Minutes of the Planning Board
October 10, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members James Nordstrom, Bob Furey and Don Duhaime; ex-officio Gordon Carlstrom; and, alternate Doug Hill. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nicola Strong, and Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting, were Rod Hansen, Sara Hogan, Burr Tupper, Bob Todd, LLS, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Jay Marden, Brandy Mitroff, Albert & Carol LaChance, Roch Larochelle, Jim Dodge, Cheryl Menard, Ken Lombard, Graham Chynoweth, Esq., Dan & Marie MacDonald, Christine Quirk, Matt Eggers, John Magruder, Chris Eggers, Rick St. Onge, Rich Therrien, Donna Lohman, Tris Gordon, Bob Huettner, Charles Cleary, Esq., Bill Davidson.
LACHANCE, CAROL S. & ALBERT J. Adjourned from 09/12/06
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/9 Lots
Location: NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Lull Road & Middle Branch Roads
Tax Map/Lot # 2/112-2
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present were Albert & Carol LaChance, Bob Todd, LLS, and Earl Sandford, LLS, PE. Also present were Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, Sara Hogan, Brandy Mitroff, Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, Jim Dodge & Cheryl Menard.
Bob Todd, LLS, reminded the Board that this was a cluster subdivision application of 9 lots with 2 lots on Middle Branch Road, 3 lots on Lull Road, and 4 lots on Route 77. He noted that the name of Pumpkin Lane had been approved by the Board of Selectmen for the road. Bob Todd, LLS, went on to say that the applicant's economic analysis of the project had discovered that the cost of Pumpkin Lane made the project not economically viable so they had been discussing how to restructure the plans in the Route 77 area to perhaps no longer install the road.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that ledge on the property and the geometry of the proposed road meant that the project was not economically viable for the applicant. He presented three alternative solutions. The first was to scale back the length of the road so that the cul-de-sac became a much shorter stubby road still serving four houselots. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that there would still be significant costs to this construction due to the wetland crossing needed. The second option was to not build a town road which would save the town the ongoing maintenance. This option would use the same location but install a private shared drive instead of a road and would not require the turnaround. The shared driveway would split at the 100' mark just
beyond the bridge. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that the cost of the bridge could not be avoided no matter the access configuration. He noted that each lot would have frontage on Route 77 but each would not have the capability to get across the wetlands. He went on to say that the shared driveway would still work for 3 lots but would not be feasible for 1 or 2 lots due to the $50K price tag for the bridge construction.
Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the rationale for a 3 lot cluster in this location was that the State would, theoretically, permit 3 curb cuts on the property's frontage. He noted that the likelihood of the DES approving 3 wetland crossings was a different matter and he did not think they probably would approve more than the one already permitted crossing.
In response to a question about the proposed lot frontages and acreages, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that because this subdivision was a cluster subdivision the applicant was able to negotiate different frontages to those normally required in the Residential-Agricultural District and there was additional leeway regarding lot configuration in the Zoning Ordinance. He went on to say that they needed to have this discussion before any final engineering was done. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, also stated that he fully understood the Town's requirement for each lot to have its own driveway over its own frontage but was asking for the Board's flexibility in interpreting the cluster regulations to allow this design.
Gordon Carlstrom asked about the cluster design, noting that it was unusual to see separate sub-clusters within the overall cluster subdivision. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that this property was unique with its 3 separate areas of frontage. He noted that the key was the open space provided that was intertwined with all the lots. He acknowledged that a conventional cluster did group all the houses in one area but noted that this lot lent itself instead to preserving open space.
Doug Hill asked how many lots would be achieved if only 3 were allowed off the shared driveway. Albert LaChance stated that there would then be 8 lots total. He noted that the overall acreage was 60 acres +/- and the open space was 28 acres on this lot with an additional 12 acres on his abutting land that would be added to it. Jim Dodge asked what guarantee there would be that the open space would be permanently open. Albert LaChance stated that there would be covenants in place to guarantee that the land would never be developed. Jim Dodge asked if the Town would be able to enforce these covenants. Albert LaChance stated that his legal documents were structured around a homeowners' association managing the open space.
James Nordstrom asked if the road as originally presented was not economically viable was it realistic to think that a shorter road that still involved a turnaround would be viable. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that although engineering may turn up something unexpected, he thought the shorter road was a viable option for the applicant. Albert LaChance clarified that was only if 4 lots were created. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that if a private shared driveway was approved they could make it work with 3 lots. Albert LaChance elaborated that the project was almost a wash from 4 lots to 3 if Pumpkin Lane was pulled out. He noted that he had to add the 4th lot if the cul-de-sac was required. He noted that the ledge was only recently discovered
and the cost of removal had been estimated at $267K.
Abutter Cheryl Menard asked for clarification of where exactly the road would be located. Bob Todd, LLS, indicated the road location on the plans. Cheryl Menard was also interested in how many cars would be using this new road. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that with three or four houses the maximum would be 40 trips +/- per day. He noted that on a State road like Route 77 the additional traffic would be barely noticeable. Cheryl Menard asked if all construction vehicles would use this access. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, confirmed that the road/driveway location with the bridge would support all required traffic.
Roch Larochelle asked about the span of the bridge. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that the bridge would be a 4' x 12' x 40' long precast box culvert. The cost was $28,000 for the culvert and labor. Roch Larochelle noted that there was a significant difference between a town road with maintenance of the road and structure by the town and a common driveway that would require maintenance by the homeowners' association. Albert LaChance noted that language for the homeowners' association had not yet been drawn up but would be if the Board agreed to this option. James Nordstrom asked if changing from a road to a driveway would make any difference to the DOT driveway permit. Bob Todd, LLS, did not think that this permit would need any amendment since it was
reducing the impact by installing a driveway rather than a road.
Gordon Carlstrom thought it would be a good idea if this was just a driveway and not a road so there would be no maintenance for the town. He thought that 3 lots off a shared driveway in this location would be appropriate. Doug Hill agreed. James Nordstrom stated that his understanding of the Zoning Ordinance allowed that any of the options presented this evening would be viable. He thought the Town would be best served with 3 lots off a common driveway.
Don Duhaime asked if the box culvert would be designed to carry heavy equipment. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the culvert would be installed with a crane and was rated as H25 loading.
Jay Marden asked about the lot frontages for the three lots on Route 77. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the standard approach for conventional lots was to show the viability of each frontage strip to hold a driveway. He noted that the cluster regulations allowed leeway to reduce frontages. He also noted that these were not to be considered backlots but were reduced size lots to meet the cluster regulations. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, went on to say that the idea behind this plan was to provide as much open space as possible and to cross the wetlands with as little impact as possible. He noted that this plan showed 150' impacted by the location of the property lines for the lots but only 50' was impacted by construction of the wetland crossing and driveway. Roch Larochelle pointed out that the standard spacing for driveways on a state road was 100'. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that the Board commonly allowed 2 lots to share a driveway and they could also do 2
wetland crossings although he did not think that viable in terms of having the least impact on the wetlands. Gordon Carlstrom stated that he would rather see 3 lots share a driveway than have 2 major wetland crossings in this area.
The Planning Board's consensus was that the plans should be prepared showing 3 lots sharing a common driveway in the location that had formerly been Pumpkin Lane.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application for Albert & Carol LaChance, Tax Map/Lot #2/112-1, N.H. Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Middle Branch Road and Lull Road, to November 14, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. Gordon Carlstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
DIAZ, KENNETH P. & LINDA T. Adjourned from 09/12/06
Public Hearing/Minor Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: Arrowwood Road
Tax Map/Lot # 12/35-10
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present was Bob Todd, LLS.
Bob Todd, LLS, noted that this lot was part of the original Arrowwood Road subdivision and involved a 10 acre +/- parcel with an existing dwelling. The subdivision proposed 2 lots of approximately 5 acres each. The proposed driveway to the new lot would involve a wetland crossing which was permitted by NH DES. Bob Todd, LLS, went on to say that the septic system was designed and approved. He also noted that and Individual Stormwater Management Plan had been prepared for the new lot and that no State Subdivision Approval was needed due to the lot size.
The Chairman and Bob Furey had both been on the site walk and had no issues with the proposal.
The Chairman asked what form the security for the CUP and ISWMP would take. Bob Todd, LLS, did not know since the applicant was not present.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plat of Land of Kenneth P. & Linda T. Diaz, Tax Map/Lot #12/35-10, Arrowwood Road, for the subdivision of two lots, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of five (5) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections, notes of waivers granted and any corrections as noted at this hearing.
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Submission of security for the ISWMP in the amount of $10,613.90 for Lot #12/35-10-1 in a form of acceptable to the Planning Board.
4. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
5. 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 January 30, 2007, 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.
Gordon Carlstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application as complete, and to grant the Conditional Use Permit and approve the plans of Kenneth P. & Linda T. Diaz, to effect one (1) wetland crossing on property on Arrowwood Road, known as Tax M/L #12/35- 10-1 as the four conditions for granting the Permit have been found to exist, subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of the financial security in the amount of $4,070.00 and in a form acceptable to the Planning Board.
2. Submission of revised plans to include any checklist corrections and any revisions to the site plan as decided by the Board at the hearing.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be January 30, 2007, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should the conditions to approval not be fulfilled by the deadline date, and a written request for extension is not submitted prior to that date, an administrative NOTICE OF DENIAL shall be issued without further action of the Board being necessary.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. Completion of the site improvements as related to the wetland crossing, as shown on the approved construction design plan. The financial security shall not be released until the site has been inspected upon notification to the Planning Department by the applicant that the project has been completed, and a compliance hearing is held and confirms that the project has been satisfactorily completed by no later than November 30, 2007.
Gordon Carlstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #06-028, Tax Map/Lot #12/35-10-1, 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; and, the driveway shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60 - 90 degrees.
Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Board took a short break.
RAGAMUFEN’S PROPERTIES, LLC Adjourned from 09/12/06
by James Eggers
Public Hearing/NRSPR/ Restaurant
Location: 35 Mont Vernon Road
Tax Map/Lot # 19/6
Commercial “Com” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present for the applicant were Matt and Chris Eggers. Also present were Sara Hogan, Bob Todd, LLS, Roch Larochelle, Jay Marden, Burr Tupper, Brandy Mitroff, Ken Lombard, Graham Chynoweth, Esq., Christine Quirk, Rod Hansen, Dan & Marie MacDonald, and John Magruder.
Matt Eggers displayed a copy of a redlined plan of the property, stating that the note about the parking area indicated either railroad ties or a fence, that the hours of operation were included, and an opening date on or after December 20, 2006 was included. He noted the hours were indicated as 12 noon to 12 midnight Sunday - Thursday and until 1:30 a.m. Friday and Saturday. The note regarding the parking area stated that the surface would be gravel.
Matt Eggers next noted that they had approval from DES for operation of the septic system through Jim Falicon at the Subsurface Bureau and they already had permission to go ahead with 75 seats in the bar. Matt Eggers submitted copies of an Approval for Construction which was for a 4,175 gpd system and which had an original date of 1989. On October 10, 2006, Jim Falicon had added the following: "Modified to show approval for existing 2 bedroom house, existing 22 seat eat in restaurant and proposed 75 seat bar/lounge. Loading is based on metered flows." Matt Eggers explained that the water usage at the bar would be metered and a log of readings kept. He also noted that there was a typographical error in the explanation where the number of seats in
the existing restaurant should read 122 not 22. There was some confusion on the part of the Board as to which system this referred to. Matt Eggers explained that this Approval for Construction was for all the septic systems on the property. Gordon Carlstrom thought that something separate for the newly proposed bar would be more appropriate and that the approval should be in the current owners' name. Chris Eggers thought that more clarification could be sought from the State but wondered if the Board could accept this conditionally.
James Nordstrom noted that it was not uncommon practice for DES to amend previous approvals. The Chairman agreed with Gordon Carlstrom that the paperwork from the State should specify Neville Mill Hall and the typo should certainly be taken care of.
Matt Eggers submitted a petition with 150 signatures of people who supported the proposed bar.
Gordon Carlstrom questioned the size of the parking spaces, noting that the previous approval for the restaurant indicated that the spaces would be 10' x 20' but the current plan showed a different circulation plan and sizes than that prior approval. Matt Eggers confirmed that the proposed plan indicated parking spaces of 9' x 18'.
The Coordinator asked to revisit the septic system issue. She noted that the Town had always been in possession of an Approval for Operation for a 450 gpd system dated 1986 which was assumed to be for Neville Mill Hall. She noted that the Approval for Construction submitted this evening was originally dated 1989 which was later than the Approval for Operation and that it was for 4,175 gpd which did not match the Approval for Operation either. She wondered how the Board could know what system was included on the paper submitted this evening. Matt Eggers stated that the Approval for Construction before the Board now was for all the septic systems on the property, i.e. for both buildings. He noted that he presented water usage figures from 5 comparable properties
(bars, restaurants and apartments above) using water bills from the city and state to figure out the gallons used in those other facilities. He noted that this came to less than 5 gallons per seat. Matt Eggers stated that with those findings the State said that the current approval covers 75 seats in the proposed bar. The Chairman asked that Matt Eggers have Jim Falicon from DES amend his explanation to include the information that he had just told the Board.
Rick St. Onge stated that he had met with Jim Falicon and gave him all the numbers by the book. He stated that when the current system failed it would be redesigned by water readings. He also noted that Jim Falicon stated that there was enough land on this site to support any system should the current system fail and that he did not need a plan on file now. The Chairman thought it would be useful for the Board to see the new plan approved to make sure that the system would be buildable. Matt Eggers thought that if DES did not need such a plan right now the Town should not require one. James Nordstrom stated that, as one familiar with the way DES worked in these situations, he thought that what Jim Falicon had written on the Approval for Construction would be
fine with the Board if it was verbalized a little differently. Matt Eggers stated that he would have the revisions to the Board the next day. It was noted that DES had a system to transfer the ownership on the paperwork although people rarely did so.
James Nordstrom asked who had made the changes to the plan being presented to the Board, noting that the plans had been submitted under an engineer's stamp and said engineer should be aware that changes were being made to the plan. Matt Eggers stated that he had not had revised plans prepared after every meeting with the Board but that the engineer in question was familiar with the changes and would prepare the final set for submission to the Town.
The Chairman asked if there were any new abutter questions or comments. Dan MacDonald stated that his comments to do with motorcycle traffic had never been directed at the people but at the noise of the exhaust. He stated that he continued to be concerned about noise, safety and impacts to abutting property's valuations. He noted that his comments had never been personal or against the patrons. Dan MacDonald went on to say that the question of what the bar would contribute to the townspeople had never been satisfactorily answered. He also noted that several of the people who had been attending these meetings were not present this evening and he hoped they had not lost faith in the process. He finished by saying that the parking layout seemed
fine.
Doug Hill asked about the hours of operation. Matt Eggers reiterated that they would be Sunday - Thursday 12 noon to 12 midnight and Friday and Saturday 12 noon to 1:30 a.m. He noted that closing times would be decided upon by the business. The Chairman asked if he would consider rolling back the Friday and Saturday hours to midnight in consideration of exiting traffic. Matt Eggers stated that he would not be willing to do that. He noted that this was not out of consideration of the noise factor but was because he currently operate a bar and restaurant that was open until 1:30 a.m. He noted that if he closed early that would be fine, but he wanted to have the capability of staying open until then if something was going on.
Doug Hill thought that the proposed bar was a different kind of business from what was currently on-site and that it would be marketed differently with the bands and karaoke and football games. He also noted that the area should be considered with the residential neighbors. Matt Eggers noted that Route 13 was a state highway and further noted that there was enough traffic on the road all night long that if 10 cars left the parking lot at 1:20 a.m. it would not be a significant impact. Doug Hill asked in that case if the impact was so small why they would not cut back the hours. Matt Eggers pointed out that another restaurant in town was approved for 2 a.m. as their closing time 7 days a week. The Chairman noted that was a very different area of town.
Gordon Carlstrom also noted that the proximity of the Town Center to this proposal made consideration of traffic and noise very different. Matt Eggers offered that signs could be posted in the building by all exits asking for consideration when leaving the parking lot.
Chris Eggers noted that this was family business and there were no intentions of letting it become a rowdy bar. Matt Eggers further noted that he had a history as an operator of a respectable business and that he wished to support the town and be a part of a small community. Doug Hill stated that the only thing he was pointing out was that at 1:30 a.m. everything else in town would be closed so when people were leaving the bar they would be on quiet town roads.
Rich Therrien of Pearson Lane thought it unfair that the Board would ask a business owner to cut back his hours when they were already approved for those hours with their current business. He thought the bar would be a place to go to meet other townspeople and he did not think the clientele would change much from those that visited the restaurant and bar currently. Donna Lohman of Mont Vernon Road thought that this was a family restaurant and did not foresee any problems. She also noted that she saw a lot of motorcycle traffic in the afternoon but not at night time.
Gordon Carlstorm mentioned that at 11 p.m. local police coverage stopped and any calls would have to wait for a State trooper for 45 minutes to 2 hours. He wondered if the Tavern owners had made any provision to get coverage for significant activity for those times when there was no local coverage. Matt Eggers stated that the State Police did provide coverage and further noted that the Police Chief had submitted a letter in which he stated that he did not see any problems with the bar proposal. Gordon Carlstrom stated that the Police Chief was requesting extra officers to cover when the bar was open until 1:30 a.m. He noted that the State Police were only available when they were available and with only 5 cruisers for the county they could easily be tied up at an
important call. Matt Eggers argued that this coverage issue was an issue for all other kinds of problems not just when the bar was open until 1:30 a.m. Chris Eggers agreed that the bar was only one element of a bigger picture. Gordon Carlstrom wished to point out that the Eggers' could not have the attitude that they would not have any impact on town services. Chris Eggers stated that for extra events they would hire details just as they did with the River Roast.
James Nordstrom noted that a lot of the discussion about this business had been based on speculation and assumption because no one really knew how the business would operate. He wondered what would happen if 4 or 5 months down the road some of the issues discussed become a real problem. Matt Eggers thought that if there were consistent complaints and police action the liquor commission would pull their license. James Nordstrom stated that he was trying to find some way of giving the townspeople security that the business would have to operate according to their approved plan. The Coordinator pointed out that if the business did not operate according to plan the Board could revoke the approval. A lengthy discussion followed about the possibility of adding
safeguards to the Board's approval to make sure that any future owners would have to abide by the rules. Eventually it was noted that the current and any future property owners would have to abide by the rules and regulations of the Town of New Boston and the conditions attached to this site plan. The liquor license process was also mentioned as a way to monitor the situation. The Chairman also noted the possibility of revoking the plan.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Non-Residential Site Plan Application by Ragamufen’s Properties, LLC, by James Eggers, to change the use of Neville Mill Hall from a function hall and private school to a 74 seat sport bar as part of the New Boston Tavern Restaurant and to add a 16’ x 16’ addition to Neville Mill Hall and an additional parking area on Tax Map/Lot #19/6, 35 Mont Vernon Road, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) revised site plans that include all of the checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
2. Execution of a Site Review Agreement.
3. Submission of clarification on DES Approval for Construction as discussed at hearing.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be November 14, 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.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. All site improvements are to be completed as per the approved site plans.
2. The Town of New Boston Planning Department shall be notified by the applicant that all improvements have been completed, and are ready for final inspection, prior to scheduling a compliance hearing on those improvements, a minimum of three (3) weeks prior to the anticipated date of compliance hearing;
3. Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be submitted;
4. A compliance hearing shall be held to determine that the site improvements have been satisfactorily completed, prior to releasing the hold on the issuance of any Permit to Operate/Certificate of Occupancy, or both. No occupancy/use of the sport bar/restaurant shall be permitted until the site improvements as noted have been completed, and a site inspection and compliance hearing held.
The deadline for complying with the Conditions Subsequent shall be December 25, 2006, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing as noted in item #4 above.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Informational session with Twin Bridge Management, LLC, 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 notice. Present were Tris Gordon and Bob Huettner of Twin Bridge Management, LLC, Charles Cleary, Esq., and Bill Davidson, from Meridian Land Services. Also present were Burr Tupper, Ken Lombard, Jay Marden and Sara Hogan.
Bill Davidson stated that the plan had been sent to the various town departments for review and comment and the only addition to the plans from the surveyor's office was the test pits for all lots which now showed the 4K boxes and well radii. He said that the only changes since the last meeting with the Board were the roads being shortened to 2,200' and 1,960' and some of the lots being reworked to a better shape. He noted that comments had been received from the Road Committee and the Conservation Commission. Bill Davidson stated that based on the Conservation Commission comments perhaps there would be no easement on the property but a setback to wetlands instead.
Bill Davidson stated that the applicants had met with the Fire Wards at their September meeting and it was his understanding that there had been a verbal commitment from Tris Gordon and Bob Huettner to sprinkle all the houses and install underground electric and if they did that the Fire Wards would endorse the plan. He noted that a letter from the Fire Wards that he had seen that day said different in that they strongly recommended against the increase in length of the cul-de-sac and that all houses not within 2,200' of the Twin Bridge cistern should be sprinklered. Bill Davidson stated that the applicants would propose instead connecting the two roads to get away from the extra length. He noted that this would not make the Conservation Commission very happy.
Burr Tupper of the Conservation Commission wanted to go on record as being absolutely opposed to connecting the two roads across the wetlands. He noted it would be a major impact and would be a mistake for the Planning Board to allow it.
Brandy Mitroff clarified that the applicants proposed to sprinkle all the homes. Bill Davidson stated that only the ones outside the 2,200' of a cistern would be sprinklered if the roads connected. Brandy Mitroff thought that the Fire Wards had previously agreed that cul-de-sacs could be longer than 1,000' if underground utilities were installed to lessen the problems in the event of a tree down that might take wires with it. The Chairman noted that this subdivision would require only 17 lots to be sprinklered because the rest were within the distance of an existing cistern if the roads connected. Bill Davidson offered that with two cul-de-sacs all the lots would be sprinklered.
Brandy Mitroff thought that the Boards should get together to decide this issue once and for all. Bob Furey thought that the concern was with downed trees. Brandy Mitroff stated that underground utilities took care of the danger of wires.
The Chairman personally thought that the subdivision was too dense but that the road layout was good and he had no problem with the layout in comparison to adding $100K for the crossing and the associated decimation of the wetlands.
James Nordstrom stated that it did not matter if a cul-de-sac was 1,000' or 2,000' in a fallen tree scenario. The Chairman asked what would happen if something blocked the middle of Byam Road. Jay Marden noted that a key difference between this subdivision and the recent Christian Farm subdivision which also had an extended cul-de-sac was the amount of open space the Christian Farm subdivision provided which this plan did not. Tris Gordon pointed out that this subdivision was proposed in the R-1 district which allowed 1.5 acre lots. The Coordinator clarified that the land was actually zoned MHP with R-1 zoning permitted for single family dwellings. Tris Gordon pointed out that there was 18 acres of land set aside by the river.
Burr Tupper stated that road access across the wetland would deny the wildlife corridor to the river. He agreed with the Chairman that the issue of the length of the road needed resolution and perhaps a less dense lot layout may be a solution.
Gordon Carlstrom thought the applicants should give some thought to recreation land for the neighborhood. Jay Marden asked about the open space. Bill Davidson stated that there was 18.3 acres along the river and the wildlife corridor had a 150' easement along the swath although the Conservation Commission had since thought that setbacks to the wetlands might work better. Jay Marden stated that he was concerned about how to stop people encroaching on the protected areas. Bill Davidson offered that placards could be placed on the property and that language would be included in the deeds precluding any disturbance or development in those areas.
Bill Davidson stated that the applicants would like the Board to make a decision on the road layout since engineering the design would take quite a bit of time. Don Duhaime asked about the flooding potential of this land. Bill Davidson stated that a very small portion of the lot was in the 100-year floodplain. He also noted that the soils in this area were sands and gravels with a seasonal high water table at 84"; the highest SHWT on the property being at 33".
Don Duhaime agreed with the Fire Wards that from a safety standpoint the roads should be connected and thought that it could be done without impact on the wildlife corridor.
The Coordinator thought that the Planning Board should wait until they had discussed this matter with the Fire Wards before making a decision. The Chairman agreed, noting for the applicant that the Board would not have consensus tonight anyway. He stated that the Board would meet with the Fire Wards and then they would be able to tell the applicants whether or not to connect the roads. Tris Gordon stated that this was the fourth time they had come to the Planning Board and they had met with all the other Boards. The Chairman said that the applicants would not have to come back to another meeting. He noted that the Planning Board would meet with the Fire Wards and then let the applicants know which way to go with the road design. Tris Gordon stated that he
would rather connect the two roads. He noted that he understood all the Boards' different issues but pointed out that without sprinklering all the houses and installing underground utilities it would be cheaper for him to connect the two.
Bob Furey stated that he had been at the meeting on October 5th with various Town Boards and Departments. He noted that he agreed with Don Duhaime that although he did not want to see the wetlands disturbed he was very concerned with wanting to see through roads. He stated that he wanted to meet with the Fire Wards and others to hash this matter out thoroughly. The Chairman noted again that the Board did not have consensus on this issue. He noted that the Board had been previously told that the life safety benefits of sprinkles offset the issue of a long cul-de-sac. Don Duhaime pointed out that the issue was not just with fire but with ambulance and emergencies. Brandy Mitroff stated that one of the selling points of the 4wd ambulance for the
Fire Department was its ability to go off-road if necessary in an emergency. Ken Lombard agreed with an earlier comment by James Nordstrom that it did not matter if the road was 1,000' or 2,000', there would be the same problems. He asked that Conservation and Open Space be notified of any meeting with the Fire Wards. Don Duhaime asked where the 1,000' figure came from. The Coordinator stated that it used to be 600' and was based on the length of hose carried on the fire trucks.
Bill Davidson asked if the road length issue was resolved would they be able to go to final engineering. The Chairman thought that once the Board reached consensus regarding the road layout the final plans could be prepared. He again stated that less density would be appreciated. James Nordstrom suggested that Lot #26 could be configured to leave the house with less acreage and add the excess to the open space in back. Burr Tupper stated that there were many organizations in town working to protect the river and that protection should be taken into account when designing lots in this area. Bill Davidson stated that input to that effect from the last meeting had been considered and used on the plan before the Board tonight. Brandy Mitroff noted that if the
zoning allowed the lots to be 1.5 acres perhaps more of them should be designed closer to that size to allow more land to go into open space.
The Chairman concluded that the Planning Board would meet with the Fire Wards as soon as possible and once the discussion had taken place, the Board would reach consensus on the road design for this subdivision and let the applicants know.
INDIAN FALLS, LLC Adjourned from 09/26/06
Compliance Hearing/Major Subdivision/14 Lots
Location: Bedford, McCurdy & Campbell Pond Roads (Indian Falls Road)
Tax Map/Lot # 12/89
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. No one was present for this application.
The Coordinator explained that Stantec was working with the applicants on resolving the outstanding issues with this subdivision and that the applicant had, therefore, requested that the application be adjourned so as not to waste anyone's time with this scheduled hearing.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Indian Falls, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #12/89, Bedford, McCurdy & Campbell Pond Roads (Indian Falls Road), to October 24, 2006, at 8:30 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2006.
The Coordinator asked the Board if they would start with an unscheduled item. Graham Chynoweth, Esq., was present representing the Garretsons who owned property that was the subject of Right Way Builders subdivision application on Beard Road currently being appealed by the abutters. She noted that the Board's regulations required that the applicant and owner sign an acknowledgement on the Notice of Decision regarding the conditions to the approval. The deadline for signing and submitting the signed Notice of Decision was October 23, 2006. The Garretsons were requesting an extension to signing their copy of the Notice of Decision. The Coordinator went on to note that the Conditions Precedent to the subdivision were due to be completed by November 1,
2006.
Graham Chynoweth, Esq., noted that the Garretsons had received no information from Right Way Builders and did not know if Rick Martin had signed his Notice of Decision yet or not. He noted that this was the last available meeting with the Board to request an extension to the deadline for signing the Notice of Decision. He went on to say that Rick Martin had a Purchase and Sales Agreement with the Garretsons for the land contingent upon the approval which was currently being appealed. Graham Chynoweth, Esq., noted that the Garretsons were in litigation with Right Way Builders over the Purchase and Sales Agreement. He noted that the Garretsons did not want to sign anything that would hold them solely responsible for fulfilling conditions. He further noted that his
clients did not necessarily want Right Way Builders to default either.
The Coordinator noted that Town Counsel Bill Drescher, Esq., had advised the town to hold a noticed public hearing for any request for extension of the conditions precedent deadline, but this request could be dealt with under Miscellaneous Business.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the extension request for the Garretsons to the submission of a signed acknowledgement of the Notice of Decision for Right Way Builders, Inc., and Donald E. Garretson, Trustee, Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 5/52, Beard Road, to December 22, 2006.
Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
1. Approval of minutes of September 12, 2006, with or without changes, distributed at the September 26, 2006, meeting. (No Copies)
James Nordstrom pointed out some minor typographical corrections on pages 6, 7 & 9.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of September 12, 2006, as amended. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. The minutes of September 26, 2006, were distributed for approval at the meeting of October 24, 2006, with or without changes.
3. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Thomas A. & Carolyn H. Mohan, NH Route 13 a/k/a Mont Vernon Road, Tax Map/Lot #14/84, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman stated that this plan would be signed at the end of the meeting.
4. Endorsement of a Subdivision/NRSPR/Condex Site Plan for Locus Field, LLC, Salisbury Road, Tax Map/Lot #13/15-3, by the Planning Board Chairman & Secretary.
The Chairman stated that this plan would be signed at the end of the meeting.
5. Faxed letter dated October 2, 2006, from Kristine Filteau Contracting, LLC, to New Boston Planning Board, Re: request for extension on conditions subsequent, for Rising Generation Daycare, Tax Map/Lot# 3/49, 643 N Mast Road, for the Board’s action.
Doug Hill MOVED to extend the deadline for the completion of conditions subsequent for TRG Learning Center, Tax Map/Lot #3/49, 643 N. Mast Road, to September 30, 2007. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
6. Memorandum from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Peter Hogan, Planning Board Chairman, Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator and Board of Selectmen, dated September 29, 2006, Re: Town of New Boston Draft Earth Removal Regulations, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator asked the Board to review the regulations for discussion at the next meeting. She noted that the bulk of the regulations could be adopted by the Board but Town Meeting vote would be required to approve the idea that the Selectmen would stay involved in the process by handling the day to day issues with gravel applications. The Coordinator noted that she had listed the various sources she had referred to in the preparation of this draft. She also noted that items in italics in the regulations would require discussion as they were more stringent than what the model regulation from Southwest Region Planning Commission or RSA 155-E included.
James Nordstrom noted that he had read most of the regulation and did not think the items included in italics were too onerous for someone preparing a site plan for a gravel operation.
The Coordinator suggested that once the Board of Selectmen and Planning Board had reviewed the draft it should be sent to Bill Drescher, Esq., and Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission for their review before public input sessions were scheduled with the gravel pit owners in town.
The Board agreed to review the regulations for the next meeting.
7a. Order of Notice received September 26, 2006, from The State of NH, Northern District of Hillsborough County, to Town of New Boston, was distributed for the Board’s information.
7b. Letter dated September 27, 2006, from William R. Drescher, Drescher & Dokmo, P.A., Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, Nicola Strong, Planning Board Coordinator, Re: Order of Notice, was distributed for the Board’s information.
8. Letter received October 3, 2006, from David Preece, SNHPC, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: 2007 Local Source Water Protection Grants, for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator noted that SNHPC were offering to apply for a grant to conduct a study of wells and drinking water for the town center and there would be no cost to the Town. The Board asked the Coordinator to request that SNHPC apply for said grant.
9. Discussion, Re: Town consulting engineers.
The Board had a brief discussion regarding the interviews held the previous week with the potential town consulting engineer candidates. The Board determined that they would like to offer the position to Northpoint Engineering with a one year contract to start. It was noted that the Selectmen needed to approve this hire and the Coordinator would send a memo requesting that they discuss the matter at their next meeting.
10. Discussion, Re: Off Site Road Improvement, information from the Road Committee.
The Board reviewed the information from the Road Committee and noted that the new figure for off-site road improvements in the Town of New Boston would be $165 per foot with additional premiums added as various conditions were present in the location of the road improvement, e.g. ledge, etc.
11. Draft New Boston Master Plan Summary, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator noted that SNHPC had forwarded this summary to be a handout for people to get a quick idea of the Master Plan's Goals and Objectives. She stated that she and Michele Brown had looked it over and had a few suggestions. The first was that the front was too wordy so that it would put people off so the idea was to have some pictures or a logo on the front to attract attention. The green used for the headings was a little on the dull side and the Coordinator and Michele thought that perhaps a burgundy color or something a little brighter would work better. The Coordinator also pointed out that she had made some proof reading comments and suggested removing some of the objectives to make the inside less wordy.
The Board agreed with staff comments and stated that they should be forwarded to SNHPC for their review.
12. Copy of the meeting minutes of the October 5th meeting, Re: Twin Bridge Management Subdivision and other future subdivision, for the Board’s review and discussion.
Bob Furey and Don Duhaime had been at the meeting and noted that it was very interesting and worthwhile. It was noted that the issue of cul-de-sac length and design would be discussed at the meeting with the Fire Wards that was to be scheduled following the Twin Bridge Management informational session earlier this evening.
13. Endorsement of a Site Review Agreement for Robert Starace, Locus Field, LLC, Condex, Salisbury Road & Kettle Lane, Tax Map/Lot #13/15-3, by the Planning Board Chairman.
This Site Review Agreement and the two plans noted earlier were signed by the Chairman and the Secretary.
At 11:20 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Nicola Strong
Planning Coordinator
Minutes approved:
| 
