TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of 2007 Meetings
March 27, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, Douglas Hill, Don Duhaime; ex-officio Christine Quirk and alternate Stu Lewin. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong (up to 8:30 p.m.), Planning Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were Al Bell, Jim Bath, Ray Shea, Emile Bussiere, Burr Tupper, Cyndie Wilson, Bob Todd, LLS, Brandy Mitroff, Albert LaChance, Jack Bielagus, Esq., Mike Dahlberg, LLS, Roch Larochelle, Kathleen and David Stimmler, Brian Revas, Ken Millos, Joseph Foistner, Robert Baskerville, PE, Carl Mason, John Polumbo, William Lambert, Elliot Konner, Jay Marden, Earney Mayo, Mark LeBlanc and Barry Charrest.
Before the start of the hearings the Board elected officers for their upcoming fiscal year.
Peter Hogan MOVED to nominate Stu Lewin and Douglas Hill for the position of full time Board member. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill MOVED to nominate Peter Hogan for the position of Chairman. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Don Duhaime MOVED to nominate Douglas Hill for the position of Vice Chairman. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill nominated Don Duhaime for the position of Secretary. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
NEW ERA CF TRUST Adjourned from 2/13/07
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/3 Lots
Location: Beard and Gregg Mill Roads
Tax Map/Lot #6/12
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Mike Dahlberg, LLS, and applicant Jay Marden. No abutters or interested parties were present.
The Chairman noted that the site walk that was previously scheduled to occur before tonight’s hearing had to be canceled due to bad weather and that several Board members had a chance to drive by the site while two other Board members walked it informally. He added that based on the information gathered questions regarding the plan had arisen and the Board needed to determine if the site walk should be rescheduled. The Chairman asked Stu Lewin if he had any comments as he had been one Board member to walk the site. Stu Lewin replied that he preferred to reserve his comments as it had been his first site walk for the Board and he was still new to the process. Douglas Hill stated that he had driven by the site and from the perspective of proposed driveways, felt that the driveways would be
constructed off a straight portion of the road with no sight distance issues. He noted that the grades on Lot # 6/12-11 were steep and that the plan showed its proposed driveway traversing around ledge on the site which he thought would be a challenge. Douglas Hill added that other than that point he thought the site proposed typical lots seen in the Town with no major issues. The Chairman asked Douglas Hill if he thought the applicant’s waiver request to the requirement for a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan was appropriate. Douglas Hill replied that he could not respond to that question with any certainty until a formal site walk was conducted which he thought necessary to answer that question. Christine Quirk stated that she had not yet viewed the site. Don Duhaime noted that Beard Road was in rough shape and felt that it would need improvements if the applicant proposed these two lots. He added that he thought driveway
construction on the lots would be challenging, especially for Lot #6/12-11. Don Duhaime stated that he and Stu Lewin had walked Lot #6/12-12 to its back boundary and he felt that some erosion control measures should be in place as there were some Steep Slopes. The Chairman asked Don Duhaime if he felt that a formal site walk was necessary. Don Duhaime replied that he did in order that opinions from all Board members could be gathered. The Chairman agreed. He added that he had also noticed that Beard Road was in poor condition and stated that the applicant should expect to contribute fair share improvements. The Chairman further added that he would be surprised if after the site walk the Board’s consensus was that erosion and sediment control measures were not needed but noted that the applicant may be able to prove otherwise. He noted that this issue would delay the completeness of the application. The Chairman added that the
requirement of Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies still needed to be considered. He felt that while there were no issues in waiving the Traffic and Fiscal studies, the Environmental Impact Study was still outstanding as impacts downstream from the lots were not determined. The Chairman asked if the applicant could demonstrate that there were no critical areas on the site. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that he believed this could be demonstrated. The Chairman stated that he disagreed based on what he had viewed from his drive by.
Douglas Hill asked if the applicant could briefly discuss his justifications for the waiver request to the requirement of the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that the Steep Slopes on the site pitched to the south away from the two proposed building locations for the lots. He added that Lot # 6/12-12 was being constructed on a right-of-way and the building schedule for Lot # 6/12-11 was uncertain as it would go up for sale once approved. He added that they did a design for the driveway proposed for Lot #6/12-11 which would be constructed around the ledge on site but be in accordance with the Driveway Regulations. The Chairman asked if the applicant would be willing to add a “no-build’ zone to the plans as assurance. Mike Dahlberg, LLS,
replied that a “no-build” zone was added to the plan for Lot #6/12-11 which was another reason why a preliminary septic design had been submitted to the Board. The Chairman asked what the case would be for Lot #6/12-12. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that that plan was approved and all construction would occur outside of the Steep Slope areas. The Chairman clarified that this meant that there would be no building restrictions placed on this lot. Douglas Hill offered that the applicant would need to go to the Building Department if any construction took place in critical zones. Don Duhaime asked if Lot# 6/12-12’s proposed building area was to be located in the cleared area beyond where some brush was located. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that was correct and that test pits had been performed on that lot in December of 2006. He added that the revised plans showed that construction would take place in that location clear of any
Steep Slopes. Jay Marden noted that the building areas for the proposed lots were in high areas behind a ledged drop off with State land below, therefore, there was no activity occurring below. He added that the site was well treed and some areas had been cleared for access and the view but the building area was very high as was evident by the grades shown on the plan. The Chairman stated that the Board’s question was if the applicant would consider placing a “no-build” zone on the Steep Slope area of the other lot (#6/12-12). Jay Marden replied that he would be agreeable to that and noted that there should be no erosion issues on the site either. The Chairman noted that as long as there were restrictions from building on the Steep Slope areas that would be the case. Jay Marden added that it would be unrealistic to build on the ledge areas anyway as that would inhibit the view. Douglas Hill noted that the Board would get a
better idea of the lots during a site walk.
The Chairman asked if a formula for the applicant’s fair share contribution to improvements along Beard Road could be calculated. The Coordinator replied that it could be although she had never seen it done for a minor subdivision. The Chairman thought that a fair share contribution was warranted due to the severity of the condition of Beard Road. Don Duhaime noted that a fair share contribution had also been required of another applicant who was developing “Pumpkin Lane”. The Chairman noted that that site was off a Class VI road which needed to get to Class V status while Beard Road was already Class V.
Douglas Hill asked Roch Larochelle who was in the audience if the Road Committee had any opinions on the plan. Roch Larochelle asked whether a driveway already roughed in to the site was on the plan. Jay Marden replied that that driveway permit was approved years prior when he was considering a looped driveway for duplexes on Lot #’s 6/10 and 6/11. He explained that it utilized the old tote road and had been in that condition for 20 years. Roch Larochelle then questioned why no culvert had been placed where the existing driveway would connect with Beard Road. Jay Marden replied that this was imminent and that he had spoken with and gotten approval from the Road Agent to do so. He added that the Road Agent had requested a 12” culvert. Douglas Hill clarified that the
roughed in driveway was an approved driveway. Jay Marden replied that it had been approved 20 years ago.
A site walk was scheduled for Saturday, April 14, 2007, at 8:30 a.m.
Don Duhaime MOVED to adjourn the application of New ERA CF Trust, Major Subdivision, 3 Lots, Location: Beard and Gregg Mill Roads, Tax Map/Lot #6/12,
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to May 8, 2007, at 7:30 p.m. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
BUSSIERE, JAQUELINE ET AL
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subd ivision/13 Lots
Location: Indian Falls Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/88
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering and the applicant Emile Bussiere. Interested parties present were Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, Cyndie Wilson and Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission.
Ray Shea submitted handout versions of the plan to the Board. The Chairman stated that the Board had met with the Selectmen to discuss traffic density issues on Bedford Road and that they were in agreement that a traffic survey needed to be done for that entire area although the source of funding for the study was unknown. The Coordinator noted that the study to which the Chairman alluded did not apply to these subdivisions based on a meeting had with Town Counsel. The Chairman asked which subdivision applications did apply. The Coordinator replied that this was reviewed in a memo distributed at the last meeting and included the Lordens, Shaky Pond Development, LLC, and the remaining Bussiere land, however the parties involved in the applications being discussed along with One Chestnut Hill
Development, LLC, were exempt because their plans had been under discussion for a certain time frame.
The Chairman asked how the Board could be assured that the road network involved with the applications being discussed would be built in its entirety prior to occupancy of the lots on it. Ray Shea replied that the Board’s concern was understood and that the applicants were aware that approval rested with the assurance of all the roads for Bussiere, Indian Falls and One Chestnut Hill Development being linked together. The Chairman recalled a prior scenario occurring with applicants for development on Byam Road where two of the builders on site double bonded the roadway. The Coordinator recalled that these applicants were Thibeault Corporation and R.J. Moreau. The Chairman stated that double bonding that road had been costly for the applicants but had given the Town the assurance that it
needed. Ray Shea stated that he had anticipated that the three developers involved in this discussion could receive their conditional approvals of their plans at the same time and also do their bondings and mylars at the same time. Douglas Hill clarified that if one of the three builders, for example, went bankrupt during the process there would still be adequate assurance that the road would get built. Emile Bussiere asked why one bond would not be adequate as he was sure that he could meet the Board’s requirements but questioned the necessity for multiple bondings. Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, asked if the bonding would be for portions of the whole road or for the entire road. The Chairman replied that each bond fronted would be for the entire road. He asked the Coordinator if she could clarify the example of Thibeault Corporation and R.J. Moreau. The Coordinator recalled that the issue was that there was a frontage issue as well with
one developer ready to build sooner than another, therefore, necessitating their having to bond the frontage improvements as well as the “slower” developers. Emile Bussiere stated that he did not understand the purpose of multiple bondings as he thought that once a road bond was in place that road’s construction was guaranteed by the bonding company. The Chairman stated that another option would be to not allow Building Permits until the roadway was built although the Town could not normally hold Building Permits this way if the road was bonded. Emile Bussiere thought that would be a more sensible option. The Chairman noted that all the lots would need to be phased at the same time and wondered if one contractor would build the entire road. Emile Bussiere thought that one contractor was likely to build the whole road. Douglas Hill thought that agreeing to the holding of Building Permits was risky as if one issue held up the completion
of the road the issuance of Building Permits would be jeopardized. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she recalled the specifics of a prior application where one builder’s bond for a road was not sufficient and the abutting builder needed to front a bond for the same road. The Coordinator replied that she did not recall all the details but explained that one builder, Thibeault Corporation, needed frontage to get access to their site and did not have that frontage without improvements being made to the road (Wilson Hill Road), however, the improvement area of the road was on R.J. Moreau’s plan as their lots were to be on its opposite side. Ray Shea thought that scenario was slightly different than this plan’s. The Chairman stated that the Board’s issue was the guarantee that the road be built. Emile Bussiere offered that a condition of approval could be that the road be bonded to the satisfaction of Town Counsel. He
added that he had worked with William Drescher, Town Counsel on many occasions and was sure that satisfactory arrangements could be made. Earney Mayo stated that in all the meetings he had attended there was one contractor for a road and each section of a road was bonded when multiple developers were involved. He added that, legally, he did not think it possible to bond over a section of another developer’s road without a mortgage. Douglas Hill thought there must be some legal way to do this.
Don Duhaime questioned if builders on the end of the road that was completed first could begin building homes on their lots or if the entire road needed to be complete before Building Permits were issued. The Chairman noted that once a road was bonded Building Permits could not be withheld. Earney Mayo noted that a road bond was always more than its actual construction cost. The Chairman asked how the road bond could be broken down between three owners and one contractor. Earney Mayo thought that the estimate could be broken down according to sections. The Chairman thought that Town Counsel should be contacted for his opinion on what an acceptable method would be. Douglas Hill noted that there should be some example case law for such scenarios. The Chairman added that until the
entire road was built through all three subdivisions no Certificates of Occupancy would be issued for any of the lots. Earney Mayo recalled that this had been agreed to in previous meetings with the applicants.
Roch Larochelle asked if the plans presented this evening were the same ones submitted several months prior. Ray Shea replied that the applicants had gone through two rounds of revisions in the last month with Northpoint, however, there had been no grade changes made to the proposed road. Roch Larochelle asked if the applicants had addressed the issues put forth by the Road Committee in their letter regarding the road plan. Ray Shea replied that the applicants did not feel that the grade change recommended by the Road Committee would impact the subdivision, therefore, they were not implemented. Roch Larochelle noted that the bigger questions posed in the Road Committee’s letter were how the different contracts would blend together for the road regarding profiles and drainage. Ray Shea
replied that these inconsistencies
were addressed during the Town Engineer’s review. Douglas Hill asked if the Town Engineer’s review included notes on the two properties involved. Ray Shea replied that the sites were reviewed as separate packages. He added that the most recent letter from Northpoint dated March 17, 2007, had the same comments which included underdrain revisions and three or four questions for the Board to address. Douglas Hill asked for clarification on the waiver requests for each application. Ray Shea replied that the LeBlanc application had three waiver requests and the Bussiere application had four.
The Chairman asked for clarification on the applicant’s interpretation of the -3% grade requirement per the Subdivision Regulations. Ray Shea replied that this requirement always seemed confusing in its meaning but that he interpreted it to mean that the percentage grade where a new road entered off a roadway needed to stay between +3% and -3% with -3% being the maximum entrance grade. Roch Larochelle noted that the intent was always that there should be a -3% grade at the point where a road entered off a road. Douglas Hill asked if the proposed road was at a -3% grade for the first 25’. Ray Shea replied that it was from the centerline to a catch basin for drainage then it went to a +3% because of a slight cut into the adjoining property in order to connect the loop. He noted
that the contours were similar to the Shaky Pond application with everything sloping to the east, therefore, the waiver request for the requirement that the road be at -3% for 75’ versus the proposed 25’ was a fairly important one. Ray Shea noted that the +3% grade would occur at a stop sign in the road. Roch Larochelle asked if this grade was for drainage. Ray Shea replied that it was. Roch Larochelle added that it was also to inhibit icing conditions and a 25’ to 30’ flat portion was not unreasonable. He noted that 25’ off the centerline versus the edge of pavement was a big difference. Ray Shea stated that the low point was at the proposed catch basins. Roch Larochelle asked the distance from the edge of pavement to where the grade changed. Ray Shea replied that it was 14’. Roch Larochelle did not think that was reasonable. Ray Shea stated that adding an additional 11’ to bring
the measure to 25’ would mean driving the cuts deeper on site. Douglas Hill asked if a 0% grade versus a +3% grade would be a better option. Roch Larochelle replied that a grade was necessary and that other options could be vertical curves which would only create flat points or 0.5% in the road at the curves. He reiterated that a flat grade was not a good option. The Chairman stated that based on this discussion it did not seem that the Board would grant a waiver request to the -3% grade distance requirement. He noted that the applicant proposed minimum fills of 2:1 with the requirement being 3:1 if guardrails were not present. The Chairman asked if closed drainage was proposed. Ray Shea replied that it was not. The Chairman did not think that the Highway Department would be in favor of that. Ray Shea replied that 3:1 slopes were in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations, however, there were a couple
of areas on the proposed road near an intersection where the slopes were 2:1 with guardrail because the road ran parallel with the contours. Roch Larochelle noted that 2:1 slopes with guardrails were a typical practice. The Chairman asked, as a point of interest, the slope ratio along Byam Road. Roch Larochelle replied that it was 1:1 with a rock lining.
The Chairman stated that the applicant’s third waiver request regarded Northpoint’s request that a note be required from a professional engineer to be responsible for stormwater management implementation. Ray Shea explained that Northpoint was looking for separate stormwater management plans for the road, however, the applicant felt that the ones provided were sufficient and they were asking by the waiver request that they be incorporated into the design plans. The Chairman read the fourth waiver request which was that post stormwater development flow be less than pre-stormwater development flow. Ray Shea replied that to combine drainage would require maintained detention ponds up and down the road due to the large watershed versus a half a CFS which would not be a large disturbance.
Roch Larochelle asked if the applicant had received Site Specific. Ray Shea replied that the applicant had received all required permits and the drainage concept had been approved. Douglas Hill asked if Northpoint had any comments regarding the waivers. Ray Shea read from a letter by Northpoint dated March 17, 2007: “Regarding the waivers, the applicant is seeking four waivers for this project. We agree that the waivers are necessary to seek relief from the regulations. We understand the Planning Board may evaluate these waivers as part of the review of the application”. He noted that the plans allowed for a 1% increase in a two year storm of a half of a CFS and that it was the applicant’s opinion that that increase would be better than constructing detention ponds. Roch Larochelle asked if NHDES had seen this plan design pre and post flow. Ray Shea replied that NHDES would always call an applicant prior
to their review of a plan to make sure they were looking at the most recent plans.
The Chairman stated that the Town Engineer had recommended that the applicant seek a waiver from the Board for the incremental runoff increase. He read from Northpoint's letter of February 23, 2007: " Incremental increases in offsite flow occur along the easterly property line during the 2-year storm event. The design engineer has stated that…"The drainage report shows these cumulated flows have negligible impact when considered at what appears to be the most critical point, the Bedford Road crossing. Flows across abutting properties occur only within existing channels and wetland areas. No negative effects to abutting upland areas are anticipated." Upon inspection of the post development drainage plan this position seems reasonable given the extensive storage
capabilities of Campbell Pond Swamp. We recommend that the applicant seek a waiver from the Planning Board for the incremental increases in runoff during the 2-year storm event." Don Duhaime asked what would happen if the flooding that occurred in 2006 with water flowing over Bedford Road happened again. Ray Shea replied that that scenario was not a predictable one but the drainage report took it into account as water would be able to run down the road, slow its pace and then run under the road. He added that to reduce that flow detention ponds could be constructed.
The Chairman stated that the road profile grade needed to be corrected from 14’ from the edge of pavement to 25’ and that the language for bonding the road needed to be devised with Town Counsel. Emile Bussiere stated that he had worked with Town Counsel in the past and would be pleased to do so for this application. The Chairman explained that contact between Town Counsel and the applicants could be handled through the Board.
Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the waivers requested in item #’s 2,3 and 4 of Sandford Survey’s letter dated March 8, 2006. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman noted that the fair share upgrades on Bedford Road calculated for the Bussiere application were $7,275.00 and $4,365.00 for Mark LeBlanc Trust.
Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission, stated that it would be a good idea for the applicants/owners to contact Betsey Dodge regarding the lots slated for conservation easement and who would own the land, easement, etc. Ray Shea replied that he would make sure this was done.
The Chairman asked the applicant if they were willing to extend the Board’s deadline for action as the current deadline had expired. Ray Shea replied that they were.
Don Duhaime MOVED to extend the Board’s deadline for action to May 5, 2007 and to adjourn the application of Jacqueline Bussiere et al, Major Subdivision, 13 Lots, Location: Indian Falls Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/88, Residential-Agricultural "R-A" District to May 5, 2007, at 8:00 p.m. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
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 was Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering and Earney Mayo and Mark LeBlanc of Mark E. LeBlanc Trust 2004.
Ray Shea submitted hand out versions of the plan to Board members. The Chairman noted that this plan had an almost identical set of waiver requests as the previous one. Ray Shea stated that the intersection grade item was not on this plan as it was not part of this subdivision.
Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the waivers for the application of Mark E. LeBlanc Trust 2004 as outlined in item #’s 1,2 and 3 of a letter by Sandford Survey and Engineering dated March 8, 2007. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Don Duhaime MOVED to extend the Board’s deadline for action to May 5, 2007 and to adjourn 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 May 5, 2007, at 8:30 p.m. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
SHAKY POND DEVELOPMENT, LLC
Work Session/Design Review/Major Subdivision/27 Lots
Location: Susan Road
Tax Map/Lot #15/15
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering and Al Bell and Jim Bath of Shaky Pond Development, LLC. Interested parties present were Cyndie Wilson and Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, Brandy Mitroff and Roch Larochelle, Road Committee.
The Chairman stated that the applicant had requested a formal motion from the Board for their denial of the conceptual plan. The Chairman explained that the Board had felt that the plan proposed a giant cul-de-sac and was not a reasonable subdivision based on traffic safety. He added that without a secondary access out of the subdivision and an acceptable road network supported by traffic counts for the area this plan was premature. Interested party Brandy Mitroff asked if the future secondary access the Chairman referred to was out to the Klondike Corner area. The Chairman replied that it was as the only way out of such a subdivision currently would be by McCurdy Road. He noted that there was planning regarding a road network exiting out to Klondike Corner that would alleviate the traffic
burden placed on McCurdy and Bedford Roads. Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission, asked if an outlet would be possible to Indian Falls Road via Harvey Lane. The Chairman replied that this was a possibility but it was all part of a congested network that would feed onto Bedford Road. He reiterated that a traffic study was needed. Cyndie Wilson asked if a Board vote of denial of the work session meant that the egress out to Klondike Corner needed to go through the Bussiere land. The Chairman replied that this was basically the case. Don Duhaime noted that there were two other parcels in the area which might also provide opportunities for secondary access out to Bedford Road at the Klondike Corner end as was pointed out by an interested party (Steve Hunt) at a prior meeting. Jim Bath clarified that at the last meeting the Chairman had stated that unless the secondary access being discussed utilized the Bussiere property the applicants could
not have their subdivision. The Chairman replied that that was correct for a subdivision of this intensity. Jim Bath noted that they tried to mitigate at that meeting but felt that they were waved off by the Board with no opportunity for dialogue about other options for egress such as Indian Falls Road, Carriage Road or Susan Road. He further noted that another look at appropriate data to explore such options was all that was needed but they were given one choice which was to construct a road through land that they did not own. The Chairman replied that a 27 lot subdivision or one of that density would not be considered by the Board without an egress and although there were many fingers of road that were present they all led to Bedford Road. He added that the Town would be conducting a study to determine traffic congestion in this area.
Don Duhaime stated that at the last meeting Al Bell had stated that an existing cistern on Carriage Road would meet distance requirements for fire protection to proposed lots for the Shaky Pond subdivision, however, this cistern was already 1,550’ from the end of Susan Road, therefore, he did not think the 2,200’ requirement could be met. Al Bell replied that he referred to the One Chestnut Hill plan in his comments and not Shaky Pond. Cyndie Wilson then read from the meeting minutes to clarify that point.
Douglas Hill asked if there was a density number for the plan that could resolve any of these issues. Stu Lewin thought that the point of the traffic study was to ascertain if the applicant had the option to either make improvements to Bedford Road and/or decrease the density of their plan in order to gain approval. Douglas Hill clarified that once the Bedford Road traffic study was completed the science of that calculation would be improved. Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, stated that the point of the traffic study was to gain a global view of this area, not just its individual developments and traffic networks with data provided by Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission (SNHPC), safety audits to support 10 year build-outs and recommendations by engineers for spot or large improvements along
Bedford Road using fair share costs. He noted that the intent was to have such studies done and reviewed by the Selectmen before any more development occurred in this area. The Chairman asked Roch Larochelle if he thought a roadway out to Klondike Corner was a better option over fair share costs for improvement to Bedford Road. Roch Larochelle replied that a secondary access out to Klondike Corner had been a master plan for connector roads in this area per good land use planning. Douglas Hill asked what the applicant could do if he could not purchase the land needed to build the access road the Board said was a requirement for the plan’s approval. Jim Bath asked if it was beyond the Board’s options to consider a conditional acceptance of the plan as designed based on SNHPC’s regional study. The Chairman replied that the Board would not consider that option given the 27 lot density. Christine Quirk wondered if the Board had
to deny the work session or if it could be tabled for six months. The Chairman explained that it was not a requirement for an applicant to hold a work session for a plan with the Board and they could certainly present an alternate plan with another work session, therefore, the Board was merely denying this preliminary plan.
Don Duhaime MOVED to deny the concept of the preliminary plan for Shaky Pond Development, LLC, Major Subdivision, 27 Lots, Location: Susan Road, Tax Map/Lot #15/15, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, due to excessive density and the need for a global traffic study of the area involved. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 8:30 p.m. the Coordinator needed to excuse herself from the meeting for a personal reason.
STIMMLER, DAVID AND KATHLEEN
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/NRSPR
to operate a personal service business for eyelash extensions
Location: 5 Orchard Road
Tax Map/Lot # 8/84
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicants David and Kathleen Stimmler. Abutters present were Brian Revas and Ken Millos.
Kathleen Stimler submitted flyers that offered information on eyelash extensions to the Board. She stated that she expected to see at least 10 clients a month by appointment and that this would be a side job for her as she already had another full time job. The Chairman asked what the hours of operation would be. Kathleen Stimmler replied that she would like to have hours of 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Douglas Hill noted that the applicant should give herself a good range of hours as once the plan was approved she would be locked in to those times. Kathleen Stimmler reconsidered and stated that she would like the hours to be 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The Chairman asked Kathleen Stimmler if she would have a sign advertising the business on her
property. Kathleen Stimmler replied that she would. The Chairman noted that the sign would need to be on the plan and the Building Inspector would approve the size according to Regulations but this did not generally become an issue. Kathleen Stimmler asked if the Building Inspector had ranges of sizes she could consider. The Chairman replied that he did. He explained that the Planning Board’s concerns regarding home businesses did not deal with anything inside the home but regarded placement of exterior items like signs and any operations outside of the home. The Chairman noted that one example was traffic patterns as the Board did not want clients backing into the road to leave the business. He asked the applicant if she had proper turnaround space in her driveway. Kathleen Stimmler
replied that she did. The Chairman stated that parking areas would need delineation, however, parking signs may not be desirable as one goal of a home business was not to change the character of its neighborhood. He noted that
clients did need to know where to park on the site and sometimes railroad ties were an option. The Chairman stated that the governing factor to a home business was that it was still a home.
The Chairman asked if there was any outside storage proposed. Kathleen Stimmler replied there was not. The Chairman added that Kathleen Stimmler was allowed up to two employees for the business. He asked how many parking spaces would be needed for employees. Kathleen Stimmler replied that as she was the only employee she would need just one. The Chairman then asked where in the home the business would be conducted. Kathleen Stimmler replied that it would be in her formal living room. The Chairman asked if any strange chemicals would be dispensed through the home’s septic system. Kathleen Stimmler replied that there would not be. Stu Lewin asked what the case would be if Kathleen Stimmler took on an additional employee. The
Chairman replied that if that were the case then parking for that employee could be off site of the driveway but would need to be screened from abutting properties and roadways.
The Chairman noted that the only reason the applicant needed to go through the process for a Non-Residential Site Plan Review was because she wanted to have a sign advertising the business on her property and its design needed to be approved by the Building Inspector. The Chairman explained that the applicant needed to mark on the plan the number of parking spaces for customers and employees and have them delineated on the property for the compliance site walk. Kathleen Stimmler asked what the case would be if the sign were not up at the time of the compliance site walk. The Chairman replied that a drive-by check for the sign’s installation could also be done. The Planning Assistant noted that there were a few minor corrections needed on the plan. The
Chairman asked who drew the plan as it was done well. Kathleen Stimmler replied that her husband David Stimmler did the plan.
The Chairman asked if there were any comments from abutters. Abutter Ken Millos asked what the dimensions of the sign would be as he would prefer something small since this home business was in a residential area. The Chairman noted that the purpose of the sign was to mark her location for clients not to advertise. Christine Quirk stated that 1’ X 3’ or 2’ X 2’ was typical sizing. The Chairman added that an even smaller sign would be acceptable as that would lessen the possibility of it being damaged or stolen. Ken Millos stated that he was concerned about what types of chemicals were involved. Brian Revas asked what the case would be if dangerous chemicals were dispensed through the septic system. The Chairman replied that
this would be considered a violation by the applicant. Brian Revas asked if measures would be taken to assure that this was not occurring. The Chairman asked Brian Revas how that could be accomplished. Brian Revas replied that he raised the question because he wondered what was in the bonding agent to be used for the eyelash extensions, if it was FDA approved or what would happen if it was found to be harmful and was being disposed of through the septic system. The Chairman did not think these chemicals could pose an issue as they were being used on people.
Ken Millos stated that he had been initially concerned about client traffic and parking for the home business as there were many children in the neighborhood, however, with an average of two clients a week expected he did not think it would pose an issue. He added that he wished the applicants had approached the abutters/neighbors informally before this hearing to discuss it with them. Ken Millos then asked what the case would be if the business expanded, i.e., would the applicants need to come before the Board again. The Chairman replied that the applicant was limited to two parking spaces for clients, therefore, by controlling the amount of parking the number of clients would be limited.
A site walk was scheduled for April 14, 2007, at 9:15 a.m. +/-. The Chairman suggested that the applicants be considerate when designing the sign for the business and that it may better suit the neighborhood to not have it illuminated. He reiterated that the sign’s main purpose was to mark the location of the business. Brian Revas asked what should be done if turnaround traffic in neighboring driveways became a nuisance. Douglas Hill suggested that a “No Turn Around” sign could be put in a driveway. The Chairman added that the applicants could be approached with these complaints and asked to better clarify their directions to their clients. He noted that a fundamental requirement of a home business was that the proprietor lived on site,
therefore, abutters had direct access to the owner and could be easily contacted with issues. Brian Revas asked if he sold his home if he would be required to disclose that it abutted a home business. The Chairman replied that he would not and added that he would think this fact a positive point to moving into a neighborhood that encouraged such entrepreneurship. Brian Revas stated that one of his main concerns had been traffic on the road which was a cul-de-sac and also had many residents with small children. The Chairman asked what issues should be reviewed on the site walk. Brian Revas replied that some issues were the driveway’s capability to handle client parking and possible overlapping appointments which might encourage parking in the street. David Stimmler noted that his driveway accommodated almost 12 cars. The Chairman added that the cars could park all the way in and then utilize the hammerhead turnaround area to drive out.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the application of David and Kathleen Stimmler, NRSPR, personal service business for eyelash extensions, Location: 5 Orchard Road, Tax Map/Lot # 9/79-22, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to May 8, 2007, at 9:00 p.m. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
SEFF ENTERPRISES & HOLDINGS, LLC
Compliance Hearing/Major Subdivision/19 Lots
Location: Foxberry Drive
Tax Map/Lot # 8/84
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Robert
Baskerville, PE, of Bedford Design Consultants and the applicant Joseph Foistner. Interested parties present were Carl Mason, Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission and John Polumbo.
Robert Baskerville, PE, stated that the applicant was here this evening to ask that the Board consider the acceptance of the subdivision road. He added that Morgan Hollis, Esq., was expected to be present for the applicant but had been detained. The Chairman stated that the driveway entrances of the subdivision were not satisfactorily blocked which posed a safety issue.
Joseph Foistner replied that the driveway entrances could not be blocked because they were under construction. The Chairman stated that in one driveway entrance there was a gap between the boulders blocking its entrance and 1’ of sand that could easily be backed over with a vehicle. He added that the other issue was the location for the bridge span where a pile of sand was located that could also be backed over. Joe Foistner stated that one of his contractors, Alan Brown, had been out to the site with the Road Agent four times and the Road Agent was satisfied with the driveway entrances. He noted that Alan Brown would be starting on the construction of the driveways immediately. The Chairman recalled that the driveway to the house currently being built on the site had had a problem with water washing
into the road but this had been corrected. Joe Foistner replied that it had not yet been corrected because the water had frozen over the winter season, however, with the removal of a large rock the issue should be resolved.
Joe Foistner stated that the road had been bonded for some time and that the bond had been reduced slightly with paving having occurred in September, 2006, however, he along with the lot owners were paying taxes on the property and wanted Town maintenance of the road. The Chairman stated that the problem was the safety issue due to openings in the guardrail along the road for no apparent reason. Robert Baskerville, PE, asked if there were any other issues with the road. The Chairman replied there were not. He recalled that there had been an issue regarding the road seaming that was resolved. The Chairman felt that the water washing into the road had also been resolved. He added that the only two remaining issues were the safety issue
for cars that could back over the edge of pavement where the blockages were not adequate. Joe Foistner asked that the Road Agent be instructed what the solution should be as he had not raised these issues. Don Duhaime noted that the Board had informed the Road Agent of the issues they were concerned about. The Chairman read from Stantec’s review letter: “The centerline finish grade elevations deviate from the proposed plan in two locations. The first is between stations 32+50 and 38+00. The area of concern is from stations 33+50 to 34+00. The road grade was increased approximately .8’ over the noticed 50’ section. The rest of the section is approximately .8’ to 1’ higher than the proposed plan grades. At the other end of the section the grade quickly
drops back to the proposed elevation over a distance of approximately 75”. Robert Baskerville noted that Stantec was calling out the .8’ grade increases and stating that the engineer for the plan needed to confirm whether that scenario complied with the Town’s
specifications. He explained that since .8’ over 50’ was less than a 2% increase and, therefore, less than the Town maximum 4% increase he was satisfied that the grades met the Town’s specifications.
Douglas Hill stated that a log or rock needed to be put in place to block the gaps previously discussed. Joe Foistner stated that this would be done the next day. The Chairman added that this had been noted on the Board’s previous site walk where stone pillars would be installed at the areas discussed to block the dangerous areas of the slopes. The Chairman asked who owned the house that was being built. Joe Foistner replied that currently it belonged to him but he could not expand any further on that point. He added that two other lots were sold and the homes planned would be even larger than the one being built.
Carl Mason stated that he was present to represent abutters Richard Mason and Paula (Martel) Mason. He stated that the Masons had agreed to give Mr. Foistner an easement in exchange for having him construct a new driveway for them on Lot #8/84-26 which he never did. Carl Mason did not think that the Board should approve the subdivision road and driveways until he lived up to his agreement with the Masons which was in writing. He showed this agreement to the Board. Joe Foistner stated that he had entered into a written contract in which they would exchange easements and she had since extorted $10K from him. He added that he hired Robert Baskerville, PE, to design a new driveway for them according to the new Driveway Regulations but because of this extortion was
taking the case before the Courts to decide if he owed them a driveway. Douglas Hill read from item #6 of the agreement between Seff Enterprises and the Martels which stated that they would pay them $10K as a condition of the easement. Joe Foistner stated that the Martels had extorted an additional $10K from him. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, asked if the permits for the driveways to the subdivisions had been approved in terms of wetlands crossings. The Chairman replied that they had and one was a bridge span. Robert Baskerville, PE, noted that two wetland crossings were part of the original subdivision permits while the other one involved a bridge span. Burr Tupper noted, as a point of interest, that since these permits, NHDES now required any crossings of a wetland to be 1.2 X the width of the crossing.
The Chairman stated that the issue of the Martel easement was a civil matter as it had not been part of the conditions of the subdivision’s approval. He noted that the subdivision was not in compliance for the two reasons formerly mentioned regarding blockages. Abutter John Polumbo asked if the silt runoff from clearing the sites would affect the wetlands. The Chairman stated that the applicant was not allowed to have any runoff and asked if Mr. Polumbo had noted any. Mr. Polumbo replied that he had not as of yet because he could not access the rear of his own property due to the season. The Chairman noted that the applicant’s site was one of the most compliant he had seen regarding the management of runoff. Joe Foistner stated that he had
taken extraordinary care in protecting the environment when he did this subdivision and that it had cost him $500K to do so.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the application of Seff Enterprises & Holdings, LLC, Compliance Hearing, Major Subdivision, 19 Lots, Location: Foxberry Drive, Tax
Map/Lot # 8/84, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District to April 10, 2007, at 8:50 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 9:40 p.m. the Planning Board took a 15 minute break.
LACHANCE, CAROL S. & ALBERT J.
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 in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, Jack Bielagus, Esq., and the applicant Albert LaChance. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the issues remaining dealt with points raised by Northpoint whom he felt had been very responsive in their dealings with the applicant. He explained that the remaining issues were relative to Lull Road improvements and access points. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that Northpoint had suggested some minor wording changes on the plan but no design revisions. He added that the Coordinator had pointed out that the wetland protection zones on the plan needed to be followed up with a note as to how they would be managed, therefore, he proposed note #23 which he submitted to the Board. The Chairman asked if it would be possible to get 12” of cover over the driveway culverts as the plan proposed. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that 12” was the
minimum coverage desired and thought that 18” should be the standard. The Chairman asked if the ditchline was deep enough to accommodate 12”. Bob Todd, LLS, checked the plan and stated that the ditchline should be adequate to accept 15” of cover for the culvert and at least 12”. He stated that in regard to note #23 Jack Bielagus, Esq., was writing an amendment to the Declaration of Covenants which would be incorporated for recording. Douglas Hill asked if this would also be noted on the mylar. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it would be and would also be marked at the angle points with reinforcing rods as they were trying to maintain the integrity of the wetland areas even though they were within the lots.
Bob Todd, LLS, recalled that the applicant had been asked if the development would be phased at a prior meeting. Albert LaChance stated that this was his intention so as not to disturb wildlife. He added that in speaking with a builder interested in purchasing the development he had agreed that he would phase the lots if he purchased the site, beginning at Lull Road and working over a two to three year period. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the applicant’s form of security would be cash. He added that “Pumpkin Lane” was approved with the “Lane” extension because it had three lots served by a common driveway and the term was necessary for the 911 emergency services description of the site. He added that the amount of financial security
for the wetland crossing on “Pumpkin Lane” was $54,800.00 to the nearest hundred and would be in the form of cash. The Chairman remarked that that the Declaration of Covenants were quite particular in the applicant’s favor and commented that the administrative cost that would be charged by the applicant to rectify any lot owners who did not conform to the covenants was quite amusing in addition to being well within his rights. Albert LaChance clarified that his main concern regarding the covenants were that there be no trapping on the site or internal combustion engines that would disturb the environment. Don Duhaime asked if there were any granite bounds offset by the stonewall on site. Bob Todd, LLS replied that the actual locations would be shown on the final plan before the mylar was produced but they did not want to tear the walls apart so such offsets were normally placed. He added that drill holes could be put in the wall but
since the front corners must be granite offsets were usually run.
Douglas Hill asked if there were any issues with the Lull Road improvements. The Planning Assistant stated that Northpoint’s second review letter was received today. Bob Todd, LLS, read the six comments included in the March 27, 2007 letter: “Please add a note to the driveway detail-‘the driveway entrances shall be constructed during the application of roadway base close to pavement to a distance 25’ to the roadway centerline. Please add a note to the driveway detail-‘All driveways shall be constructed and maintained in such a manner that water runoff will be directed to the ditchline and not to the town’s roadway. Please add a note to the driveway detail-‘that the maximum algebraic difference between changes in grade is
12%”. Douglas Hill asked the meaning of the last note. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that the maximum algebraic difference from the land to the curb cut and the property line up to the pavement could not exceed 12%.
Douglas Hill asked what the applicant’s fair share improvement costs were to Lull Road. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was $22,419.00 (included Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Plan). He added that the $54.8K figure related to the installation of the wetland crossing with open bottom culverts. Douglas Hill asked how the offsite improvements were calculated. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that they were calculated by Sandford Survey and Engineering. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the offsite improvement update received today was most likely based on Sandford Survey and Engineering’s plan revisions per Northpoint’s request would change the amount of $22,419.00 to $37, 288.90. The Planning Assistant added that a construction estimate fee was
received this day and was an additional cost. Douglas Hill explained that this was a monitoring fee. The Chairman noted that the estimate was $9.1K plus a 20% administrative cost which then brought the total to $10,920.00
Christine Quirk MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plan of Albert & Carol LaChance for a Cluster Development, "Houghton Woods", Tax Map 2 Lot 112-2, N.H. Route 77, Lull Road and Middle Branch Road, for the subdivision of eight lots with open space, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of five (5) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,
including all checklist corrections, waivers and any corrections as noted at this hearing.
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F, 3.
4. Submission of the security, in the amount of $37,288.90 for the construction of the off-site improvements to Lull Road as shown on the approved plans and profiles, in a form acceptable to the Town of New Boston.
5. Submission of security for the ISWMP in the amount of $22,487.81 for Lots #2/112-2-3, -4, -5, & -8 in the form of cash.
6. Approval of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, the drainage easement, the turnaround easement, and the common driveway easement and submission of the executed documents. The cost of recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
7. Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set, and the appropriate fee for recording same with the HCRD. (If necessary.)
8. Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.
9. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
10. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
11. Submission of construction monitoring fee for the inspections of the Lull Road off- site improvements in the amount of $10,920.00 and in the form of cash.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be June 26, 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.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. Sprinkler systems shall be installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee before the occupancy of any dwelling
in the approved subdivision, in accordance with Chapter NB-5.0 of the Town of New
Boston Building Code before the occupancy of any dwelling in the approved
subdivision.
2. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until the sprinkler systems are installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee, in accordance with Chapter NB-5.0 of the Town of New Boston Building Code, and the driveways are installed and approved by the Road Agent and the Planning Board. Additionally, no Certificates of Occupancy will be issued for the lots fronting on Lull Road until the road improvements are completed according to the approved plan.
3. Completion of the off-site road improvements on Lull Road according to the approved plan.
The deadline for complying with condition subsequent #3 shall be June 26, 2010,
the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing to be held on the application. Conditions #1 & 2 will be ongoing.
Christine Quirk MOVED to accept the Conditional Use Permit application as complete, and to grant the Conditional Use Permit and approve the plans of Albert & Carol LaChance to effect one (1) wetland crossing on N.H. Route 77, known as Tax Map/Lot #2/112-2, 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 for the wetland crossing installation in the amount of $54.800.00 and in the form of cash.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be June 26, 2010, 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, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
Completion of the site improvements as related to the one (1) 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 applicants 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 June 26, 2010. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF MARCH 27, 2007
1. Approval of minutes of February 27, 2007, with or without changes, distributed by email. (No Copies)
The Chairman commented that he liked receiving the minutes by email.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of February 27, 2007, as written. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Approval of minutes of February 13, 2007, with or without changes, distributed at the meeting of February 27, 2007. (No Copies)
Don Duhaime MOVED to approve the minutes of February 13, 2007, as written. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. Discussion, re: driveway permit revisions for Tax map/Lot # 6/41-5 through 7, Byam Road. (Steve LaBranche to be present.)
Because Mr. LaBranche was not present for this item the Board tabled the discussion.
4. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Elizabeth F. Deroetth, Tax Map/Lot # 11/12-1 & 11/13, Hooper Hill Road, by the Planning Board Chairman & Secretary.
Because of multiple signature sheets it was determined that the above noted item along with item #’s 5 and 6 would be addressed at the end of the meeting.
5. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for SHB Properties, Tax Map/Lot # 12/65, Pulpit & Bedford Roads, by the Planning Board Chairman & Secretary.
6. Endorsement of a Notice of Merger for Martha Savoy, Tax Map/Lot # 10/70, 10/71 & 10/72, Lyndeborough Road, by the Planning Board Chairman & Secretary.
7. Discussion, re: Stormwater Management Plan language.
The Planning Assistant stated that language had been distributed at the last meeting for the Board to consider. The Board opted to table this item to a later date in consideration of having a new member and because the Coordinator had to leave tonight’s meeting earlier. They ask that the language be redistributed or emailed.
8. Discussion, re: future planning.
In consideration of the Coordinator’s absence the Board opted to table this item and item #9 until the April 10, 2007, meeting.
9. Discussion, re: possible regional impact of development of the end of Bedford Road.
10. Discussion, re: Stuart Clark Insurance.
Douglas Hill stated that he saw the Road Agent and the Police Chief at the site one day. The Planning Assistant showed the response letter from the Police Chief along with the site plan to the Board. Christine Quirk stated that the Selectmen had reviewed the parking issues on the site and felt that one parking space could be removed. Douglas Hill asked how many spaces would remain. Don Duhaime replied that would leave 4 spaces. The Chairman noted that because there was no active site plan this information could be attached to the file.
11. Application for Appointment received March 20, 2007, for the Board’s review and discussion.
Barry Charrest, applicant for appointment as Board member alternate, was present for this item. The Chairman stated that the Board would pass this onto the Selectmen for their recommendation.
12. A copy of a fax received March 20, 2007, from William Lambert, to New Boston Planning Board, re: request for amendment to current site plan, Tax Map/Lot # 3/52-26,
42 Hemlock Drive, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
William Lambert was present for this item. The Chairman asked if this was Commercial property. William Lambert replied that it was. The Chairman recalled that Mike Dahlberg, LLS, had prepared the plans for this site and noted to William Lambert that any revisions to the plan would have to go through him. Douglas Hill asked if there was a septic system on the site. William Lambert replied that he would be getting a slope septic system which would be located on the far left slope of the site. Douglas Hill noted that State Septic Approval would be needed. Don Duhaime asked if the original site plan showed the building. William Lambert replied that it did. The Chairman stated that the building measured 50’ X 75’. Douglas
Hill stated that a note could be added to the plan to show the building extension and septic system proposed. William Lambert stated that he would submit a revised copy of the plan and septic. Douglas Hill suggested that a note could be added to the plan referencing the septic design plan on the site plan.
13. A copy of a letter received March 6, 2007, from Douglas Hill Construction, to the New Boston Planning Board, re: Construction Monitoring Estimate for Christian Farm Estates, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Board opted to have this discussion towards the end of the meeting.
14. A copy of a letter received March 9, 2007, from NHDES, to Town of New Boston, Town Clerk, re: Tax Map/Lot # 4/16, application for Alteration of Terrain Permit, was distributed for the Board’s information.
15. A copy of a memorandum dated March 19, 2007, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Planning Board Members, re: Updated Zoning Ordinance & Floodplain Development Ordinance, was distributed for the Board’s information. (Copy Attached)
16. A copy of a letter dated March 10, 2007, from James A. Nordstrom, to New Boston
Board of Selectmen, re: letter of resignation, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that they appreciated the time James Nordstrom had given to the Board.
17. A copy of an article from Communities & Banking, titled Environmental Finance for
Affordable Housing, was distributed for the Board’s information.
18. A copy of a memorandum received March 1, 2007, from Office of Energy & Planning, to Municipal Land Use Boards, re: 14th Annual Spring Planning Conference, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Planning Assistant asked that Board members let her know by April 20, 2007, what sessions they were interested in attending.
19. A copy of a memorandum received March 5, 2007, from David J. Preece, AICP, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission Institute Meeting, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Douglas Hill recused himself as his item was up next.
13. A copy of a letter received March 6, 2007, from Douglas Hill Construction, to the New Boston Planning Board, re: Construction Monitoring Estimate for Christian Farm Estates, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman stated that he thought the administrative cost for billing, i.e. getting billed for the preparation of a bill was appalling. He added that he thought the construction monitoring estimate was steep and had noted the $3K cost for monitoring the cistern seemed an obvious overage. Don Duhaime felt that based on the density of Douglas Hill’s subdivision and in comparison to the construction monitoring estimates for other applicant’s the estimate figure seemed to be in line. The Chairman questioned the estimate for the concrete headwall monitoring. Douglas Hill noted that a wetland crossing would be the only area requiring a retaining wall. He went on to say that reviewing other similar examples of cul-de-sacs in the towns of Weare and
Mont Vernon, NH, their construction monitoring costs by other engineering firms were in the $20K range. Douglas Hill noted that if CLD did his construction monitoring estimate at their rate of $7.00 per foot of road the total would be at $20K. He added that he found the $60K estimate to be outrageous. The Chairman asked Douglas Hill if he could obtain more proof in writing. Douglas Hill replied that he most certainly could. The Chairman stated that the Board was responsible for spending an applicant’s money correctly so that they were not paying for on the job training. He recalled the cistern monitoring estimate error which was itemized by an erroneous flat rate figure from the Regulations which was discussed at a prior meeting. The Chairman did not think that the inspection for the applicant’s cistern would take Northpoint longer than a week as this should be how long it took for the installation. Douglas Hill thought
that the billing seemed to reflect full time inspection on a city road with sewers and septics rather than part time inspection on a rural road. He added that he could compile 100 example bill copies that supported his argument as to why he found the $60K monitoring estimate unbelievable and very much beyond what other builders were paying. Douglas Hill noted that if Northpoint was being conservative in their calculations that should not become his burden. The Chairman stated that if the Town Engineer was being conservative then Douglas Hill should be getting a refund back, however, he still found the 20% markup for administrative costs unrealistic.
Douglas Hill asked if in consideration of the fact that this was Northpoint’s first municipality and he being the first applicant within it if it would be unreasonable to have the Board consider asking CLD to provide the construction monitoring for his site as they would bill half of what Northpoint had. The Chairman stated that although Northpoint as the Town’s new hire deserved a fair chance the Board was responsible for spending the applicant’s money appropriately. Christine Quirk clarified that the Town had signed a contract for services with Northpoint. Don Duhaime stated that they had and that he could not see where the Town would want to bring another engineer into the picture when a contract had been signed. The Chairman agreed but felt that
a candid conversation discussing cost comparisons was warranted as the Town would need to defend these fees going forward. He added that he wanted to investigate the rationale behind the 20% administrative fees being charged also. Douglas Hill noted that Northpoint was $15.00 cheaper per hour and still much more expensive than other firms. The Chairman agreed that this was perplexing and hoped that Northpoint planned to multi-task inspection items rather than driving out to the site to check one thing at a time. Don Duhaime stated that when had reviewed Stantec’s reports previously he noticed that they were billing for their drive time to a site as well as their on site inspection which was worth noting. Douglas Hill noted that $60K compared to other firms’ $20K estimates for the same services was a great difference. He added that Northpoint’s calculations for their estimate worked out to them being on site 40 hours per week for
three months which he stressed was for a rural town road with no sewers, septics or street lights that might be typical of such inspection times. The Chairman asked how Douglas Hill had arrived at that calculation. Douglas Hill replied that it was based on the number of hours Northpoint was billing. The Chairman stated that he would be surprised if it took three months for Douglas Hill’s subdivision road to be built. Douglas Hill agreed and added that it would also be surprising to see Northpoint on site full time. The Chairman stated that based on this point alone he would question the estimate. He added that 2,900’ of road would not take three months to build with full time inspection. Douglas Hill stated that if other builders in other towns were paying what Northpoint proposed on a consistent basis he would not be taking up so much of his own time investigating this as he would accept it to be the going rate but he had
experience with road building in other towns and their estimates for inspection did not approach Northpoint’s. The Chairman asked if the other roads Douglas Hill referred to underwent the same procedures as this subdivision road. Douglas Hill replied that these other roads had cisterns, wetland crossings, detention ponds, etc. The Chairman asked if Douglas Hill had requested an example estimate from Stantec. Douglas Hill replied that he had not but noted that Stantec’s most expensive estimate in the Town was $45K for the original bid on Swanson Lane one and a half years prior and was 1,000’ longer than his subdivision road, had a great deal of ledge and in the end totaled $60K. The Chairman recalled that Swanson Road also had full curbing, closed drainage and underground utilities. Douglas Hill noted that his road length was not a third of that road. Don Duhaime thought that a discussion with Northpoint was needed
regarding how they came up with the numbers on their estimate.
Elliot Konner was present in the audience regarding a Driveway Permit being requested for Tax Map/Lot #8/6 owned by Doris Leedham which was located on Clark Hill Road. The Planning Assistant stated that they had not received comments from the Road Agent as of yet on his review of the driveway.
Mr. Konner submitted sketches of the driveway plan to the Board as he had not realized that they would not have copies. He explained that he was a New Boston resident and a real estate appraiser who had been hired by Doris Leedham to apply for a Building Permit. He noted that Ms. Leedham was in a retirement home currently. Elliot Konner explained that there had been contention to the ownership of this parcel, however, Ms. Leedham had petitioned to quiet the title in 2001. He explained that the sight distance to the left and right of the proposed driveway for the Lot exceeded the 200’ minimum requirement by 75’ and 150’ respectively. Elliot Konner added that there were no wetland, drainage or Steep Slope issues and that the site was not in any
overlay Zones. He further added that the Building Department had the Septic Approval on file and due to the small size of the Lot the septic system location dictated the placement of the well, dwelling and driveway.
The Planning Assistant explained that this item was more complicated than a request for a Driveway Permit as the Lot being discussed may not be viable or may have grandfathered status. She noted that the Coordinator was researching this currently but Town Counsel’s input may become necessary also. Elliot Konner wished to note that there were two plans recorded in 1972 and 1973 on record showing the Lot surrounded by abutting parcels and Robert Todd’s office had a plan set dated 1977, pre-Zoning that showed some type of lot. He added that the Superior Court had awarded Ms. Leedham clear title to something. The Planning Assistant stated that the Coordinator may uncover the same information in her research but she had not yet completed that work. She
added that if this was the case then the Board would schedule Mr. Konner on the next agenda.
The Planning Assistant stated that Don Duhaime’s reappointment to the Board needed to be addressed as his three year term was up. She added that the swearing in was done by the Town Clerk.
The Planning Assistant stated that a site walk needed to be scheduled for the Friendly Beaver Campground before their April 10, 2007, Compliance Hearing. The Board determined that they would conduct individual drive-by's to view the campsites.
The Board next discussed a question that had been asked of the Planning Coordinator: at what stage of road construction should as-built plans be submitted. An applicant was requesting submitting these plans at the gravel stage. After some discussion, the Planning Board determined that as-built plans should be submitted when the road was at binder pavement at the earliest or once the topcoat was in place but they could not be done at the gravel stage of the road construction.
At 11:45 p.m. Christine Quirk MOVED to adjourn. Don Duhaime seconded the
motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien, Minutes Approved:
Recording Clerk
| 
