Minutes of the Planning Board – July 25, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members James Nordstrom, and Don Duhaime; ex-officio Gordon Carlstrom; and, alternate Doug Hill. Also present was Planning Coordinator Nicola Strong, and Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting, were Brandy Mitroff, Steve Dunbar, Bob Smaha, Bob Todd, LLS, Jay Marden, Roch Larochelle, Jeff & Jacqui Fillmore, Pat Panciocco, Esq., Rick Martin, Ken Lombard, Kim Burkhamer, Mike Ryan, Esq., Tom Clapp, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Janet White, Burr Tupper, Paul Sizemore, Bill Davidson, Ken Clinton, and Steve Boyd.
Work Session for the Planning Board, Re: Driveway Regulations
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience for all or part of the work session were Steve Dunbar and Bob Smaha of Thibeault Corporation, Brandy Mitroff, and Bob Todd, LLS.
The Chairman began by asking the Board if there were any comments or questions. Doug Hill noted that he was a bit confused by the use of road, traveled way, right of way and so on. The Coordinator explained that in an effort to avoid such confusion the Driveway Regulations contained a definition of road/street/highway that included traveled way so that any time the word road or street appeared in the definition it could mean any part of the road area. She asked if anything needed to be changed but the Board determined that the definition was adequate.
Doug Hill next noted that Section 6 General Provisions, paragraph 2 should make it clear that the Planning Department should be contacted for scheduling inspections with the Road Agent. He noted this to be consistent with sections further along in the regulations.
Section 9.9 attempted to make it clear that the flares at the driveway entrance should be on the property of the driveway that they serve. It stated "The driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of 10' radii minimum and the flare shall be within the property boundaries." The Board, however, found this unclear and determined that the second part of the sentence could be deleted so the section would read "The driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of 10' radii." The Board noted that it should be obvious that if 10' flares were needed, the driveway should be 10' off the lot line to accommodate them.
The Chairman thought that the Driveway Regulations should not state how close to a lot line the driveway should be constructed as this might make it difficult to install a driveway in a 50' strip to a backlot for example. The Board, however, determined to leave Section 9.11 as it was written "For purposes of snow removal, general maintenance, and protection of abutters, and to comply with Section 9.9 above, it is hereby suggested that no driveway be constructed closer than 5 10 feet from abutting property lines.", noting that the 10' distance was a recommendation only.
Doug Hill questioned the requirement in Section 9.17 for a 30' long culvert to be installed. The Coordinator noted this was at the Road Agent's suggestion. Doug Hill explained that for a standard 12' wide driveway, a 20' culvert was the standard. He noted that a 30' culvert could require filling in the ditchline in order to install the required headwalls. Gordon Carlstrom suggested that the regulation specify that the culvert extend 3' or 4' on either side of the installed driveway. James Nordstrom suggested removing the 30' requirement so that the regulation would read "The culvert shall be at least 30 feet and long enough to maintain the driveway width dimensions…" The Board agreed with this suggestion.
Gordon Carlstrom asked why the pavement depth in section 9.24 had been dropped from 3" to 2". The Coordinator explained that the Road Agent had suggested the change because 2" of paving for a driveway apron was enough and it was unlikely that a crew would come back to put one more inch on the apron once the original paving was done.
James Nordstrom pointed out that sections 9.26 & 9.27 should be renumbered 9.25 & 9.26.
Doug Hill asked why the additional standards from the NFPA would apply to common driveways. The Chairman stated that the additional traffic would warrant the standards and also noted that the cost of the additional requirements would give everyone involved a reasonable expectation that the common driveway would last without too many squabbles in the future.
At Section 16.1, Doug Hill pointed out the need for consistency with the previous section mentioned for contacting the Road Agent for inspections. The Coordinator suggested that all relevant sections be changed to require the applicant to contact the Road Agent for their inspections. She noted that the Road Agent was better equipped to schedule the inspections since he knew his own schedule.
The Board discussed the figures that would go along with the regulations noting that the Coordinator had asked if a drawing could be done showing how to lay out a 10' flare. James Nordstrom noted that the drawing would get a little busy if anything else were added and thought that the sight line diagram could be put on a separate page.
From the audience Steve Dunbar asked about the amount of the bond for a driveway apron, noting that $2,000 for the average homeowner was quite a lot of money and that they would probably not be able to get a bond and would have to put up cash. The Chairman noted that cash was an adequate security. He pointed out that the amount was designed to make sure that the project could be done by the town if need be, but also to ensure that the property owner was more likely to complete the paving satisfactorily in order to get their money back.
Bob Todd, LLS, had two questions for the Board. The first was how sight distance would be measured on a cul-de-sac and the second was how a permit would be issued on a Class III recreational road which is owned by the State but maintained by the Town. He noted that Bailey Pond Road was the only such road in New Boston at this time. The Board thought that the Class III road issue might be handled in the same way as a driveway off a Class VI road, since the requirement in town was that frontage be provided off a Class V or better road.
As far as cul-de-sac sight distance was concerned, the Board noted the difficulty of writing a regulation therefor, and pointed out that no other regulation studied during the preparation of this draft had addressed the issue. The Coordinator suggested that if the regulations remained silent on this issue the Board could use their discretion in interpreting the standard requirement in non-standard situations. The Board agreed.
Steve Dunbar asked about receiving driveway permits on Class VI roads, using Wilson Hill Road as an example. James Nordstrom stated that there had been situations in the past when the Selectmen had granted permission for the use of a Class VI road as access to a lot but it was just as likely that they would not grant permission if the conditions were unsuitable. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the middle section of Wilson Hill Road being referred to here was most likely not suitable. He noted that a particular driveway on Laurel Lane had required a road upgrade of 600'. Doug Hill further pointed out that the owner had to sign a release of liability to the town.
The Coordinator noted that a public hearing on the driveway regulations would be held at the next meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Miscellaneous Business and correspondence for the meeting of July 25, 2006, including, but not limited to:
1. Approval of minutes of June 27, 2006, with or without changes, distributed at the July 11, 2006, meeting. (No Copies)
There being no discussion, James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of June 27, 2006, as written. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. The minutes of July 11, 2006, were distributed for approval at the meeting of August 8, 2006, with or without changes.
3. Driveway Permit Application for Thibeault Corporation, Wilson Hill & Byam Roads, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-23, for the Board’s review and discussion.
Steve Dunbar and Bob Smaha from Thibeault Corp. were present in the audience. Steve Dunbar presented a plan that would remove the driveway restriction in this area of Wilson Hill Road so that the driveway they had applied for the previous month could be approved by the Board. He also submitted a letter from Eric Mitchell, PE, the engineer for the original subdivision which explained why the restriction had been placed in that area in the first place. Steve Dunbar explained that when Byam Road was constructed at the time of the reactivation of the Byam Road subdivision by Thibeault Corp. in 1998, the road came up the hill and because Wilson Hill Road remained unimproved to the north, Byam Road simply blended with the improved section of Wilson Hill Road. This meant
that there was not good sight distance at the currently proposed driveway entrance because cars did not have to stop at the top of Byam Road.
Steve Dunbar noted that this situation no longer existed since Wilson Hill Road was improved past the Byam Road intersection with stop signs at both locations. There was now, therefore, plenty of sight distance and the proposed location was a safe one. He noted that the Road Agent had signed off on the permit at the previous meeting.
The Coordinator noted that the Board would need to have a mylar submitted for recording since this was amending an approved subdivision plan.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the driveway permit #06-026, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-23, with the standard Planning Board requirements: This permit requires two inches (2") of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a minimal distance of twenty-five feet (25') from the centerline of the road; The driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of twenty foot (20') radii minimum; The driveway shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60 - 90 degrees. Additionally, the Board approves the Amended Driveway Restriction Plan,
"Juniper Hill", Tax Map 6 Lot 41-23, Wilson Hill and Byam Roads, prepared by Eric C. Mitchell & Assoc. Inc., dated July 13, 2006, with the required submission of three copies of the plan and a mylar suitable for recording at the Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds and the fee for recording same.
Doug Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Steve Dunbar noted that Ernie Thibeault needed to sign the plans and asked if the Board would be able to sign the plans and mylar before the next meeting or if they would have to wait until then. The Chairman noted that the plans would not be signed until the next meeting, however, the driveway could be considered approved by virtue of the approved permit.
4. Endorsement of a Site Plan for Debra Downing (Hill Top Day Care), 266 Saunders Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #1/12-1, by the Planning Board Chairman & Secretary.
The Chairman noted that he would sign this plan at the end of the meeting.
5. Discussion Re: Driveway Easement for Jeffrey & Jacqueline Fillmore, Hopkins Road, Tax Map/Lot #13/16-2 & 13/16-3.
Jeffrey and Jacqueline Fillmore were present in the audience. The Chairman asked the Coordinator to summarize the situation for the Board. The Coordinator noted that the subdivision of the Fillmore's property had included approval of separate driveway permits for the three new lots created. She noted that Jeffrey Fillmore had then approached the Board requesting permission for a common driveway to the two backlots and that the Board had required legal language for the shared portion to be reviewed by Town Counsel. The Coordinator noted that Bill Drescher, Esq.'s, letter had been received and he had noted several issues. The first issue was that due to a change in the law in 2005, shared driveways now fell under RSA 674:41 and would require the Selectmen's
approval if a lot was to be accessed without using its own frontage, unless that configuration was shown on an approved subdivision plan. She noted that Bill Drescher, Esq., suggested options to avoid having to get Selectmen approval, one of which was to revise the subdivision plan to show the common driveway. The second was to move the common entrance so that it straddled the common lot line and encumbered both frontages. The Coordinator noted that since the applicants had already been to the Selectmen it appeared they did not want to pursue either of those options.
The Coordinator noted that there were issues from Bill Drescher, Esq., regarding the legal language of the document but until the major items were resolved those could be set aside.
The Chairman did not think that this common driveway should be approved. He asked why if it was not approved at the time of the subdivision would the Board entertain approving it now. Jacqueline Fillmore explained that aesthetically a shared driveway would be more pleasing than two separate driveways with a few spindly trees between them. She also noted that maintenance and access issues would be better with a shared configuration. The Chairman noted that there was no reason that two side-by-side driveways should be left with sticks between the two and that they could be constructed very nicely with a large wooded buffer between them. He also noted that it was unlikely to get two property owners to agree to long term maintenance and sharing of a common driveway.
Jeffrey Fillmore noted that at the subdivision site walk the Board had seen this driveway. He noted that to follow Bill Drescher, Esq.'s, suggestion to move the entrance to the common lot line would require another 30' of tree clearing and he would like to keep this looking like a driveway. He stated that he had come before the Board in February for a common driveway and got the approval at that time. The Coordinator clarified that the Board had not approved the permit because they wanted to see the legal language for the easement and have it reviewed by Town Counsel.
When asked how long the shared portion of the driveway would be, Jeffrey Fillmore stated that it was 470' from the road to where the 50' strips to the backlots split. Doug Hill asked if the Fillmores might be able to have the first 100' of the driveway shared and then split to two separate driveways. The Chairman noted that generally the Board requires a common driveway on the shared lot line with the split a long way before what was being proposed by this applicant.
Jeffrey Fillmore stated that it was his understanding that the Board did not control anything outside of the right-of-way. Jacqueline Fillmore interjected that the sharing and maintenance would only be issues to the purchasers of the property. Gordon Carlstrom pointed out that this application was approved under the Subdivision Regulations and any amendments would be considered under the Subdivision Regulations. James Nordstrom further clarified that when the subdivision was approved the applicant and the Board agreed to two driveway permits for the two backlots.
Jeffrey Fillmore stated that he could have a surveyor prepare the easements and measure the easement area to meet the Board's requirements. The Chairman noted that a common driveway for 100' might be approved while a driveway for 400' would not. Jeffrey Fillmore stated that his plans showed the common driveway to be 370' in length.
The Chairman sketched out what a shared common driveway with the split after 100' might look like. Jacqueline Fillmore opined that they might as well stick with the two separate permits. She noted that the entrance was already quite large and going in just 100' would not be attractive. Jeffrey Fillmore noted that getting the full 370' approved would be preferable since he could avoid working on the slope and having the danger of erosion during construction of the second driveway.
James Nordstrom reiterated that the subdivision approval showed two separate driveways. Doug Hill stated that the Board was looking out for the town's best interests, noting that feuding neighbors become the Town's problem. He asked if the Fillmores were able to compromise at all on the length of the shared portion. The Chairman reiterated that 100' was doable but anything longer than that would become a problem later on. Jeffrey Fillmore stated that 100' did not make any difference.
The Chairman asked if, based on that statement, the applicants would submit a plan with their intent in writing to be taken up at the Planning Board's next meeting. He noted alternatively that the Board could table the current discussion or deny the plan submitted. He further noted that the Board would like to see no more than 100' shared with the appropriate legal language submitted.
Jacqueline Fillmore asked if they could just continue with the two driveways. The Chairman stated that those two driveways were already approved and would not require anything further from the Planning Board.
Jeffrey Fillmore was upset over the Planning Board using a policy of the 100' shared driveway when it was not a written regulation.
James Nordstrom MOVED to deny the common driveway and easement as proposed by Jeffrey & Jacqueline Fillmore for Lots #13/16-2 & -3, Hopkins Road. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED with Gordon Carlstrom abstaining as he thought the matter might come back to the Selectmen.
GARRETSON, DONALD E, RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC.
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision & Lot Line Adjustment/15 Lots
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot # 5/50 & 5/52 Adjourned from 6/27/06
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Pat Panciocco, Esq., Rick Martin, Bob Todd, LLS, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Brandy Mitroff, Jay Marden, Ken Lombard, Roch Larochelle, Kim Burkhamer, Mike Ryan, Esq. and Tom Clapp.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that all the comments from Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., had been taken care of and the plans before the Board included all those changes. He noted that Individual Stormwater Management Plans had been prepared and he submitted the bond estimates therefor. Pat Panciocco, Esq., submitted deeds revised per the Coordinator's comments made earlier that day.
The Chairman ran through the outstanding issues, first noting a couple of checklist remarks by the Coordinator, that test pits #17 & 32 could not be located on the plans. After much searching by Bob Todd, LLS, Rick Martin noted that these test pits were most likely not on the plans because they had been done for other lots when the plan layout was different and they were no longer needed. The Coordinator noted that she had pointed this out because the test pit logs were on the plans but she had been unable to find the location of the pits.
The Chairman next noted that Lot #5/50-15 had a "tail" that was not particularly usable by the lot. After discussion with Rick Martin, the Chairman determined that the tail was not added simply to make the lot the right size and it was not, therefore, an issue.
Gordon Carlstrom asked about the bump in Beard Road and if the applicant was going to fix it. The Chairman noted that was an issue with the old plans with two road entrances. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the bump was still in the road. The Coordinator pointed out that the applicant was submitting off-site road improvement funds in his fair share and that money could be used by the Town for any part of the Beard Road improvement project.
Roch Larochelle noted that the Road Committee were working on off-site road improvement figures and asked when they should be submitted. The Coordinator noted that they should be done as soon as possible. She noted that her understanding was that the applicant was going to agree to the formula used to calculate his fair share of the cost of the improvements to Beard Road, while acknowledging that the amount per foot would be higher than the $65 used originally to calculate that formula. Roch Larochelle indicated that his original investigation suggested that a number closer to $200 was more likely. The Coordinator noted that Stantec had suggested numbers in the $100 per foot range.
Gordon Carlstrom asked about the dam permit. The Chairman noted that it was called a dam due to the grade of the land and the height rise of the detention pond berm. He noted that it would be primarily a grassy area. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the Selectmen were concerned with the weekly, monthly, and annual inspections and maintenance specified for the dam. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the language on Sheet 12 of 18 regarding inspections and maintenance was boilerplate for all dams even the large ones. He noted that because of that there may be some waivability for the Town for this minor one. Gordon Carlstrom asked about the maintenance required. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that it would have to be kept mowed and no trees or shrubs
should be allowed to grow in the emergency spillway. He reiterated that the only reason it was called a dam was because there was more than 4' from the invert of the pipe to the top of the berm. He characterized this structure as a minimal or marginal dam. He noted that he could bring the outlet up and theoretically the dam status would go away, however, the maintenance obligations would remain to keep it clear. He did not think that the maintenance burden was any greater than any other detention pond in town that the town accepts all the time as part of road construction. Gordon Carlstrom was concerned with where the water would go from the pond. Doug Hill read the note on the plan that described where the water would flow.
Jay Marden asked if the owners of the lot on which the detention pond was located could be made responsible for its maintenance. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that the pond was designed to take the Town's drainage and could not very well be made a private individual's responsibility. The Chairman noted that they may well mow it now and then just to keep their lot looking nice.
The Coordinator noted that the Road Agent was concerned about the pond drain and what that would require for cleaning. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that it would have to be checked for branches and leaves and noted that he had created a workable gravel road to provide the town access to the pond for maintenance purposes. Gordon Carlstrom noted that this was an unusual situation in that a large drainage structure was counting for almost half of the lot. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that the lot had double the required buildable area.
Gordon Carlstrom asked if the subdivision was for condexes, duplexes or single family homes. The Chairman noted that this was a subdivision of land in the R-A district with all the permitted uses thereof and that the applicant was not specifying. He noted that all subdivision in the R-A district should be approached by the Board as if single or two family dwellings could be constructed.
The Chairman noted that there might be an issue with the driveway permit for Lot #5/50-16. The Coordinator explained that the permit on file was very old and that she was not sure if it met the Board's requirements. Rick Martin stated that the driveway was already in place and had been for many years so that it was grown up with brush. The Board noted the question about the existing permit was, therefore, moot.
The Chairman noted that the off-site road improvements figures was a major item for the Board to deal with. James Nordstrom thought that the applicant would want to know what the numbers were before an approval was granted. Pat Panciocco, Esq., noted that, in fact, it would not make any difference, and the applicant would abide by the Planning Board's formula with the understanding that the figure developed by the Road Committee and approved by the Selectmen would be used in the calculation. She noted that they would not concede that the number would be $200 per foot but that they were fine with the formula. Doug Hill stated that anything the Road Committee presented would be backed up with technical data. Pat Panciocco, Esq., noted that Rick Martin would like
to be notified when the meeting between the Selectmen and the Road Committee took place to discuss this.
The Chairman asked if there were any new abutter comments. Mike Ryan, Esq., stated on behalf of the abutters he represented that they would like the Board to limit the development to single family, and that they objected to the length of the cul-de-sac. He noted that the road was longer than any approved before and just because someone owned land did not give them the right to put in a cul-de-sac to develop it. He noted that the length of the road gave rise to a density of development that did not meet the Master Plan if the lots were not limited to single family. He also noted that the detention pond on a lot on which a duplex might be built meant that half the lot was not usable by the property owners and the abutters had concerns with that design.
The Chairman asked if the detention pond was removed from Lot #5/50-5 would there be enough land left to make a viable lot. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the area of the pond was needed to meet the minimum lot size. He noted that the easement area around the pond was significant but there was enough elbow room for the property owners to have a house and accompaniments without impacting the pond area at all.
Doug Hill asked Mike Ryan, Esq., if he was saying that the Board could specify single family homes for this lot even thought the Zoning Ordinance stated that duplexes could be built. Mike Ryan, Esq., stated that was the case because the Master Plan said that the density should be lower so the Board could require single family development. Pat Panciocco, Esq., stated that she disagreed with this assertion, noting that unless there was a good reason to impose that condition or if it was specified in the regulations, the Board did not have the authority to require single family construction. Mike Ryan, Esq., contended that a 2,700' cul-de-sac was reason enough to require single family development because of the density that brought.
The Chairman noted that he would call for a vote on this application and appointed Doug Hill as a full member in Bob Furey's absence.
The Chairman noted that the Coordinator had raised a question about the bonding for the cistern. The Coordinator noted that Stantec's bond estimate included a 30,000 gallon cistern and the applicant's bond estimate did not include one at all and the plan called for a 10,000 gallon cistern. The Chairman asked the applicant if he would be OK with reducing the bond estimate for the cistern by half. Rick Martin agreed. He asked if the cistern would have to be installed to get any CO's in the subdivision, noting that the houses all had sprinklers and this was required for garage fires, exterior fires, brush fires, etc. The Board stated that the cistern would be required for CO as it was an additional safety feature.
The Coordinator noted that the bond estimates for the Individual Stormwater Management Plans had been submitted but the amounts were not included in the total bond for the road construction. Rick Martin asked if the bonds had to be submitted as part of the subdivision or if they could be submitted at the time of building permit application. The Coordinator noted that the regulations required them at the time of subdivision. Rick Martin and Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, argued that this could penalize the developer who might not sell a lot for five years. They also wondered what would happen if someone bought the lot but did not intend to build for a while. The Coordinator noted that the new owner would have to submit the bond and the original could then be returned
to the applicant. Rick Martin asked if the stormwater management bonds could be submitted as part of the road bond. The Board determined that they would have to be separate so as not to confuse any incremental releases of the road construction bond and so as not to confuse the 2-year maintenance bond at the end. Rick Martin thought that this should be discussed so that the individual bonds could be submitted at the building permit stage. The Board stated that they would discuss the matter and if any revisions were made they would extend the courtesy to reviewing this subdivision as well.
Doug Hill MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plat, lands of Right Way Builders, Inc., and Donald E. Garretson, Trustee, Tax Map 5 Lots 50 and 52, Beard Road, for the subdivision of 15 new lots, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of five (5) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing, and including Individual Stormwater Management Plans.
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F, 3.
4. Receipt of Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.'s approval of the road plans and profiles.
5. Submission of the language of the form of the security for review and approval by Town Counsel, the cost of which review shall be borne by the applicant.
6. Submission of the security, in the amount of $1,091,622.15 and in the form of bond, for the construction of Pasture Lane and installation of the 10,000 gallon cistern as shown on the approved plans and profiles.
7. Submission of the estimated construction inspection fees regarding the construction of Pasture Lane in the amount of $44,000. A mandatory pre- construction meeting is required to be held with the developer/agent, road contractor, Town's Road Agent, and representatives of the Planning Board and
Board of Selectmen, as well as the Town's consulting engineer, prior to the start of the road construction project.
8. Submission of $3,500.00 for the cistern construction inspection.
9. Submission of the off-site improvement fees according to the Town of New Boston's off-site road improvement formula in an amount to be determined by the Board of Selectmen.
10. Submission of bond for ISWMP’s as submitted by Sandford Surveying & Engineering.
11. Receipt of revised Quitclaim Deed for Pasture Lane, Fire Fighting Water Supply Cistern Lot, and Slope and Drainage Easements, and Quitclaim Deed for "Conservation Lot" that include review comments by Town Counsel.
12. Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.
13. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
14. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be November 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 by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1.Prior to the start of any construction on-site or the issuance of any building permits, the applicant must submit of a Voluntary Merger for Lots #5/50 & 52; an executed Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions regarding sprinkler systems; an executed Quitclaim Deed for Pasture Lane, Fire Fighting Water Supply Cistern Lot, and Slope and Drainage Easements; and an executed Quitclaim Deed for the
"Conservation Lot". The cost of recording any of the Deeds and other legal documents at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
2. Sprinkler systems shall be installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee before the occupancy of any dwellings on those lots.
3. A 10,000 gallon underground fiberglass cistern shall be installed per the approved design plans and inspected in accordance with the Job Inspection Sheet by the Town's consulting engineer, on the lot described as the Fire Fighting Water Supply Cistern Lot on Pasture Lane.
4. Pasture Lane is to be constructed in accordance with the Application for Inspection and in accordance with the approved plans and profiles. After the base (binder) course of pavement is approved by the Road Agent/town's engineer, the developer will allow the road to set over one winter, during which time the developer will be liable for the roads, including, but not
limited to, winter maintenance thereof. The wearing (finish) course of pavement shall be applied no later than one (1) year from the date of application of the binder course. The Application for Inspection must be turned into the Planning Department after the road is 100% complete, in order to initiate final inspection and acceptance of the
road, and the release of the security for same after a compliance inspection and hearing is held.
5. Driveway locations shall be approved at sub-grade and driveways shall be installed through binder to the satisfaction of the Road Agent/town engineer and in conformance with the Application for Inspection and approved driveway permits.
6. Per Subdivision Regulations Section V-S, 1, J), As-Built plans showing the final location of any slope/drainage easement areas, and driveways, and the final road
construction details, in the form of three paper print copies and one electronic file,
certified by the applicant's engineer that the layout of the line and grade of all public improvements is in accordance with the approved construction plans of the subdivision, shall be submitted for review by the Town's consulting engineer, prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy within the subdivision.
7. Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set, and the appropriate fee for recording same with the HCRD.
8. The applicant shall install road identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) to the satisfaction of the Road Agent.
9. Driveway permits must be approved for completed acceptable installation by the Road Agent and Planning Board prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy (CO's) for the related lots.
10. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until the sprinkler systems are installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee and the driveways are installed and approved by the Road Agent and the Planning Board and the road is installed through binder pavement and the road identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) are installed to the satisfaction of the
Road Agent/town's engineer, guard rails are installed, if necessary, and the As- Built plans have been reviewed and approved by the town's engineer.
11. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD.
The deadline for complying with the conditions subsequent shall be September 1, 2008, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing to be held on the application. Prior to the acceptance of the completed road by the Town, an acceptable two year maintenance bond must be submitted by the applicant for the road in the amount of 10% of the performance bond value. Said maintenance bond must include the amount of 10% of the amount of the bond for the 10,000 gallon cistern.
James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED with Gordon Carlstrom abstaining as he had not been part of the majority of the discussion on the application.
At approximately 9:00 p.m.the Board took a 10 minute break.
PLANTIER, DAVID A. & ALEXIS B. Adjourned from 06/27/06
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/4 Lots
Location: Bedford & Campbell Pond Roads
Tax Map/Lot # 12/82 & 12/71
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Earl Sandford, LLS, PE. Other audience members included Janet White, Burr Tupper, Brandy Mitroff, Jay Marden and Ken Lombard.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, showed the Board revised plans and described the path taken by those that were present at the site walk. He wanted to discuss with the Board the possibility of extending the common driveway to Lots #12/71 & 12/71-3 further than the 100' shown on the plans, but having heard part of the discussion earlier with the Fillmores would understand if the Board did not want to grant that request. He noted that leaving the common portion longer would provide a better buffer between the subject property and the neighboring lot, #12/73. The Chairman asked why the driveway configuration had been designed this way in the first place. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, explained that the driveway existed to Lot #12/71 and the common driveway would enter in the same
place and then run a little further to the south than the current driveway before splitting into two. Doug Hill suggested using the existing driveway for 100' and then splitting into two. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that would be possible, however, he did not want to encumber both lots with easements and he also wanted to be sure to provide adequate room for snow storage for both driveways.
In response to a question from Gordon Carlstrom, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, described the lot layout and explained the shape of existing Lot #12/82 where it abuts St. Jude Road.
The Chairman noted that there were no abutters present this evening.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that before he left tonight's meeting Roch Larochelle had asked that the area to the south of the driveway to Lot #12/71-2 be kept clear of brush with a sight easement. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that he had no resistance to granting the town such an easement and could work on a way to define the area that would be covered. James Nordstrom noted that such an easement would be a good idea because while it was the property owner's responsibility to keep this area cleared an easement would allow the town to go in and clear the area should the owner fail to do so. He further noted that it had an added benefit of keeping the sight distance to the north of the existing driveway cleared as well.
The Coordinator noted that she was not in possession of revised plans and the missing items for the Conditional Use Permits for wetland crossings had not yet been submitted. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that it would be no problem to submit those items, but expressed surprise that the revised plans were not in the office. The Coordinator confirmed that she had not received revised plans.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the subdivision application for David and Alexis Plantier, Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/4 Lots, Bedford & Campbell Pond Roads, Tax Map/Lot # 12/82 & 12/71 in the Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District to August 8, 2006, at 9:15 p.m.
Doug Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Informational session with Paul Sizemore to discuss a potential expansion by adding a 6,000 sq ft building & adding parking spaces to existing site located on NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/29-1.
The Chairman read the informational session notice. Paul Sizemore was present in the audience. He explained that he wanted to add a new building to his site into which he planned to expand his current business. He noted that he needed more space to be able to work on big tractor trailers and be able to leave a project while waiting for parts, for example, without tying up the whole of his work space. The Chairman asked how high the building would be. Paul Sizemore thought that the inside would be 18' tall but was not sure of the height of the peak. The Chairman surmised that the outside would be 20' - 22'.
Gordon Carlstrom asked about the significant number of parking spaces shown on the plan. Paul Sizemore said that Mike Dahlberg, LLS, had stated that the Planning Board liked to see lines which is why they were all shown that way. He noted that the area would be for display and for customer parking. The Chairman suggested that the spaces be deleted and the area left for gravel sales and display area as shown on the existing site plan. He suggested that parking spaces be provided around the building also as shown on the existing site plan. Paul Sizemore indicated where the overhead doors would be located on the new building.
Paul Sizemore stated in response to a question from the Chairman that he had contemplated opening a gas station but investigation had proven that the cost would be too high and he did not think he had the ultimate location for a gas station.
James Nordstrom asked if the new building would have bathroom facilities. Paul Sizemore stated that it would and noted that he hoped to tie into the existing septic system. James Nordstrom suggested that Paul Sizemore discuss this with Mike Dahlberg, LLS, but thought that it would probably be cheaper and less problematic at the State level to install a separate system for the new building.
It was noted that there were no changes proposed to the entrance to the site or the site signage or lighting, although the new building may need corner marking lights as were on the current building.
There being no other major issues to discuss, the Board suggested that Paul Sizemore get together with Mike Dahlberg, LLS, to define the plan further and then submit a site plan review application.
Informational session with Meridian Land Services to discuss a potential subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #2/62, Twin Bridge Road, owned by Twin Bridge Management, LLC.
The Chairman read the public informational session notice. Present for the applicant were Bill Davidson and Ken Clinton from Meridian Land Services and Steve Boyd. Present as interested parties were Janet White of PRLAC, Burr Tupper of the Conservation Commission, Jay Marden and Ken Lombard.
Bill Davidson began by describing the property and noting that the proposal was for two roads to access the lot off Twin Bridge Road, the southerly road being 2,100 l.f. and the northerly road 2,000 l.f. He further noted that there were two tax parcels involved in the application, Lot #2/62 and #3/3 which combined to a total of 130 acres +/-. Bill Davidson went on to say that the proposal was for 40 lots on this property which was located in the R-1 district. The Coordinator clarified that the land was zoned MHP with single family dwellings permitted under the R-1 regulations. Bill Davidson acknowledged this correction.
Bill Davidson noted that Meridian needed to go on site to do test pits and verify the other base data received from Bedford Design Consultants and that they were before the Board tonight to get some indication of the Board's thoughts on the road layout. He noted that they had conducted a site walk with the Conservation Commission on July 19th to look at the wetland crossings. The plans he presented showed four crossings labeled, A, B, C & D. Bill Davidson noted that the discussion at the previous sessions on this application had mentioned joining the two roads together to form a loop. He noted that the wetland crossing required to join the two roads would be significant. Bill Davidson went on to describe the plan further, noting the existing
gravel pit, the town line between New Boston and Weare and hatching that indicated a half acre of clearing per lot. He noted that they had not yet looked at any of the Town's overlay zones.
James Nordstrom noted his confusion since the Planning Board had seen this plan twice before. Ken Clinton explained that Twin Bridge Management had come to the end of their contract for preparation of the base data with Bedford Design Consultants and had contacted Meridian to continue the application process. He noted that from the Board's prior discussions the northerly road had seemed excessive and there was a desire to reduce the amount of road on the plan. He further noted that the Board had seemed OK with the southerly road. Ken Clinton stated that Meridian had tried to mirror the road lengths that had been shown on the previous plans within about 50'. He went on to say that the last design had shown 4 wetland crossings as did their proposal with a
cumulative impact of 4,400 s.f. He noted that the crossing required to join the two roads would be 5,500 s.f. alone.
Burr Tupper stated that the Conservation Commission were not in favor of the crossing to join the two roads, but thought the other crossings were of minimal impact.
The Chairman thought that the intensity of the subdivision as presented was significant. Bill Davidson noted that this plan showed one additional lot compared to the last plan. Gordon Carlstrom thought that some kind of recreational area should be provided for the residents of this subdivision. He also thought that the "excess" acreage on Lot #26 could be set aside as a conservation easement or as conservation land for the town since it does not appear to be buildable.
The Coordinator asked what justification there would be for the Board to grant waivers to the cul-de-sac length for two roads for this subdivision when two recent subdivisions had to produce details for their request for one road each. Ken Clinton thought that the nature of the wetlands had driven the road layout but noted that careful consideration of the waiver requests still had to be made.
Burr Tupper suggested that Lots #28, 29 & 30 would need provisions for a protective corridor of some sort along the river to prevent property owners cutting the trees right down to the water. Doug Hill stated that had been discussed at previous meetings. Ken Clinton stated that the applicants were willing to grant 150' like the Shoreland Protection statute requirements and were positive with regard to wildlife corridors. Jay Marden was concerned that too many lots had been proposed too close to the river. He suggested that the applicants deed land to the town or the PWA to protect it. He also suggested that a strip of land along the back of the lots running to Lot #27 should be set aside as a wildlife corridor. Jay Marden thought that the lot design
off the uppermost cul-de-sac was unacceptable and should be reworked to avoid property owners being able to access the river.
Janet White from the Piscataquog River Local Advisory Committee (PRLAC) agreed with Jay Marden and noted her concerns with the potential for clear cutting to the river. Bill Davidson stated that they could discuss some kind of additional protection along the river with the applicants.
The Coordinator thought that it was important for other town departments, particularly the Highway Department and Fire Wards to weigh in on this layout before too much more money was spent on engineering. James Nordstrom agreed and suggested that the applicants submit copies of the plans to be distributed to the other town departments to get their input. The Planning Board Assistant noted that to distribute to all the departments the applicants should submit 11 copies.
The Chairman returned to the issue of density, noting that Lots #36, 37 & 38 could be made into two lots not three. The Planning Board Assistant suggested that Lots #39& 42 could be one and also pointed out the number of curb cuts off Twin Bridge Road.
Ken Clinton asked if the other departments came back with no or very minor comments would the Board be OK with them moving ahead with the layout as presented. The Chairman stated again that the density should be reviewed. James Nordstrom thought that the road to the south seemed the same as had been previously presented and did not appear to present any major problems. The road to the north, however, needed to be much shorter in his opinion and a fee simple area adjacent to the river, not just an easement, would be desirable. Don Duhaime agreed that the other department's input was needed and that there was too much road on this plan.
Ken Clinton thanked the Board for their time and noted that they would submit further copies of the plans and wait for the input.
6. Memo received July 20, 2006, from Dennis M. Covey, New Boston Fire Inspector, to Michelle Brown, Planning Board Assistant, Re: Ragamuffins Properties, LLC, for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator asked for the Board's permission to send this to the applicant prior to the next meeting. The Board agreed. Gordon Carlstrom stated that concerned abutters had approached the Selectmen at their meeting the previous evening and had said that a comment had been made at the Planning Board meeting that Mr. Eggers had already received permission for 95 person occupancy of Neville Mill Hall and that had been part of the reason for his purchasing the property. The Board was unaware of such comment and Gordon Carlstrom thought that some investigation might be warranted. The Coordinator stated that, to her knowledge, Neville Mill Hall had only ever been approved as a function room and private school.
7. Letter received July 20, 2006, from Rene LaBranche, Senior Associate, Stantec Consulting Services, to Nicola Strong, New Boston Planning Board, Re: Harvey Dupuis Subdivision, Bond Reduction, for the Board’s action.
There being no discussion, James Nordstrom MOVED to reduce the bond for Harvey Dupuis Family Trust, Susan Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/93 & 12/93-22, to $35,151.88 as referenced in the letter from Rene LaBranche, Stantec Consulting Services, received July 20, 2006.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
8. Letter dated July 16, 2006, from William R. Drescher, Drescher & Dokmo, Attorneys At Law, to Nicola Strong, New Boston Planning Board Re: Condex Document Review, Tax Map/Lot# 3/52-24, 13 Hemlock Drive, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator asked if the letter could be released to the applicant's attorney, Pat Panciocco, Esq. The Board agreed, noting that there was nothing sensitive therein and it would save the Coordinator's time in summarizing the letter.
9. Discussion, Re: Stuart Clark Insurance, 1 Maple Street.
The Coordinator noted that a letter had been sent to the Selectmen by Brian Gallant at Stuart Clark Insurance in which he noted that the Police Department had advised him to stripe the parking spaces at the 1 Maple Street location to which they had just moved. He was wondering what the procedure would be to do so.
The Coordinator noted that this became a bit problematic since all the parking for this property was in either the town or state rights-of-way. She noted that the building had obviously been there for a very long time and most recently it was a fly fishing supply store. She further noted that the use of the building now as an office might constitute a change in use. She also noted that it was her understanding that a second business, a jewelry store, was also moving into the building which would compound the problems of parking and increase the intensity of the use. The Coordinator went on to say that she had spoken to the jewelry store owner and advised her to come to meet with the Board along with the Stuart Clark people to discuss the need for a possible site
plan, but had never heard from them.
The Board thought that it would be a very good idea to invite all the parties involved to meet with the Board to discuss the parking, the need for site plan review and so on.
10. Discussion, Re: 22 Greenfield Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/67-4, driveway apron.
The Coordinator noted that the driveways for the subdivision of which this lot was a part had a requirement for paved aprons. This lot had received a Certificate of Occupancy in error since the apron was not paved. Allen Brown, the developer who had submitted the bond in the first place, wanted the remainder of his bond back since he did not think he should be penalized for the town issuing the CO. He did not think he should pave the apron since there were new property owners.
Gordon Carlstrom noted that even though the CO had been issued by mistake, the Town was not obligated to compound that mistake. The driveway apron should be paved. The Chairman thought that the town could pave the apron with the bond money, or that Allen Brown could be approached and the situation explained to him so that he may decide to pave the apron.
11. Driveway Permit Application for Sharon Adler, 43 Scobie Road, Tax Map/Lot #4/32-5, for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator noted that the Road Agent had gone back out to look at this driveway which had been recently paved and which the Chairman had noted now had no 3% negative grade, and had determined this time that the driveway as paved was fine. The Board noted, in light of this development, that there was no further action for them to take. They noted that they would not sign the permit, it being a paving only permit. The Chairman suggested that the applicant be informed that there could be a problem with plow trucks hitting the edge of the driveway in the winter and that the town would not be responsible for repairs, however, the Board did not make a determination on forwarding this comment to the applicant.
12. Letter dated July 8, 2006, from Patricia Panciocco, Wiggin & Nourie, PA to the Board and the Conservation Commission, Re: Declaration of Condominium, Tax Map/Lot #13/15-2, Kettle Hole Protection Area, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator noted that at the time of subdivision a kettle hole was noted on the property and deemed worthy of protection. The easement deed that was submitted for this feature was not accepted by the Conservation Commission due to the difficulty of monitoring and the applicant had offered instead to include the details in the deeds to the lots involved. This declaration of covenants described the kettle hole and included many of the details that were in the easement and would be submitted as part of the condexing of Lot #13/15-2. The Board agreed that the declaration of covenants was satisfactory.
13. Fax received July 24, 2006, from Jacqueline Smith, to the Board, Re: extension to the current expiration date of 7/30/06 for the conditions subsequent for Dupuis Family Trust, Tax Map/Lot #12/93 & 12/93-22, for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator noted that the current expiration date for the conditions was July 30, 2006. The Board determined that the three months requested would be acceptable.
James Nordstrom MOVED to extend the current expiration date of 7/30/06 for the conditions subsequent for Dupuis Family Trust, Tax Map/Lot #12/93 & 12/93-22 to October 30, 2006. Doug Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
14. Copy of article titled “Is Bedroom-Town Mentality A Threat To Rural Culture”, was distributed for the Board’s information.
15. An item added by the Planning Coordinator was the endorsement of the Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Right Way Builders, Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/50, 5/52, 5/52-1 and 5/53.
The Chairman and James Nordstrom (in the Secretary's absence) endorsed the above-noted plans and those for Debra Downing noted in Miscellaneous Business Item #4 above.
At 10:45 p.m. Doug Hill MOVED to adjourn. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Nicola Strong
Planning Coordinator
Minutes approved:
| 
