Minutes of the Planning Board
January 9, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, James Nordstrom, Bob Furey, Don Duhaime; ex-officio David Woodbury and alternate Douglas Hill. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were Jay Marden, Willard Dodge, James Dodge, Jared Dodge, Tom Dutton, Ken Lombard, Burr Tupper, Jed Callen, Esq., Brian Towne, Janet White, Heidi Akerman & David Clukay, Debra Downing, Steve Caggiano, William Matheson, Ray Shea, Mark LeBlanc, Steve Hunt, and Roch Larochelle.
Public Hearing on the changes and additions to the proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as effected at the first public hearing.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present from the Wetlands Conservation District Committee to amend the Zoning Ordinance were Jed Callen, Esq., Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, and Ken Lombard, Open Space Committee. Interested parties present were Jay Marden, James Dodge, Brian Towne, Janet White, Jared Dodge, Tom Dutton, Ray Shea and Willard Dodge.
The Chairman stated that the Board would begin with discussion on changes proposed to the Wetlands Conservation and Stream Corridor District adjourned from the December 19, 2006, meeting. He noted that based on legal opinion received from Town Counsel there were some issues with definitions in the proposed amendments, namely, “perennial streams”, “creeks”, “rivers”, “Great Ponds”, “ponds”, “lakes”, “poorly drained soils”, “bogs” and “marshes”. The Chairman asked where these items were defined. Jed Callen, Esq., replied that the version submitted to the Board provided definitions for all these terms which were regulatory terms defined by State Law. He added that the Coordinator had a copy of
each State law referenced in the ordinance, however, all terms used were not defined as this would become cumbersome, therefore, the common understanding was assumed. Jed Callen, Esq., stated that in the case of the section dealing with setback distances all terms were defined. He asked if there was one definition in particular that the Chairman questioned. The Chairman replied that the ones he had listed as noted by Town Counsel were what he referred to. Jed Callen, Esq., noted that setback distances were set from streams, ponds, lakes or wetlands and wished to clarify that the remaining terms being questioned came out of Section A. The Chairman replied that they were from Section 204.6 B.1. Jed Callen, Esq., stated that he believed that “perennial stream” had been aptly defined and that “creeks” and “rivers” had not but felt that there were common understandings of these terms. He added that
“Great Ponds” were defined by State law as being ponds greater than 10 acres. Jed Callen, Esq., continued that “poorly drained soils” and “wetlands” were defined in later sections along with “vernal pool” although that term was not involved in placing setbacks. The Chairman suggested that if these terms were throughout the body of text they could be referenced to the RSA that defined them.
The Chairman asked why the setback was proposed at a minimum 50’ and maximum 100’. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, stated that at the last meeting which the Chairman was not present for, it was decided that language would be included in the amendments adding the Board’s discretion on setbacks. The Chairman clarified that he liked the proposal except for the 50’ stipulation from Setback Distances 204.6,C,4,b,: “No new structure, as defined in Section 602 of the Ordinance shall be constructed within 50 feet of any perennial stream, pond, lake or wetland; provided that the Planning Board may, at its discretion, and in consideration of any input from the Conservation Commission, increase this setback to a maximum of 100’ based
on soil science and the following considerations:” Burr Tupper explained that 50’ was chosen because it was also the suggested setback measure chosen by a wetlands conservation group that had been chartered by the State to come up with a State wide figure. The Chairman noted that the State statute did not have a variable feature in the language as did the Town’s. He added that he agreed that there should be flexibility that would allow the measure to be extended to 100’, but also the flexibility to go below 50’, for example, no less than 25’. Jed Callen, Esq., noted that in lieu of the petitioned amendment that had been previously prepared for filing when the Board was not ready to deal with setbacks and only the definition was to be amended, 100’ or 75’ was listed as the minimum setback. He added that the Coordinator had the Buffers book listing recommended setbacks and listed 100' as a minimum setback. The Chairman felt that was a made up number. Jed Callen, Esq.,
countered that they all were and that it was obvious that every wetland, pond, stream, etc., differed as did their sensitivity and habitat values as they related to developed or undeveloped tracts of land, therefore, no one number would always be correct which left room for compromise. He noted that he had opted for a 100’ minimum but was told that the Board, particularly the Chairman, would be more amenable to compromise if it were reduced to 50’. Jed Callen, Esq., then read from the proposed ordinance: “The above setback distances are based on the "Buffers for Wetlands and Surface Waters, a Guide book for New Hampshire Municipalities", May 1997.” He noted that this booklet recommended 100’ and offered many examples of where 100’ was insufficient and should be increased. The Chairman reiterated that his interest was not to cap the maximum measure at 100’ but be more lenient with the 50’
minimum. Jed Callen, Esq., mentioned that at the last meeting the Board voted that they were not comfortable with uncertainty for the maximum setback and that developers could get behind this issue if the maximum setback were listed at 100’. Burr Tupper noted that they had discussed non-foundation structures which could sit closer to wetlands while a foundation structure needed a minimum of 50’. He added that audience members at the last meeting seemed more comfortable having a definite maximum number in place. The Chairman noted that the buffer aspect also came into play and depended not only on the type of buffer but to what extent it was protected, for example 100% density or thinned. Burr Tupper clarified that there were two different kinds of buffers mentioned in the amendment, one dealing with vegetative buffers and another as it related to onsite structures. Douglas Hill stated that woodland buffers which many towns do not
have, meant that a 50’ setback could be closer to 80’.
Dave Woodbury thought the discussion being had was valid and interesting but wondered if it was beyond the scope of what the board could accomplish at this evening’s hearing. He noted that the purpose of tonight’s hearing was to vote on the amendment and invoke minor changes if necessary. The Chairman asked for the sake of consideration, if a change to the 50’ setback minimum would be considered too substantial a change for this hearing. The Coordinator replied that it would be and would require another posting and public hearing which the Board had no time for under the statutory deadlines. The Chairman stated that he had no issues with the remainder of the proposed amendment but thought the setbacks should be variable. He added that he was
in favor of the 100’ maximum setback but did not like the 50’ minimum setback.
Dave Woodbury thought that the definitions should be addressed. The Chairman thought that “creek” was not a term used in this area of the country. Jed Callen, Esq., replied that if the Board preferred, this term could be stricken from the language of the amendment without any regulatory impact. He added that “perennial stream” would aptly cover any ambiguous area such as that. Burr Tupper agreed. Jed Callen, Esq., noted that “Great Pond” could be referenced without any substantial changes to the text and all other terms were defined. Dave Woodbury stated that he agreed with the Chairman’s comments regarding the use of “creek” in the language. Jed Callen, Esq., noted that this term appeared once
in Section 204.6,B,1, and he had no issue with striking it if it was the Board’s preference.
The Chairman then asked each Board member their opinion on the proposed amendment and the discussion had thus far. Don Duhaime stated that he was satisfied. James Nordstrom stated that he was comfortable with moving forward and felt that the term “creek” could either be stricken or further defined in the text. Bob Furey stated that he was satisfied with the proposed amendment and had no opinion regarding the use of the term “creek”, and called attention to Town Counsel’s suggestion that the District Boundary section have the language altered from terms “as defined herein” to “…to the extent defined herein or in the following statutes…and/or rules…”. Douglas Hill stated that he had
no comments. Dave Woodbury stated that he favored moving forward toward a motion and liked the elimination of “creek” from the text. The Chairman noted that Town Counsel recommended referencing the definition of Great Ponds to RSA 4:40-a. He wondered if striking “creek” from the text would result in odd wording in other places. Dave Woodbury suggested using the term “or by statute” to solve the issue when such terms came up in the text.
The Chairman asked if there were any questions from the public. Jay Marden stated that he had a question regarding Section 204.6,C,4,c, Setback Distances: “Where existing, a natural woodland or vegetative buffer shall be maintained within the setback designated in Paragraph C.4.b. above, between the new structure and any perennial stream, pond, lake or wetland.” followed by sub item 1: “A natural woodland or vegetative buffer means a forested or vegetated area consisting of various species of indigenous trees…For the purposes of this section, “maintained” shall mean the avoidance of clear cutting or complete removal or replacement with…”. Jay Marden questioned whether or not the section he quoted meant that
clear cutting within 50’ of a wet area would be allowed if no structure was involved. Jed Callen, Esq., replied that if this was an existing vegetated area, for example, a field abutting a stream with no trees,
nothing applies, however, with trees, regardless of the setback for structures covered in Section 204.6,C,4,b, the natural woodland or vegetative buffer must be maintained at the distances stated. Jay Marden stated that he did not see in the text where it noted that without a structure the clear cutting stipulation would apply. Jed Callen, Esq., replied that the setback applied without structures because it was not dependent on item 4.b. and quoted 4.c: “Where existing, a natural woodland or vegetative buffer shall be maintained within the setback designated in Paragraph C.4.b. above, between the new structure and any perennial stream, pond, lake or wetland” Jay Marden then clarified that the amended ordinance restricted clear cutting within 50’ of any water way regardless of
structures. Jed Callen, Esq., replied that was the case and that it set buffers between buildings, septic systems, leach fields and protected water resources, between structures with a foundation and a water resource, and protected against clear cutting a natural buffer in existence. Jay Marden still thought his question could arise in the future and the amendment could be misinterpreted as such.
Interested party James Dodge stated that he was disappointed in tonight’s discussion. He wondered why such setback stipulations were necessary for the Town and what financial liabilities it would incur if this amendment was passed. James Dodge added that he thought this amendment would be considered and discussed over the next year and suddenly a proposal was being brought forward. He further added that the committee that had worked on this amendment continuously noted that the State was passing their statute concerning setbacks imminently yet he knew the State had been working on this issue for the past 5 to 7 years.
James Dodge wished to discuss the District Boundaries section where wetlands were defined and groundwater frequencies reviewed. He stated that he had spoken with a soils scientist one day prior and given that discussion he felt that soil types should be included in this section to more aptly define wetlands. He noted that on his farm land there were areas that were quite saturated at this point that ordinarily would not be and by this amendment he would not be able to hay it next year. The Chairman noted that Mr. Dodge’s concern was addressed in section 204.6.B,1,d, under District Boundaries it read: “This section shall not apply to isolated wetlands of less than 2,000 square feet, nor to the erosion control structures such as sediment basins and diversion
ditches, nor to low impact development practices such as bio-filters, detention and retention ponds, infiltration trenches, and drainage swales.” Jed Callen, Esq., noted that although he understood that Mr. Dodge would prefer to have larger areas of wetlands excluded from the amendment the committee felt that 2,000 s.f. would suffice here as it was found to be a measure used by many other New Hampshire towns. In regard to Mr. Dodge’s question about soil types Jed Callen, Esq., explained that they could not be included in the District Boundaries section because while the current version of the ordinance listed many soil type definitions State and Federal law had now opted for one single definition as noted which would override any other definition a town might use. He further explained that this nationwide definition employed three factors that must be confirmed by a certified wetland scientist to define a wetland: soil types in consideration of
saturation, vegetation adapted to such soil types and the hydrology of a wetland, therefore, soil type alone would not define a wetland. The Chairman noted that this was the State’s definition of a wetland. Jed Callen, Esq., replied that he was trying to explain to Mr. Dodge that consideration of soil types nor any of the other factors by themselves would define a wetland. The Chairman asked if the State had not recently made a change in the way they referred to soil types. Jed Callen, Esq., replied that they had but only a change from redefining Hydric A and Hydric B soils as “poorly drained” and “very poorly drained”. He noted that even if a Hydric A soil were identified it alone would not define a wetland. The Chairman wished to clarify that the wording of the proposed amendment did not reflect the wording in the current ordinance because the definitions had changed and currently, therefore, did not parallel State
and Federal guidelines. Jed Callen, Esq., replied that was correct. He reiterated that, by law, the defining factor was now that a wetland scientist must weigh all three aforementioned factors together by field delineation to discern a wetland area. James Dodge stated that, given this information, he was still concerned about the fate of his haying field. Jed Callen, Esq., replied that the setback stipulations did not apply to farming only unless a landowner was planning to construct a septic system or building even if the land was found to be a wetland. Burr Tupper noted that this was stated under the Section 204.6,D,1,a, Permitted Uses: “Agriculture including grazing, hay production, truck gardening and silage production provided that such use is shown not to cause significant increases in surface or groundwater contamination by pesticides or other toxic or hazardous substances and that such use will not cause or contribute to soil erosion”.
Interested party Brian Towne asked why the Town was not purchasing the wetlands as he felt the amendment suggested a “taking” by making certain land non-buildable for landowners. Burr Tupper replied that he could not answer this question but noted that in November, 2006, a committee assigned by the State Legislature including individuals involved in building, agriculture, real estate, etc., recommended that there be a 50’ setback from wetlands and a 50’ vegetative setback. He added that this bill was sponsored and in process with a significant amount of momentum, therefore, if the Town did not do the same proactively on their own the State would enforce it anyway. The Chairman did not dispute that wetlands needed protection and that the Board
was charged with passing rules proactively that owners would hopefully abide by even though it was assumed that some landowners would be stewards of their land and others not.
Interested party Janet White, New Boston’s representative to the Piscataquog Local Advisory Committee, stated that she appreciated the work the committee had done and asked that the residents of the Town be allowed to vote on the proposed amendment. The Chairman noted that much development was occurring in the Town which threatened its wetlands and that this was the reason the Board became involved in the process of amending the Zoning Ordinance.
Jay Marden asked who would regulate the terms of the amended ordinance if it was passed by the Town. Douglas Hill replied that it would apply mostly to new homes and subdivisions. Dave Woodbury noted that the Building Inspector was the Code Enforcement Officer and would investigate in the first instance, possibly with NH DES, Fish and Game or Forestry, depending on the issue, and then the Selectmen, with the potential for Cease and Desist Orders to be issued and other fines and penalties to be assessed as appropriate.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to close the public hearing session and enter into deliberations. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to strike the term “creek” from the proposed amendment.
James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to insert the language “by Statute” into Section 204.6.B.1 to clarify the definitions mentioned. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked if Section 204.6,E.1.d. under Conditional Uses which read: Economic advantage alone is not reason for the proposed construction.” should be stricken as suggested by Town Counsel. Burr Tupper noted that this item was part of the existing ordinance and not part of the amendment. Dave Woodbury clarified that this would be considered a substantial change which the Board should, therefore, not consider. The Board agreed.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to propose the amendment as presented at this hearing to the Wetlands Conservation District for a ballot vote in March, 2007. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman opened discussion on the proposed amendment to Cluster Residential Development Standards. He noted that Bill Drescher, Esq., suggested some language to add to strengthen the ordinance in terms of keeping the open space open in perpetuity. However, he noted that this language was too much to add at the 2nd public hearing on this amendment. James Nordstrom noted that Bill Drescher, Esq., continued in his letter to say that there was language to that effect already contained in another section of the proposed amendment.
The Chairman thought that the definition of Home Occupation included in the Open Space Development Standards should be used as a permitted use in the Residential Agricultural District. The Coordinator explained that this definition was stricter and only proposed for this ordinance because of the density of the subdivisions. The Chairman understood this but thought the Board's regular definition of home business should be changed to reflect this home occupation definition.
The Chairman then noted that the Structure definition change and the Floodplain Development Ordinance amendments had been approved at the last meeting.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to propose the amendment as presented at this hearing to the Cluster Residential Development Standards for a ballot vote in March, 2007. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
CLUKAY, DAVID D. & AKERMAN, HEIDI L.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Horse Boarding and Riding Stable
Location: Saunders Hill & Bunker Hill Roads
Tax Map/Lot #1/12
CLUKAY/AKERMAN, cont.
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicants David Clukay and Heidi Akerman. Abutters present were Debra Downing and Steve Caggiano.
Heidi Akerman stated that she owned and bred horses and proposed a year round facility for training and breeding and possibly including stalls for boarding to defray some of her costs. The Chairman asked if the structure proposed was a riding arena. Heidi Akerman replied that it was, however, she would also need to have stalls for mare care and breeding. The Chairman asked what the procedure would be for an applicant such as this who would offer boarding facilities but not be advertising riding lessons (Ms. Akerman had stated that she was not certified to teach). The Coordinator replied that this would be considered a Non-Residential Site Plan because of the boarding factor, i.e. the public coming to the site.
Dave Woodbury noted that the plan submitted looked like a larger undertaking than what the applicant described as the barn proposed showed more than 20 stalls. Heidi Akerman replied that by the spring of 2007 she would have 13 horses and would need these stalls for mare care. Bob Furey wished to clarify that the barn was not existing. The Chairman asked if there was any barn on the site currently. Heidi Akerman replied that there was an existing barn on another part of the lot that the prior owners, the Herseys, had operated a dairy farm from.
The Chairman asked how manure waste was handled on site. Heidi Akerman replied that there was an existing manure pit on site which she believed had been originally designed by the U.S. Government, Natural Resources Conservation Service. She added that a temporary storage area with a silt fence and mulch hay would be proposed to contain runoff before manure from the proposed barn could be transferred up to this permanent pit. Heidi Akerman noted that some of their manure was spread on their 20 acre fenced in pasture as natural fertilizer while some nearby farms also availed themselves of this product. Heidi Akerman noted that their containment structure was made of solid concrete flooring 15’ wide by 37’ long with an asphalt roof, and combination of cement
blocks and wood walls. The Chairman asked if the manure was dumped into the containment unit from the top. Heidi Akerman replied that it was and that the structure was more than 12’ in height to its peak. The Chairman asked if there was a pitch to the floor. Heidi Akerman replied that there was not and that it was flat concrete.
Dave Woodbury asked where the existing dairy barn was located on the plan. Heidi Akerman replied that this structure would not fit on the plan but was 200’ away from the proposed barn. Dave Woodbury asked what the scope of the Board’s review involved for this applicant. The Coordinator replied that this plan was considered an agricultural site plan and the Board had previously determined that agricultural site plans would be treated as minor site plans, and as such could be drawn by the applicant rather than a surveyor or engineer which would ordinarily be required for a site plan of this scope. She noted that the usual number of parking spaces and employees required to be a minor site plan could be exceeded by agricultural site plans but the Board would
look at all the regular site plan requirements for safety, access, lighting, snow storage, etc. The Coordinator further noted that the Board had determined that it was not unreasonable to require these things of agricultural site plans.
Douglas Hill asked if the existing well was near the home on site. Heidi Akerman replied that it was not. Dave Woodbury asked what type of construction was proposed for the barn/riding arena. Heidi Akerman replied that a wooden structure with a foundation, 80’ tresses and lean-to type stalls was proposed. James Nordstrom asked if there were sanitary facilities proposed. Heidi Akerman replied that there were not and that she planned to use portable facilities and floor drains through the foundations although there would have to be water on-site to handle the water needs of the animals. Douglas Hill asked about a driveway for customers and exterior lighting. Heidi Akerman replied that lights were proposed around the south side of the barn and
parking signs with arrows would be installed. Douglas Hill thought that in order to get a Certificate of Occupancy exterior lights would need to be installed by all the doors. The Chairman thought that if such lights were not shown on the plan they would not be required for a barn. Heidi Akerman stated that she was considering motion lights for the area surrounding the barn.
The Chairman stated that the plan’s scale was too small and the entire site should be included on one sheet with notes and other items proposed, such as lighting, drawn in. He explained that the Board was more concerned about the footprint and use of the proposed building, not its structural aesthetics or interior layout. Heidi Akerman stated that she thought the plan had to be drawn on a certain size paper which was why she had submitted a smaller scale, however, she would fix the plan according to the Chairman’s advice. The Chairman noted that at the site walk the Board could offer further comments which may need to be added to the plan as the application progressed. The Coordinator further noted that, based on the amendments forthcoming in the Zoning
Ordinance, the setbacks from the stream on site would need to be appropriate and there may be issues to discuss with the Building Inspector regarding the floodplain on the property. The Chairman explained that while the Board was not involved in overseeing the building of the proposed barn they did have discretion over a business proposed from it. He added that a permit to build the barn would be needed from the Building Department and suggested that the applicant follow a parallel course of action with that department and Planning.
Douglas Hill asked the applicant if they had a set of blue prints for the proposed barn. Heidi Akerman replied that she would be hiring a builder. Douglas Hill stated that the builder would have to provide blue prints to the Building Department in order to obtain a Building Permit.
The Chairman asked if the proposed barn’s location was staked on the site. Heidi Akerman replied that it was. She added that some vegetation would need to be removed before construction. James Nordstrom asked if the site of the proposed barn was at least 50’ from the existing stream. Heidi Akerman stated that it was and that it was also 75’ from the centerline of the road. Douglas Hill asked if there were trees existing between where the barn was proposed and the stream. Heidi Akerman replied that there were some. Douglas Hill asked the setback distance. Heidi Akerman thought that it was at least 55’. Douglas Hill thought that this might present an issue. David Clukay stated that the stream did not run all
year. Douglas Hill replied that it did not matter, the same issue would exist.
The Chairman asked how high the manure pit was at its dumping point. David Clukay thought that it was about 12’. The Chairman asked how often the pit was emptied. Heidi Akerman replied that it was emptied at least twice a year. The Chairman calculated that based on the number of horses the manure measured 12,000 cubic yards which he thought would exceed the maintenance capabilities of the manure pit. He added that this needed to be confirmed.
A site walk was scheduled for Saturday, January 20, 2006, at 8:30 a.m.
The Chairman asked if there were any comments from abutters. Abutter Debra Downing stated that her concerns had been discussed by the Board and included setbacks and the manure maintenance.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of David D. Clukay and Heidi L. Akerman, NRSPR, Horse Boarding and Riding Stable, Location: Saunders Hill and Bunker Hill Roads, Tax Map/Lot #1/12, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to February 13, 2007, at 7:30 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Discussion, Re: William Matheson’s site plan, 506 Mont Vernon Road, Tax Map/Lot #14/161-2.
William Matheson was present for this discussion. The Chairman stated that Mr. Matheson’s site was not in compliance because his fence had not yet been installed, the grass needed to be seeded and the site in general was in disarray. William Matheson noted that the grass had been seeded. Douglas Hill clarified that Mr. Matheson should assure that the site looked appropriate to what the plans detailed. The Chairman added that the Board would have appreciated a response to their previous inquiries regarding this matter from Mr. Matheson. He added that with the fence properly installed the site would then be compliant. The Coordinator offered that along a gravel surfaced area leading to the rear of the existing building on site it appeared
that some non-designated parking on the plan had become parking area. William Matheson explained that he had not included parking for vehicles being worked on behind his shop on the plan. The Chairman stated that an amendment to include this parking could be filed. William Matheson replied that he would do so and would also like to amend the plan to include an area to display used equipment.
The Chairman reiterated that the fence should be properly installed. He added that at the compliance site walk they could address Mr. Matheson’s question about additional parking area. Mr. Matheson stated that the fence would be installed before the Board’s next meeting. The Chairman stated that Mr. Matheson should let the Planning Department know when the fence was up and then a compliance site walk could be scheduled.
The Planning Assistant noted that an extension to the Conditions Subsequent of the plan was required as the deadline had been July of 2006. Mr. Matheson then requested such an extension.
James Nordstrom MOVED to extend the Conditions Subsequent for William Matheson to February 28, 2007. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 9:07 p.m. the Planning took a 15 minute break.
BUSSIERE, JAQUELINE ET AL
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/13 Lots
Location: Indian Falls Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/88
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
&
MARK E. LEBLANC TRUST 2004
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/6 Lots
Location: Indian Falls Road
Tax map/Lot #12/89
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were applicant Mark LeBlanc and Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering. Interested parties were Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, Ken Lombard, Open Space Committee, Jay Marden, Steve Hunt, Tom Dutton, Willard Dodge and Roch Larochelle, Road Committee.
Ray Shea wished to note that although the applications were shown in combination on the Board’s agenda they were two distinct applications with both properties being extensions off phases of Indian Falls Road. He noted that the LeBlanc property proposed 6 lots from 2.9 to 7.4 acres on a total 43 acre site and the applicant planned to extend Indian Falls Road south toward the Bussiere property at its southern lot line and then to the west to proposed “Harvey Road” through property of One Chestnut Hill Development and then tie into Susan Road. Indian Falls Road to the Bussiere lot line was approximately 1,200’ and the road to tie to Harvey Lane was 300'. Ray Shea added that there was one wetland crossing expected on the LeBlanc plan just south of the
existing cul-de-sac which totaled 2,000 s.f.
Ray Shea stated that the Bussiere application proposed 13 lots on a 1,600’ to 1,700’ road from the LeBlanc property to the southern terminus of Indian Falls Road and a wetland impact of 270 s.f. He recalled that many conservation easements were on the first phase of Indian Falls Road and this proposal contained additional easements on 15 to 16 acres.
Ray Shea Stated that comments/corrections from the Coordinator’s plan review were minor with one issue being double 200’ squares. He noted that on past applications he head presented to the Board there had been questions regarding whether or not a corner lot required 2 200’ squares when it fronted on two roads.
Dave Woodbury wished to clarify that the lots shown to the east had the potential for future subdivision while the southerly lots abutted land owned by the New Boston Tracking Station. Ray Shea replied that this was correct. Dave Woodbury asked what the large piece of land to the west was. Ray Shea replied that this was conservation land owned by resident Cynthia Wilson. Dave Woodbury then noted land to the west of the plan. Ray Shea stated that this land was owned by the Lorden family who were also interested in connecting with Susan Drive eventually. Dave Woodbury stated that it was frustrating to anticipate what planning was necessary for these sites and this area of Town which would grow into a very large residential area when the Board was looking at the subdivision proposals on a
piece by piece basis. Understanding that Mr. Shea was representing only a portion of these proposals, he added that he did not feel this was a sensible way to develop the land without the entire area to be subdivided identified so that comprehensive plans could be made going forward. Ray Shea agreed and noted that this was the reason a comprehensive road system was prepared for the sites thus eliminating what would have been two long cul-de-sacs. He further noted that he was unsure about the additional Bussiere land as that was in long term planning. Dave Woodbury stated that questions from residents and concerned parties continuously arose regarding recreation sites for future residents on these properties. He reiterated that planning piecemeal was not a good idea and that a global review was needed. Ray Shea stated that in looking at land for recreation it was determined that these sites did not offer good land for that purpose. He noted
that in the first phase of Indian Falls 5 acres on the north side of Bedford Road had been deeded to the Town along with a fair number of easements. He noted the town at the time was not interested in recreational trails. Dave Woodbury stated that the option of a school and subsidiary fire and police station were also questions that had arisen. The Chairman added that a convenience type store was also an option to consider for that area of Town.
Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, stated that there were significant wetland corridors in the area of these sites with substantial moose and deer activity. He added that the Conservation Commission had received letters from NH Fish and Game who stated that certain threatened species lived on land near the Tracking Station which likely meant that they roamed on these parcels also. Burr Tupper stated that his concern rose at the mention of proposed crossings given the water tables on these sites. Bob Furey asked if Mr. Tupper had seen an Environmental Study done for these properties. Burr Tupper replied that he had not. Ray Shea noted that Peter Schauer had performed the Environmental Study. Burr Tupper stated that there was a significant amount of
water and ledge on these sites and as Dave Woodbury had stated previously it was important to view the big picture to confirm what impacts could occur.
The Chairman asked how it was possible that the plans being shown did not constitute dead end roads. Ray Shea replied that there was a proposed extension off Indian Falls Road and the connection with Harvey Drive to Susan Road would create a loop. He added that he realized the three parcels were dependent on each other to accomplish this which is why the applications were coming forward at the same time. Burr Tupper stated that if these connections did not happen simultaneously he would think that the Fire Department and Police Department would be greatly concerned. Ray Shea noted that the timely connection of these roads had been discussed for the past two years and all parties concerned were very aware of its importance. Bob Furey wondered how a timely
connection of these roads would be enforced. Ray Shea surmised that not approving the application(s) or making the approvals conditional upon the roads connecting was an option. James Nordstrom added that the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy could be made contingent on the roads being constructed and accepted. Ray Shea reiterated that the owners understood these issues.
Interested party Steve Hunt stated that he recalled at the time this application was initially proposed that the Board had not only been concerned with long cul-de-sacs but also loop on loop roads and that they were interested in how a tie in to Bedford Road could be established with an additional access point. The Chairman agreed that this was partly true in the case of these applications and that two points of access were being proposed. Dave Woodbury asked if the Bussieres and LeBlancs were cooperative. Ray Shea replied that they were. Dave Woodbury then asked if the Bussieres owned the property further to the south as noted on the plan. Ray Shea replied that was correct. Dave Woodbury asked if the prospective future extension of Indian Falls Road
would eventually terminate on Bedford Road someday once it made it all the way through to this southern boundary which was what many suspected in the future. Ray Shea replied that this was a possibility down the road, however, the Bussieres were currently the least active of the three owners in this development and only became involved because the other two owners were active on either side of their property. Dave Woodbury asked if Ray Shea was familiar with the Lorden property and their prospects. Ray Shea replied that he was not.
Interested party Jay Marden was concerned that no communal land, even 1 to 2 lots, had been found suitable for recreation and that in adding the lots of these proposals and surrounding developments such as Carriage Road there could easily be 100 homes in this area of Town. He felt that none of these applications should be approved until some land was set aside for this purpose. Dave Woodbury agreed that this was a quadrant of Town that would see substantial growth activity. Ray Shea noted that the Wilson Hill Road area of Town was also a large growth area. Dave Woodbury thought that some effort by the School planners would also be needed and recalled that with the discussions had for a future safety complex the area of Town might also need a satellite facility.
He thought that now was a good time to hold up the process of these applications so that the big picture could be reviewed. Ray Shea disagreed and thought that this would constitute “strong-arming” the proposals. Jay Marden asked what other method the Board had to further impress to these owners that communal land was needed as this was made very clear two years prior. He added that the Town had a responsibility to its future population to address this issue. Ray Shea agreed but stated that the applicants were not willing to give up any land at this point in the process. Burr Tupper stated that he had counted the lots in this area of Town which total over 100 and that impact would be inevitable to the Fire Department, Police Department, Road Agent and School as a result of its development. The Chairman stated that this portion of Town was unique in that all traffic exited the Town through the Klondike Corner area. Burr
Tupper added that there were also significant wetland areas on these sites. He then read from a suggestion offered by John Bunting to this issue: “The stretch of Bedford Road approaching Chestnut Hill Road has a dangerous “S” bend that appears to be difficult to maintain and the intersection at Klondike Corner is acute rather than 90o”. He went on to explain that John Bunting proposed a right of way designated on Tax Map/Lot #16/15 that would allow Bedford Road to be relocated to form a smooth curve near Tax Map/Lot #69/12 and end at
a desirable right angle intersection with Chestnut Hill Road at Klondike Corner. Ray Shea stated that his engineering firm had briefly touched on this solution also. The Chairman noted that if such a road were placed through the Bussiere property by giving up some land they would have immediate frontage for subdivision and the density problem would also be solved. Ray Shea clarified that donating land for recreational use and safety centers was one issue while the realignment of Bedford Road was another. The Chairman stated that solutions to these issues were a critical part of further subdivision in this area and that an additional exit onto New Boston Road from the Klondike Corner area was necessary.
The Coordinator stated that now that the Master Plan had been updated the next step for the Town was to review things like comprehensive open space and recreational plans and perhaps traffic studies for areas such as the one being discussed but without that work being done or a regulation in place you could not expect a subdivider/developer to donate land unless an appropriate piece presented itself. Ray Shea noted that in the first phase of Indian Falls the conservation easements being placed on the lots were to go to the Town but the Town did not want them, therefore, the individual lot owners became stewards of these easements. He added that this was one example of how a mechanism was needed for the Town to handle such issues. Don Duhaime stated that to the east of the
land presented on this plan there were 2 other lots that fronted on Bedford Road. He asked why these lots were not being considered for possible future development by leaving rights-of-way from the LeBlanc/Bussiere plan. Ray Shea replied that the land to those lots dropped off substantially and would make the construction of a road or driveway difficult. Don Duhaime stated that once these properties were developed the bulk of the traffic flow would exit through Indian Falls Road. Ray Shea concurred that 75% of the traffic would exit through Indian Falls and 25% through Carriage Road.
Interested party Steve Hunt stated that although it would not be his choice a road could be run through his lot or the Ferm’s lot and this was a potential that was being overlooked. Ray Shea was unsure that more roads coming onto Bedford Road in the area suggested by Mr. Hunt would. Don Duhaime stated that he did not think Ray Shea was very convincing when stating that the Bussieres were not looking to develop their property any time soon. Ray Shea agreed that the tide could turn at any time. Steve Hunt asked if the Bussiere property was still zoned for mobile homes. The Chairman replied that it was not. Interested party Willard Dodge asked Ray Shea if it was conceivable for a road to go through the Bussiere property out to Bedford Road. Ray
Shea replied that there were more wetland impacts on the Bussiere property than the previous parcels, however, the land ran more gently. He added that his firm had done a concept for such a road and he guessed there would be at least a ½ acre of wetland impact in doing such a road, but that more than likely a road could be there in the next 10 years.
Jay Marden wished to note to Ray Shea that the Town was talking to all major developers proposing development in New Boston about land donation for public purposes such as Thibeault Corporation who was coming through with a plan that would offer 100 to 120 acres to the Town for recreational use. Douglas Hill clarified that the Thibeault plan was not conventional and offered the same density but more open space. Burr Tupper noted that the Board had just approved a proposed amendment to open space concepts in Zoning for the March 2007 ballot vote that might be a better configuration for the land being discussed. Dave Woodbury thought it was important to note that while it might be true that the Town and Board had been less vigilant in the past regarding the securing of
donated land from developers it did not mean that things should remain that way going forward. Ray Shea agreed but noted that requiring a developer to donate land to the Town in order to subdivide a large tract was questionable in his mind. Dave Woodbury thought that that Town owed developers more guidance on this issue. Ray Shea reiterated that in looking at the land involved with the applications being discussed there was none deemed appropriate for donation.
The Chairman stated that he would like the applicant to consider road construction that would alleviate the Bedford Road issue. Ray Shea understood.
Ray Shea stated that in regard to the LeBlanc application the previous discussion had covered many of the same issues and that the four properties were being brought together at the same time which he felt was a good idea given road connections. Dave Woodbury thought that the Lorden property interests should also be brought forward with these. Burr Tupper noted that the Lorden property proposed a tie in to Susan Road. Douglas Hill asked Ray Shea if they were the engineers for the Lorden plan. Ray Shea replied that they were not. He asked if they had formalized where they would tie in with Susan Road. The Coordinator replied that it was supposed to be at Lot #34 but lot sizing was still being formulated.
The Chairman stated that both plans appeared to be complete. Dave Woodbury was concerned that the Board might be rushing a complex issue. James Nordstrom asked if statutorily the plans were complete. The Coordinator replied that from a regulatory standpoint they were, noting that completeness was having everything the Board needed to take jurisdiction of the application and begin discussion and the decision-making process. The Chairman explained that accepting a plan as complete was not the same as agreeing with the content of that plan which the Board could deny at a later date if certain conditions were not met.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Jacqueline Bussiere Et Al, Major Subdivision, 13, Lots, Location: Indian Falls Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/89, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District and the application of Mark E. LeBlanc Trust 2004, Major Subdivision, 6 Lots, Location: Indian Falls Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/89, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Bob Furey seconded the motion. The motion carried and it PASSED with Bob Furey, James Nordstrom and Don Duhaime in favor and David Woodbury opposed.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Jacqueline Bussiere Et Al, Major Subdivision, 13, Lots, Location: Indian Falls Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/89, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District and the application of Mark E. LeBlanc Trust 2004, Major Subdivision, 6 Lots, Location: Indian Falls Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/89, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to February 13, 2007. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 2007
1. Approval of minutes of November 14, 2006, distributed at the December 12, 2006, meeting, with or without changes. (No Copies)
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of November 14, 2006, as written. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. The minutes of November 28, 2006 and December 12, 2006, were distributed for approval at the meeting of January 23, 2006, with or without changes.
3. Endorsement of a Site Plan for New Boston Tavern, 35 Mont Vernon Road, Tax Map/Lot #19/6, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
Due to multiple signature sheets it was determined that the above endorsement would be addressed at the end of the meeting.
James Nordstrom stated that the additional lights had been satisfactorily installed. The Chairman asked why lights had been added to the fenced area of the site. The Coordinator explained that when a light was added to a pole on site it cast a shadow over certain areas of the parking lot, therefore, the applicant had added lights to his fence to offer more illumination. The Chairman asked if the parking had been delineated. The Coordinator replied that it was delineated at the fence areas and railroad ties had been placed at the other side of the parking lot where there was no fencing.
4a. A copy of an answer from William R. Drescher, Esq., Drescher & Dokmo Professional Association, in re: Golding et al vs. Town of New Boston, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that the above was William R. Drescher, Esq.’s response to the initial filing which she was redistributing to the Board in #4b below.
4b. A copy of Appeal in the Patrick Golding et al vs. Town of New Boston, was distributed for the Board’s reference in review of #4a.
5. A copy of a letter dated December 19, 2006, to Stuart Lewin from Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, Re: Planning Board Appointment, was distributed for the Board’s information.
6. A copy of an article, Zoning and Planning Constitutionality Checklist for Idiots, September 2000, was distributed for the Board’s information.
7. Copies of articles from the January 2007, Planning magazine, titled The Next 100 Million and 2 for the Price of 1, were distributed for the Board’s information.
8. Discussion, Re: Stuart Clark Insurance.
The Coordinator explained that two letters had been sent regarding the issues of the site to Mr. Gallant and no response had been forthcoming. The Chairman asked if the Building Inspector were to issue a Cease and Desist Order for the businesses on the site if the matter would then fall to the Selectmen. Dave Woodbury wished to clarify that this issue regarded the parking spaces for the businesses being located in the public way on Maple Street. The Chairman replied that that was correct and added that the absence of a filed site plan was another issue. Dave Woodbury stated that he believed the absence of a site plan would first involve the Building Inspector who should be notified by the Board and then the matter would fall to the Selectmen. James Nordstrom
asked if the Board would request that a Cease and Desist be issued by the Building Inspector. Dave Woodbury first asked who was responsible for the site plan. The Coordinator explained that the Chairman had informed the owner of Stuart Clark Insurance that the site owner should be contacted about this matter. The Chairman asked if fines would be imposed. The Coordinator replied that she was unsure. The Chairman recalled that a business owned by the Katz family nearby had no site plans for their apartments or storage facilities on their site. The Coordinator replied that the apartments were grandfathered, however, if a business sign existed for the storage facilities then it was a matter that should be addressed more actively.
9. A copy of a letter dated January 7, 2007, from John Bunting to the Board, Re: McCurdy/Bedford Road subdivisions, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman noted that he felt much discussion dealing with points noted in the above letter had been covered at the hearing involving the Bussiere and LeBlanc applications this evening.
10. A copy of a letter received January 9, 2007, from John Riendeau, Road Agent, to the Board, Re: McCurdy/Bedford Road subdivisions, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that he was pleased with the response from Mr. Riendeau and noted that the content was similar to that in John Bunting's letter above and had been discussed during the LeBlanc/Bussiere hearings.
11. A copy of a letter dated January 8, 2007, from Tom Condon, 150 Joe English Road, to the Board, Re: home business, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator noted that this was one of the situations where the business proposed was very minor. She noted that Tom Condon detailed that there would be no customers coming to the site, no storage of materials on the site and no employees at the site. She noted that the letter contained no mention of a business sign, but that she could forward the standard response letter to Mr. Condon and also request confirmation that no sign would be erected. The Planning Assistant noted that Mr. Condon had verbally told her that he would not have a sign. The Coordinator replied that a written confirmation would be all that was needed. The Board agreed.
12. Discussion, Re: Foxberry Road compliance.
The Coordinator explained that she had written to Morgan Hollis, Esq., in order that the matter regarding erosion at the end of Mr. Foistner’s driveway along with the guardrail issue be addressed. She added that Morgan Hollis, Esq., had responded stating that the matters were resolved, however, when she viewed the area with the Road Agent the erosion issue was still evident. The Coordinator further added that John Riendeau, Road Agent, would contact Allen Brown, site contractor, to tell him what measures would be needed to resolve this issue. She explained that fill had been dumped in the area of the steep slope on Lot #8/84-30-1, however, she did not think that this had adequately addressed the problem. Dave Woodbury wondered if one or two jersey barriers
would resolve the issue. The Coordinator added that an extension to the existing guardrail would work well also which had been Stantec's original suggestion. Dave Woodbury clarified that because of this issue the site was not in compliance. The Board agreed that a bucket of fill was not an adequate barrier to address the safety hazard at this driveway. The Coordinator stated that she would write another letter to Morgan Hollis, Esq., listing what needed to be done to bring the site into compliance and that once these items were addressed the Board should be contacted to view the site.
The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the Site Plan noted in item #3.
At 10:32 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien, Minutes Approved:
Recording Clerk
| 
