land Use chapter with the Board, informally, and to see if they had any comments on what had been written thus far. The Chairman asked for a brief review of the high points in the chapter as the Board had only received the information one day prior. Dave Ely stated that work to update the Master Plan had begun in April of 2004 and the Master Plan Committee had since rewritten all chapters which led up to the final chapter of Future Land Use. He noted that a questionnaire mailed out last summer to Town residents had yielded 500 responses and many of the comments dealt with maintaining the character of the Town and how land should be developed going forward. Dave Ely added that a gathering held in
April of 2006 at the Central School had resulted in more input from residents which was very important to the Committee. He stated that based on a build out analysis prepared by SNHPC, if the Zoning Ordinance remained as it was now, the Town’s population would grow from 5,000 to 15,000 and threaten the character that the Town enjoyed and what residents wished to maintain. The overall goal was, therefore, to have the Master Plan rewritten in such a way that it maintained that character and still allowed for some growth. Douglas Hill asked what the time frame of those growth numbers were based on current Zoning. Dave Ely replied that the build out analysis did not go by time but relied on information that was available regarding the type of land available. He noted that conservation land, wetlands, and Steep Slopes were removed from the equation with only buildable land being considered.
Dave Ely further noted that some history from previous land use recommendations was included in the Future Land Use draft with current facts and trends and read a portion of that text: “Overwhelmingly New Boston residents want to maintain the open rural character of New Boston and protect the traditional Village District. In addition most residents do not want residential development occurring haphazardly in town. While they support backlot development and residential development on paved and unpaved roads most residents do not want it occurring in the Village District, on existing farmland or along the banks of the town’s rivers”. Dave Ely stated that there was a section discussing commercial development partially rewritten at the time of the 1997
revamp of the Master Plan. He summarized that this section noted that residents were willing to accept a small amount of commercial development but not “big box” stores or strip malls. Dave Ely stated that the Committee would try to zone acceptable uses into the Town and that the residents were not in favor of industrial development in New Boston. He explained that while some economic growth was good for the Town’s tax base having too much commercial and industrial growth would mean that laborers for those businesses would be required and New Boston did not have affordable housing which meant that they would have to be imported. Douglas Hill inquired about higher end industry such as research and development versus factory workers. Dave Ely replied that they needed to go by the results of their questionnaire which was heavily weighted against industrial development. He noted that a question raised at some Committee meetings
involved the existing gravel pits in the Town and the fact that these areas should not be labeled as “industrial” because they were located in residential areas and once the pits were expended residents would not want another type of industry coming in.
From the audience, Jay Marden asked what additional work was needed to upgrade the Future Land Use Chapter to final form. Dave Ely replied that the Committee, with the Planning Coordinator as a liaison, was within a month of completing the draft for final form but wanted to meet with the Board tonight to gain their input before a formal noticed meeting was scheduled.
Based on Douglas Hill’s early question regarding the time frame of the build out analysis, Bob Todd wished to note that depending on whether the population grew at 3 or 4% it would take approximately 25-30 years for the Town to reach 15,000 residents by the year 2032. Jay Marden asked, in that regard, if single family homes or duplexes were being considered for the Town’s developable land when the build out analysis was done. Douglas Hill replied that the analysis was based on today’s Zoning Ordinance. David Preece stated that the goal of the Future Land Use Chapter was to echo the desires of the Town’s residents as obtained from surveys collected which were to preserve the Town’s character and shape Zoning around that preference. Jay
Marden asked what percentage of homes would be duplexes when the population reached 15,000. Douglas Hill replied that the same number of people could be gotten but the amount of land left open would be the variable based on open space, single family or duplex densities. Dave Ely further clarified that Jay Marden should go by the same percentage of duplexes as was current for the Town.
Dave Ely turned to the subject of the Town center and noted that conservation and open space measures were vital to maintaining the character of the Village. He added that agricultural preservation was also part of the Town’s character and noted that certain areas were not suitable for development such as aquifers. Dave Ely then noted the Future Land Use map and pointed to generalized areas where each type of development might best occur. He further noted that this information would be used by subsequent committees in the writing of Zoning Ordinances or laying out Zoning boundaries. Davy Ely pointed out that the 1987 Future Land Use Map was also included in the draft for comparison. The most recent colorized map was then put up on the presentation board
because it was not included in the draft. Dave Ely pointed out the general overlay districts for the Town which up to now had been Residential-Agricultural. He added that the Master Plan Committee was now proposing a “Residential-Agricultural/Open Space” district where the initial step would be informing developers that an agenda to preserve the character of the Town was the main goal. He noted the green shaded area on the map as a Conservation district such as land locked areas or locations along rivers. Douglas Hill asked if these areas were defined in the draft. Dave Ely then read descriptions of various proposed districts from the draft:
Village District: “Recommendation-Establish a new Village District Zone in the Town’s Zoning Ordinance and Zoning map. This recommendation is supported by the Town Center Goals and Livable Walkable Goals contained in this plan. The intent of this new District would be to regulate development of the Village Center to maintain its rural, small town character. This character is dependent upon preserving architecture and mix of commercial and residential uses in the district”. Dave Ely noted this District on the map as hatched with red and yellow striping.
Residential-Agricultural/Open Space District: “Recommendation-Replace the existing Residential-Agricultural District and Residential-One District in the Town’s Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map with the establishment of a new Residential-Agricultural/Open Space District. He explained that the definition then discussed the goals and objectives in the Master Plan that supported this recommendation: “The intent of this new district is to encourage development patterns which respect an open space plan by offering cluster development in appropriate areas as an alternative to large lot zoning. To accomplish this an Open Space Plan must be developed based on Natural Resources. Along with this, the Cluster Ordinance must be rewritten to encourage
cluster development in keeping with traditional compact development patterns of rural small towns in New Hampshire”. Dave Ely noted that once an open space plan was put into effect consideration could be given to transfer of development rights which could afford more open space opportunities.
Small Scale Planned Commercial District: “Recommendation- Replace the existing Commercial District in the Town’s Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map with the establishment of a new Small Scale Planned Commercial District. This recommendation is supported by all the Commercial Development Goals and Smart Growth Goal #2. The intent is to provide for commercial growth in designated areas”.
Scenic Corridor Overlay District (gray shaded-along NH Route 13): “Recommendation-Establish a new Scenic Corridor Overlay District in the Town’s Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. This recommendation is supported by the Land Use Goals, the Livable Walkable Community Goals and Conservation and Natural Resource Goals. The intent is to keep the beauty of the Piscataquog River intact. To accomplish this an ordinance must be written to maintain the scenic beauty along the river. Existing commercial and industrial uses within the river corridor should be grandfathered, but no new industrial development should be allowed to occur. Transfer of development rights could also be applied as part of this new ordinance. The designation and
bounds of the scenic corridor should be determined as part of a comprehensive update of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance and establishment of a new overlay district”. James Eggers asked how wide an area would be considered for this district. Dave Ely replied that based on the Master Plan Committee’s recommendations it would be up to the Zoning Ordinance Committee to determine the bounds. Douglas Hill added that the Town would then vote on it.
Limited Light Industrial (purple shaded-NH Route 13, south of Town and other minor areas): “Recommendation- Replace the existing Industrial District in the Town’s Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map with a new Limited Light Industrial District. This recommendation is supported by Land Use Goals, Commercial Development Goals, Industrial Development Goals, Smart Growth Goals and Conservation and Natural Resources Goals. The intent of this new district is to allow limited light industry which will not compromise the architectural character of New Boston, will not pollute and will not require additional public infrastructure or utilities not currently available in New Boston. To accomplish this, areas for Limited Light
Industrial development must be identified and architectural guidelines developed. In addition, requirements for an environmental impact statement should be included in this new district”.
Multi-Family Residential (mustard shaded-Bedford Road towards Bedford, Clark Hill Road and Old Coach Road near Village): “Recommendation-Establish a new Multi-Family Residential Overlay District in the Town’s Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. This recommendation is supported by the Vision Statement of this Plan, Land Use Goals, Housing Goals, Smart Growth Goals and Conservation and Natural Resources Goals. The intent of this new district is to provide housing options so it is affordable for New Boston’s teachers, policemen, children, and other median area income wage earners to live here, while preserving open space, wildlife corridors and conservation land. To accomplish this, the Planning Board must identify locations for and allow high
density residential development based on access, soil types for septic, slopes and wetlands. Areas previously Zoned Residential-One” may be good locations for establishing this new district in addition to areas identified on the Future Land Use Map on this plan”. Douglas Hill asked if a duplex was considered a multi-family. David Preece replied that it was not according to the definition’s interpretation.
Conservation District (green shaded): “Recommendation-Replace the existing Forestry and Conservation District in the Town’s Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map with the establishment of a new Conservation District. This recommendation is supported by the Vision Statement, Land Use Goals, Agricultural Protection Goals, Smart Growth Goals and Conservation and Natural Resources Goals. The intent of this new district is to protect New Boston’s environmentally significant natural areas”. He noted that the definition went on to list some of these areas with one of the largest being the Air Force Tracking Station which the Town did not have control over currently but if it should ever come out of Federal Government’s hands it had been well
protected and was one of the largest most pristine sites in the Town. Brandy Mitroff clarified that the intent was to protect this site beyond its current status as a “Forestry” District. Dave Ely replied that was the case as with its current status of 25 acre minimum Zoning an individual could still purchase those acres, remove all the trees and place a house in the middle of the site. Douglas Hill asked if this area was factored out when the calculations were done for the build out analysis. Dave Ely replied that he did not think it was. David Preece noted that he would look into that.
Brandy Mitroff thought that the wording of the “Residential-One” District seemed excessive for the reality of that type of land for a “Multi-Family Use” District. Dave Ely noted that the boundaries noted on the map were not cast in stone and would need to be reviewed by Zoning. He added that a “Multi-Family Overlay” Zone had also been discussed as an option if the land met the criteria necessary. Brandy Mitroff thought that this was important to consider otherwise attention to affordable housing would not be successful. Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission, stated that she had attended the Town gathering held in April, 2006, to gain resident input on Future Land Use and was disturbed, as a former teacher, that the subject of
affordable housing had concerned certain attendees who were under the impression that an inner city crime scenario would evolve with that prospect. She added that she was in favor of a “Multi-Family Overlay” District. Brandy Mitroff noted that back in the 1980’s land zoned for Multi-Family use was undesirable, however, this was before an affordability issue existed in the Town. She thought an overlay would equalize the area for everyone and would give the Board the opportunity to determine the feasibility of such a Zone for certain sites. The Chairman thought that land valuations might become an issue with such overlay options. Dave Ely noted that a piece of property no matter how large or small was a building lot and although the Planning Board decided how it could be subdivided, it was not nevertheless the inherent right of a property owner to divide it into 100 lots. Jay Marden asked if such an overlay would give property
owners the option to develop their land as “Multi-Family”. David Preece replied that this was the intent of an overlay district.
James Eggers agreed that the Town should be concerned regarding affordable housing for teachers, etc., and that areas should be identified as discussed to draw that level of personnel. Jay Marden noted that the same issues were currently occurring on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Douglas Hill thought that a credit for acreage should be offered to developers who considered the “Multi-Family” District option. David Preece noted that this was referred to as a “density bonus”.
Dave Ely concluded by stating that the Master Plan Committee was trying to write the Future Land Use Chapter in such a way that whoever came to write Zoning Ordinances would have a clear understanding of the intent behind the recommendations. He reiterated that this Chapter should be completed soon.
At 8:50 a.m. the Planning Board took a 10 minute break.
GARRETSON, DONALD E., RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC.
& LUNEAU, GARY L. & JOANNE B.
Adjourned from 6/27/06
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision and Lot Line Adjustment /15 Lots
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/50, 5/52, 5/52-1 & 5/53
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Bob Todd, LLS, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, and the applicant Rick Martin. Interested parties present were Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission, Tom Clapp, Jay Marden and Pat Golding.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that after reviewing the minutes of the last meeting where the Board tabled the approval of the lot line adjustment between Parcels A & B at the intersection of Beard Road and the proposed Pasture Lane he had prepared a separate plan for this adjustment from the 15 lot subdivision. He added that easements were shown on either side of the proposed Pasture Lane through Parcels A & B and that dimensions and conservation areas were also shown on the plan that noted all contingencies. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that because future improvements to Beard Road might require additional width to accommodate slopes and drainage he had revised a note to add to the plan to read: "Parcels A and B shall be conveyed with a reservation by the grantor, its heirs or
assigns, for slope and drainage easements adjoining the southerly sideline of Beard Road for future conveyance to the Town of New Boston. The metes and bounds of said easements shall be determined by engineered design incidental to improvements to Beard Road." He added that the Luneaus had agreed in writing with the applicant that they were willing to accept Parcel A with those reservations. James Nordstrom stated that he recalled that to accommodate slopes and drainage if and when Beard Road was improved in the future a conveyance of land to widen the road would be necessary. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he would wait for the Coordinator’s review of the plans before making those final revisions. Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, asked if the 25’ reserved right-of-way across the parcels was considered an easement. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that that dedication was made when the two parcels were conveyed and that the applicant had
reserved the right to convey additional width to future improvements along Beard Road. Roch Larochelle asked if these easements were temporary or permanent and noted that the slope easements had no dimensions. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that they were permanent but there was no way to know at this point how much land would be needed. James Nordstrom clarified that they were open ended so that the Town could use the land to the full extent. Jay Marden also questioned the scenario and asked how the applicant could convey land and then do an easement later. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that when the land was sold the applicant reserved that easement right if the need for it arose.
The Chairman stated that this had been the only detail the Board was waiting on regarding the lot line adjustment proposal. Bob Todd, LLS, asked if once the plan was reviewed it could be endorsed administratively. The Chairman replied that it could but a vote tonight was still required.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Lot Line Adjustments as shown on the Subdivision and Lot Line Adjustment Plat Lands of Right Way Builders, Inc., Donald E. Garretson, Trustee, and Gary L. and Joanne B. Luneau, Beard Road, such that Parcel A of 0.617 acres is annexed from Tax Map/Lot #5/52 to Tax Map/Lot #5/52-1 and Parcel B of 0.303 acres is annexed from Tax Map/Lot #5/52 to Tax Map/Lot #5/53, leaving Tax Map/Lot # 5/52 with 98.87’ of frontage, including associated roadside flares to be used as access to major subdivision of 15 residential lots and one conservation lot still pending before the New
Boston Planning Board, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) copies of the revised plat that include 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 a revised Declaration of Condominium for Tax Map/Lot #5/52-1 to include the change in lot lines.
4. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application.
The deadline for complying with the condition(s) precedent shall be August 1, 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 prior to that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing pursuant to RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Bob Todd, LLS, continued with the topic of the 15 lot subdivision and stated that he had the record of the amendment to Site Specific and the amendment to the State Subdivision Approval had been signed on the previous day and should be in soon. He noted that the Town Engineer had wanted the overhead electric line from the pole at the entrance to the subdivision which extended to the Bernhard property shown on the plan, therefore, it had been added. Bob Todd, LLS, added that he had discussed how this line would be handled with PSNH. He then stated that lots shown on sheet #2 of the plan were unchanged along with the proposed road configuration shown on sheet #3. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that the lot configuration shown at the end of the cul-de-sac had been widened to
accommodate the grading of proposed driveways through critical areas and to further avoid deep cuts and fills which was the reason that the sides diverged. He noted that Lot #5/50-10 was a large 13 acre lot, therefore, qualified for current use status.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the conservation lot totaled 41 acres and was bounded by the 4H Foundation on the southwestern side, with a residential lot to the east and southeast and the Railroad Trail on the south and southwestern side. He noted that they were in the process of setting bounds and marking lot lines on the backside of the lots which involved the PWA for their monitoring purposes. Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission, wished to clarify that the land was being given to the Town, not the PWA and that the PWA only held the easement to that land. Rick Martin replied that this matter was between the PWA and his attorney but he was under the impression that the PWA was to acquire that land. Cynthia Wilson replied that an entity could not own land and hold
an easement for it too, therefore, she was under the impression that the applicant was giving the land to the Town and the PWA would hold the easement on it.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, wished to address the Town Engineer’s comments on the plan which the plan was revised to show. He stated that one outstanding issue was that the Town Engineer wanted a culvert placed at the entrance to the subdivision off Beard Road while the applicant’s design showed drainage down the side of the proposed Pasture Lane. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that in the future a culvert may be required at the entrance location, however, unless there was a substantial change to the drainage patterns the applicant proposed that such a culvert be added during the future Beard Road improvement process and designed into those plans. He further noted that the easements on either side of Beard Road allowed for that future flexibility and these comments
also were included in a review response letter from the applicant to the Town Engineer. Douglas Hill asked if the culvert cost was included in the improvement
calculations. Rick Martin replied that they would fall under the fair share contribution he would make based on his subdivision. Earl Sandford, LLS, stated that another comment from the Town Engineer regarded the center of the proposed cul-de-sac which was a substantial area that did not need regrading. He explained that the Town Engineer wanted heavy rip rap on the emergency spill way, however, the applicant preferred to leave the area in question grassy as rip rap would need more maintenance. Douglas Hill agreed with the applicant’s view regarding a culvert addition on Beard Road and thought that this could be addressed in the future when the road was paved. Roch Larochelle asked how water flowed through the area in question currently. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that it took the path of
least resistance. He noted that at this juncture they were ready for the Town Engineer’s final review.
The Coordinator asked if the proposed driveways would be shown on the plan because if that was not to be the case then a waiver would be needed. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that there were individual driveway designs done for each lot, however, if they were not on the subdivision plan itself they would be added. The Chairman noted that any steep driveways, particularly those with a positive grade into the road would need engineered plans submitted. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that he would do so.
Douglas Hill questioned the proposed dam on Lot #5/50-5 and asked who would ultimately own it. Christine Quirk stated that the Town did not want maintenance or ownership of this dam. Rick Martin explained that this was why the dam was to be a grassy area so that the potential owners of the lot it was on could maintain it. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, explained that the deepest fill area was 3’ above grade with the slope going downward which was why a Dam Permit had been necessary. The Chairman asked what maintenance would be required. Rick Martin reiterated that it would only have grass. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that detention ponds were the Town’s responsibility as they were part of road drainage and every drainage structure had this standard
notation. Bob Todd, LLS, added that the note regarding the detention pond was also contained in the language for the easements being granted to the Town. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the plan would be at a standstill if the Town refused to maintain the detention pond unless maintenance language was attached to the deed for the lot. Douglas Hill asked why a Dam Permit was needed for a detention pond. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that it was needed because it was on a slope. Roch Larochelle noted that there was a minimum height requirement for dams of 4’. The Chairman clarified that the maintenance that would be involved was no greater than for a closed drainage system. James Nordstrom recalled that the Town always accepted responsibility for detention ponds as part of road drainage systems.
Rick Martin asked if he could reserve a spot on the Board’s agenda for an August meeting if it was necessary. The Chairman replied that the applicant was already adjourned to July 25th and could be further adjourned to August 9th.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Donald E. Garretson and
Gary L. & Joanne B. Luneau, Major Subdivision and Lot Line Adjustments, 15 Lots, Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/50, 5/52, 5/52-1 and 5/53, Residential-
Agricultural “R-A” District, to August 9, 2006, at 8:00 p.m. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
CHRETIEN, GEORGE & DONNA
Compliance Hearing/Subdivision & NRSPR/Condominium
Location: 88 Colburn Road
Tax Map/Lot #1/44
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicants George and Donna Chretien.
George Chretien stated that improvements to the site discussed at the approval meeting had been accomplished and that Bob Todd, LLS, had submitted the required mylars. He asked if his check for recording the mylars had been received at the Planning Department as he had mailed it on the previous Friday. The Planning Assistant replied that she had not yet received the check but it would most likely arrive the next day or soon after. The Coordinator noted that the Site Review Agreement still needed to be endorsed. George Chretien signed the document and the Chairman also signed the Agreement.
James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm that George & Donna Chretien have complied with the Conditions Precedent and Subsequent to the approval of the Condominium Subdivision and Site Plan, Unit A & Unit B, Tax Map/Lot #1/44, Colburn Road and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department above, subject to: Submission of outstanding fees.
Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
GRANDLL, CHARLES T. & MONICA ANN
KANTOR, MATTHEW & KIM
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: Byam Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/41-10 & 6/41-11
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant Charles Grandll. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Charles Grandll submitted plans to the Board that included checklist revisions indicated by the Coordinator. He explained that when his home was constructed the site person mistakenly located the top portion of the driveway over the property line and he proposed a lot line adjustment to correct the problem in the event he ever sold the property. James Nordstrom clarified that the applicant proposed to swap 0.001 acres with the abutting property. Charles Grandll replied that was correct. He added that the monuments had not yet been set on the site but that the surveyors informed him they would do this once the proposed lot line adjustment was approved.
The Chairman noted that waiver requests for Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies need to be acted on.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waivers requested for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies in accordance with the July 11th letter from Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application as complete and to approve the Minor Subdivision and Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Charles & Monica Ann Grandll and Matthew & Kim Kantor, for Tax Map/Lot #6/41-10 & 6/41-11, Byam Road, such that Parcel A of 0.012 acres will be annexed from Tax Map/Lot #6/41-10 to 6/41-11, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of the mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Payment of any outstanding fees including the cost of recording the mylar at the HCRD.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be August 1, 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 prior to that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing pursuant to RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JULY 11, 2006
1. Approval of minutes of June 13, 2006, distributed at the June 27, 2006, meeting, with or without changes. (No Copies)
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of May 23, 2006, as written. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. The minutes of June 27, 2006, were distributed for approval at the meeting of July 25, 2006, with or without changes.
3. A copy of a faxed email from Mitch Larochelle, Mitch Construction Co., Inc., to New Boston Planning Board, Re: Certificate of Occupancy release, was distributed for the Board’s action.
Douglas Hill asked what the reason was for the delay of the finish coat to Susan Road. The Chairman replied that the finish coat was being delayed until all the homes were constructed. The Coordinator noted that all that was required for a Certificate of Occupancy release regarding the road was a binder coat which was already present. The Chairman asked the Coordinator to inform Mitch Larochelle that no further action by the Planning Board was necessary.
4. A copy of a letter dated July 2006, from Jeffrey H. Taylor & Associates to the Board, re: Planning Services, was distributed for the Board’s information.
5. Endorsement of a Condex Site Plan for George and Donna Chretien, Colburn Road, Tax Map/Lot #1/44 by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman stated that because of multiple signature sheets this item along could be addressed at the end of the meeting.
6. Endorsement of a Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Right Way Builders, Inc., & Gary and Joanne Luneau, Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/52 & 5/52-1 by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Coordinator explained that because revisions were still pending to the plan it was not ready for endorsements.
7. A copy of a letter dated July 5, 2006, from the Board of Selectmen to Linda Pothier and Michael Pare, Re: Class VI Road Considerations Related to Business Pursuits Before Planning Board, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Christine Quirk stated that based on the language of the above noted letter she was unsure if it protected the Town against any liability as the release she had signed regarding her campground had been much more comprehensive. She noted that she had approached different Town entities regarding this question but had not gotten anywhere and that the issue was now out of the Board’s hands anyway.
Christine Quirk added that the applicants had recently made some improvements to the Class VI road in question.
8a. A copy of a letter dated June 16, 2006, from Morgan Hollis of Gottesman & Hollis to the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Board, Re: Lot 77, Tax Map 8, Bedford Road,
Louis & Marcia Rumore, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that Mr. Rumore was questioning a small triangle of land on Bedford Road that he viewed as a separate lot. She noted that the town had evidence that this triangle of land was actually part of his lot on the opposite side of the road but that the Rumores had decided to seek legal counsel on the matter.
8b. A copy of a memo dated June 22, 2006, from Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator and the Board of Selectmen, Re: letter from Morgan Hollis of Gottesman & Hollis, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that this item dealt with her suggestion for the Town to seek legal opinion from Town Counsel on the Rumore issue.
8c. A copy of a draft letter dated July 11, 2006, from the Board of Selectmen to Morgan Hollis of Gottesman & Hollis, Re: Louise & Marcia Rumore, Tax Map/Lot #8/77, Bedford Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that the above was a draft letter from David Woodbury,
Selectman, in response to Morgan Hollis, Esq.’s above noted letter.
The Chairman and James Nordstrom (in the Secretary’s absence) endorsed the plan noted earlier in item #5.
At 9:52 p.m. Christine Quirk MOVED to adjourn. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien,
Recording Clerk
| 
