TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of 2007 Meetings
May 8, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, Douglas Hill, Stu Lewin and; ex-officio Christine Quirk and alternates, Barry Charrest and Jeffrey St. John. 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 Cyndie Wilson, Brandy Mitroff, Kimberly Messa, Anthony Eberhardt, Dave Ely, Jay Marden, Mike Dahlberg, LLS, Ray Shea, Emile Bussiere, Jim Bath, Al Bell, Kathleen and David Stimmler, Rob Starace, Joe Landry, Ted Ianowski, John Palmer, Neil and Jacqueline Smith and Jean McCreary.
Planning Board Discussion regarding future planning.
Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission and Dave Ely, chairman of the former Master Plan committee, were present for this discussion.
The Chairman stated that he was not as prepared to lead this discussion as he would like to be as he had been busy cleaning up his property from the recent rain event. He asked the Coordinator for an overview of topics the Board should be focusing on. The Coordinator explained that a packet distributed to Board members at the last meeting had attached documents which may have been copied to them before about the Master Plan update and the number of people who had contributed to it. She added that comments received from the questionnaire mailed out to residents also provided a flavor of what the Town wanted to see for the future of New Boston. The Coordinator noted that based on long hard work by the Master Plan committee and the resulting Future Land Use Chapter a
lot of information had been contributed. She further noted that she had copied to the Board ideas of districting that could improve upon current Zones in Town. The Coordinator explained that once the Master Plan was completed the Board had asked Jack Munn, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission (SNHPC), to review the Regulations to see if some of the Master Plan’s ideas regarding smart growth, sustainable development, etc., were actually being required in the current Regulations and they were not, therefore, the Smart Growth Audit he prepared looked at those concepts. She added that because the Town would not be able to require these concepts without changes to the Regulations the Board needed to take the recommendations provided by the Master Plan, look at the issues raised by Jack Munn and prioritize for the current year what they wished to work on. The Coordinator further added that now was the time to work on Zoning amendments so that
committees that might be organized to do so did not need to work through the summer months but topics and suggestions could be completed for fall review by the Board. The Chairman stated that he felt he was in a unique situation as his interpretation from reading the two documents was that they were in opposition to each other with the Town’s general consensus being that less development and bigger lots were preferred (a definition of “sprawl”) and Jack Munn’s review termed this and other aspects as negative which were reasons he moved to New Boston in the first place. Douglas Hill noted that only 10% of the Town had responded to that questionnaire and in his research he found that only 6% of that number had very strong feelings about what they commented on while the remaining 4% were unsure. The Coordinator clarified that 25% responded to the mailer as 2000 questionnaires were sent out and 500 were received back. Cyndie Wilson
noted that this questionnaire was highly responded to.
The Coordinator stated that the main issue was that the town’s comments provided the flavor of what they wanted to see for the future such as maintaining rural character, therefore, it was the Board’s charge to use good planning practice combined with Jack Munn’s outline to change the Regulations for the Town’s betterment. She noted that many respondents had mentioned that they would like to see a Growth Management Ordinance, however, the town may not be in a position to do this legally as they had a good CIP that was regularly funded, infrastructures that were not suffering because of growth and a Fiscal Impact Study that was in the works. The Coordinator added that although a growth ordinance may not be able to be directly addressed because of these
reasons it could be addressed by other avenues. The Chairman replied that the Board should look at the positive aspects of Jack Munn’s outline and put into words how to spell out what the Board would like to see in subdivisions going forward and not just what they wanted to prohibit. The Coordinator added that a top down approach would work well, i.e., Master Plan-Zoning-Subdivision-Site Plan Review. She offered the example of the consideration suggested in the Master Plan to improve upon the RA District which could be replaced with a Residential-Agricultural-Open Space District. The Coordinator clarified that such suggestions were examples of how redistricting ideas arose and the Board could choose one or two of these themes and work on them in the same manner. She added that there were still funds available to work with SNHPC to update Zoning and even enough for a comprehensive redistricting that would encompass all the suggestions made for
Districts from the Master Plan. Christine Quirk clarified that the Board’s first step could be to address Future Land Use. The Coordinator replied that it could be and added that the Board might consider subcommittees to handle Zoning, Subdivision Regulations and guidelines to address Site Plan Review concurrently. The Chairman noted that the committees would need to be made aware that as a matter of adopting ideas they put forth, these items would need to go through the Planning Board before being presented to the voters as they had had some issues with this in the past. The Coordinator agreed but explained that the Board would need to get more frequent updates from such committees on a regular basis as contact was an important factor in the process. Stu Lewin asked if Board members were allowed to attend subcommittee meetings. The Coordinator replied that Board members should be willing to join these subcommittees and should realize that
the committees’ research on particular themes could surpass a Board members knowledge on the same subject since this was their main focal point, therefore the interplay needed to be a balancing act between the two. Stu Lewin asked if only Zoning changes recommended by the Board were items that proceeded further to a Town vote. The Coordinator replied that Zoning, Building Codes and the FloodPlain Ordinance fell into this category. Stu Lewin asked how recommended amendments to the Subdivision Regulations were handled. The Coordinator replied that this was done by the Planning Board’s authority. The Chairman noted that the Board adopted changes to the Subdivision Regulations at a public hearing.
Douglas Hill thought that an agreement between Board members needed to be reached regarding the concepts of the Smart Growth Audit. The Chairman agreed and added that some direction and areas to concentrate on were important. The Coordinator stated that smart growth ideas could work with things that were already liked about the Town so that its current character could remain while future development was guided and managed. The Chairman recalled a recent discussion involving the removal of an historic barn to allow for greater parking on a Residential/Commercial lot in the Village. He noted that while he initially thought that the proposal was out of line he came to see on a site walk how it could be a good thing for the Town. By this example the Chairman
thought that the Board needed to be careful in what they required and prohibited going forward. He offered another example of the application in progress for Christian Farm Estates where the cul-de-sac was very long but it was a cluster subdivision that allowed open space that maintained the beauty of that section of Town. Douglas Hill noted that while these were smaller lots and he was of the mindset to prefer larger and more private lots he would not mind living in such a cluster design and it needed to be considered that other people could feel the same way. The Chairman agreed. The Coordinator stated that the point was that choices needed to made available for different types of housing such as the concept of accessory dwellings in detached garages, multi-family housing, etc. Cyndie Wilson asked if there was any correlation between lot sizing and housing price. Douglas Hill replied that there was and explained that units defrayed development
costs whether designs were conventional or clustered as other factors such as road design came into play. Cyndie Wilson noted that open space development left larger tracts of land. Douglas Hill added that the Christian Farm subdivision was 70 acres with 30 untouched and was a design that was not likely to occur again as it had a long cul-de-sac which was not preferred by Town departments. The Coordinator noted that revisions made to the Open Space Development Ordinance provided incentives so that if open space linked to other open space it could be possible to gain an additional lot. Cyndie Wilson recalled that Twin Bridge Development might have had the perfect site for a cluster design but that was not allowed because of how it was zoned. Douglas Hill clarified that it was disallowed because the Fire Wards wanted its two proposed cul-de-sac roads connected to a looped road. The Chairman added that the Board had many examples of good looking
cluster designs that were cul-de-sacs which Town officials would not want to see. Douglas Hill agreed that Town officials wanted to see cul-de-sac lengths 1000’ or less. Cyndie Wilson noted that she had viewed cluster design neighborhoods with only a few houses in Alaska that were constructed off loop roads. The Chairman noted that all of these examples stressed the point that you wondered how much was feasible to plan. He felt that some of the example cluster designs the Board had been provided with looked good and with a small store they might look better but they were yet to find anyone to petition a Residential parcel for Commercial Zoning in such designs. Dave Ely noted that he worked in different towns that were developing subdivisions and in comparing our Open Space Ordinance to others, at 1 acre, New Boston had a larger lot requirement than, for example, Wilton, NH, at 0.25 acres. The Chairman asked if these lots had septic systems
or town sewer. Dave Ely replied that the septic systems were combined. He recalled the Chairman’s thought that people desired some form of insulation from their neighbors however, denser projects were selling in other towns, therefore, market demographics should not be assumed. He added that there was demand for neighborhoods that invoked community spirit and cluster designs offered that sense of community. Douglas Hill added that they were more affordable also. Dave Ely agreed. The Chairman asked if quarter acre lots were proposed for a specific subdivision if smaller homes at more affordability could be guaranteed. Dave Ely replied that in other towns density bonuses were encouraged for moderate income families. Douglas Hill asked if the market price was set by the first buyer in the subdivision. Dave Ely replied that the term “affordability” was an important language factor that was being worked out
in towns considering this scenario. The Chairman asked if this was something that New Boston had considered. The Coordinator replied that it depended on how it was set up but some towns, larger than New Boston, invested in managed housing costs. The Chairman clarified that these towns held the index on cost increases and allowed such homes to be sold only at a market percentage increase. Dave Ely thought that this could trap people in lower priced homes after they had made improvements in the hopes of selling them at a profit. The Chairman noted that a person buying in a subsidized neighborhood should not be making improvements and adding square footage to their homes otherwise it would lose its purpose of affordability. Dave Ely noted that another issue would be someone buying in a subsidized neighborhood who could afford to spend more.
The Coordinator asked that the Board check what steps they wanted to take next such as reviewing districts and how they wanted to approach topics. The Chairman noted that a concern was that Board members did not have enough time to sit on subcommittees. The Coordinator replied that this was a reason for receiving updates from such committees on a regular basis otherwise their efforts would be futile.
Douglas Hill asked Dave Ely what the Master Plan committee’s vision was when they updated the Master Plan. Dave Ely replied that it was not historical preservation or keeping the Town exactly as it is but rather the prevention of “plastic buildings” like Dunkin Donuts and “big box” buildings or color and architectural styles that did not blend with the Town. Stu Lewin thought that the Master Plan itself represented the vision or answer Douglas Hill asked about. Douglas Hill noted that the Master Plan was viewed as a guideline. Dave Ely noted that the Master Plan committee had not considered limitations on architectural guidelines for residential homes as they did not want to limit a homeowner’s right to personal design choice.
The Coordinator replied to Stu Lewin’s point that the Master Plan’s vision was the district overlays it suggested in the Future Land Use chapter. Dave Ely clarified that the committee had wanted to maintain more the “forests and trees” character in Town versus the look of Bedford, NH.
The Coordinator stated that there was a limited amount of time for the allocated funds to be used for SNHPC’s help on these issues. Christine Quirk stated that a topic she felt was important to address was Residential-Agricultural/Open Space District. The Chairman added that he would be interested in addressing optional open space subdivision with smaller lots, mixed usage and mixed income housing. The Coordinator replied that this had already been addressed in the updated Cluster Regulations. Christine Quirk stated that she would then like to address Small Scale Planned Commercial Districts. The Coordinator stated that Jack Munn, SNHPC, would be at the next meeting with suggestions for the backlots on the Lorden property and that the topics discussed
this evening could be raised for his input also.
The Board determined that their initial focus would be on the proposed Residential-Agricultural-Open Space District, the Small Scale Planned Commercial District and affordable housing.
NEW ERA CF TRUST Adjourned from 3/27/07
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/3 Lots
Location: Beard and Greg 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 stated that he wanted to view the site during the recent major rain event but could not access it because Gregg Mill Bridge was damaged by the same storm and impassable. Jay Marden stated that the rain event had no effect on the site which was misleading because although it did not seem so, it sat 50’ to 75’ higher than Gregg Mill Road. The Chairman asked if Lot #6/12-12 had Steep Slopes. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that he did not think so except and if so, in a minor sense. He noted the green hatch marks on the plan to represent Slopes greater than 15% but less than 25% and the purple shading to represent slopes greater than 25%. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, added that the leach field for the site was proposed in a non-disturbance zone away
from any Steep Slopes. He then read from a note on the plan for this lot: “There shall be a restriction on Lots #6/12-11 and 6/12-12 regarding the disturbance of the ground in the areas labeled as “non disturbance area”. Logging/ tree cutting may occur, however the removal of stumps and the regarding of the ground shall not occur in order to maintain the existing slope(s) so as to prevent any soil erosion and down gradient siltation.” Mike Dahlberg, LLS, further added that the area of the site previously logged was also out of the Steep Slope zone. He stated that as further assurance for the Board best management practices for siltation and erosion control measures could be added to the plan. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted that the septic system could also be bumped up higher in the lot so that it was parallel with the location of the septic system for the other lot. The Chairman stated that while he had no issues with
Lot #6/12-11 the slope on #6/12-12 concerned him and he felt that best management practices had not been utilized already as the site was clear cut and grubbed. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted that he had not been to the site recently. Stu Lewin agreed with the Chairman’s comments and thought that it would be interesting to view the site since the recent major rain event. Jay Marden stated that the site looked like it did before the recent flooding and at the bottom of the slope on Lot #6/12-12 there had been no disturbance since there was enough land to provide plenty of protection to the State line. He explained that the purpose of the clear cutting was to expose the views and no major erosion had occurred. The Chairman disagreed and stated that silt was running off the edge of the hill on this lot, therefore, erosion control measures should have been in place when they began clearing. Jay Marden stated that they planned to install a silt fence
at the time construction began on the lot because it would have had to have been removed for clearing if it was installed prior to that. The Chairman reiterated that he had no issue with Lot #6/12-11 but asked what assurance the Board could have that erosion and sediment control measure would be taken as it would be difficult to monitor that. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that a note pertaining to best management practices could be added to the plan and recorded on the deed and he as agent to the applicant could assure that this would be done properly. He added that he did not think that a full blown erosion and sediment control plan was necessary. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, did not think that the applicant should be penalized for the fact that the logger of the site did not install a siltation fence when this dealt with time before the application’s submittal. The Chairman stated that the Board was looking for assurance that the proper measures would be
taken going forward on this site as it might not be developed for some time. Jay Marden noted that if approved, Lot #6/12-12 would go on the market in the near future while Lot #6/12-11 would be built for a family member. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that he was unsure how to remedy the current issue other than offering best management practices going forward. The Chairman asked the Coordinator for clarification on the Board’s justification in requiring Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plans. The Coordinator replied that the Board should review Section V-V of the Subdivision Regulations as the criteria to require a Stormwater Management Plan were listed therein. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that the leach field would be 40’ with fill slopes 55’ to 60’ in width. He added that a test pit was dug 20’into the woods thereby, 15’ to 25’ outside the Steep Slope area. Douglas Hill noted that a note to the
plan could say that a silt fence would be “verified” instead of “removed” by the engineer. He asked the slope in the area being discussed. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that it was 8% to 12% and the proposed driveway would be at a 10% grade. He added that it would not make sense to install a silt fence before construction began because it would have needed to have been removed and reinstalled. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, further added that while he understood the Chairman’s concerns he was unsure why the logger that had been on site would have installed a silt fence in the first place since there were not wetlands in any close proximity. The Chairman was satisfied with these justifications and also having read the applicability of Section V-V did not think this subdivision applied.
Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the waiver requested for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for New ERA CF Trust, in a 1/05/07 memo from Dorothy Marden, Trustee. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the waiver requested for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies for New ERA CF Trust, in a 1/05/07 memo from Dorothy Marden, Trustee. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Christine Quirk MOVED to accept 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, as complete. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman noted that the applicant requested a waiver for the use of an iron pin in place of a granite bound. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, explained that he had sought the Coordinator’s advice and she had suggested this option. He noted that the bound would be shown in an existing stonewall and as the base stone was large it would serve as a semi-permanent bound. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, added that the existing stonewall was located back from the road and would not be susceptible to hits from snow plows. He further added that lot corners would be set using surveying rules and regulations. Douglas Hill stated that he had no issues with this waiver request.
Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the waiver requested in a letter dated 2/12/07 from Mike Dahlberg, LLS, which would accept an iron pin placement in a stonewall in place of a granite bound at the front lot corner between lots # 6/12-11 & 6/12-12. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked for clarification on a waiver requested for the requirement of fire sprinkler installation to homes on the lots. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted that this waiver request was withdrawn and documents had been submitted for restrictive covenants applying to fire sprinklers. The Chairman noted that dates on the declaration of covenants needed to be revised to whichever month it would be signed.
Stu Lewin asked Mike Dahlberg, LLS, why he had delineated the wetlands for the plan instead of a certified wetland scientist. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that when the State enacted the law that dealt with requiring certified wetland scientists they included an exception where a licensed septic designer, which he was, could perform delineations for plans that did not have wetland crossings which was the case for this application.
The Chairman asked if there were future subdivision plans for the site. Jay Marden replied that scenic easements were being placed on the fields at the top of the site which were considered historic fields and this was noted on the plan. He added that while it would be possible to develop some of the land to the south by Riverdale Road the majority of the remaining land was the historic field. Stu Lewin asked when the scenic easement would be completed. Jay Marden replied that it should be done by the end of 2007 through the Piscataquog Watershed Association. Douglas Hill asked if the existing stonewall on the site was considered the divider between the fields and the woods. Jay Marden replied that it was. The Chairman stated that he had no other
issues with the plan.
Christine Quirk MOVED to approve the Major Subdivision/3 Lots, by New Era CF Trust, Tax Map/Lot #6/12, Beard & Gregg Mill Roads, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD;
3. Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set confirming that the monumentation has been placed as on the final plat to be recorded at the Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds (if necessary).
4. Submission of deed language describing the non-disturbance areas for review by Town Counsel. The cost of said review to be borne by the applicant.
5. Submission of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application or recording of documents at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be September 1, 2007,
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.
Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
BUSSIERE, JAQUELINE ET AL Adjourned from 3/27/07
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/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 Jay Marden and Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission.
Ray Shea stated that this was the first of two separate applications being presented tonight that reflected the extension of Indian Falls Road through its southern cul-de-sac. He noted the proposed “Smith Road” which would head west into the property owned by One Chestnut Hill Development, LLC. Ray Shea stated that this application was continued from one and a half months prior due to the bonding issue for the three involved projects that would assure that the road was built with two accesses. He noted that the Coordinator had met with Town Counsel to craft a plan note that would reflect this sentiment which was added to the other plan (Mark E. LeBlanc Trust 2004) also. Ray Shea stated that at the last meeting the Board approved all waivers requested
except for one which involved the proposed road being at a -3% grade for the first 25’ versus the required 75’ from the centerline. He noted that the plans were revised to extend the 3% grade to be 25’ from the edge of pavement with the addition of a vertical curve so that the low point was 37’ from the edge of pavement. Ray Shea added that this revision was discussed with Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, and the Town Engineer and Roch Larochelle felt that it addressed the issue, therefore the applicant was requesting that the Board grant the amended waiver.
Ray Shea stated that they had met with the Conservation Commission to discuss the conservation covenants/restrictions to be extended through both subdivisions which would be similar to what was done in the first phase of Indian Falls. Cyndie Wilson noted that the terminology for these restrictions needed to be stated correctly on the plan. Ray Shea replied that the wording in the legal documentation was always correct but the plan would be revised to include a note to the same. He added that a CUP was being requested for a small 270 s.f. wetland impact due to side slopes. Ray Shea further added that in order to extend the road a wetland needed to be crossed on the LeBlanc property that impacted 2,000 s.f. He noted that both areas had been permitted by the State.
The Coordinator stated that Northpoint’s letter dated March 17, 2007, which dealt with the plan review needed to be discussed by the Board before an approval was considered. Ray Shea noted that this letter mentioned underdrains for both plans which had been added to the revisions. The Chairman asked how owners of the lots would know where conservation restriction boundaries were. Ray Shea replied that they would not know unless the boundaries were staked and that the information would be in the deed and on the plan much like property lines were. The Chairman stated that he preferred that some knowledge of where the boundary was be made evident. Ray Shea replied that signs could be placed along the buffers when the corners were set or plaques noting the
restricted area could be installed on trees every 150’ or so. Cyndie Wilson noted that such plaques were available with different notices and the Conservation Commission was in the process of getting some also. She suggested that at least one be placed on each boundary line as the only enforcement of the restrictions would be by the lot owners within that strip of land.
The Chairman asked if roadside swales had been discussed for the plan as the ones installed for Indian Falls looked wrong. He explained that on Indian Falls it appeared that runoff needed to travel approximately 4’ down the hardpack before it reached the rip rap. Ray Shea replied that it was 4’ from the edge of pavement and 5’ to the bottom of the ditch, therefore, he could not see why it should come up to the 4’ shoulder as that would result in a 12’ rip rap ditch. The Coordinator stated that the main point being raised by Northpoint was that the roadside swales were not included in the bond estimate. The Chairman noted that whether they were bonded or not they would affect compliance if not done to specifications and the swale would
not be the final item constructed, therefore, he had no issue with this.
The Coordinator noted that Nothpoint’s next issue was that there were some underground utilities proposed on the plan and the pedestals were shown outside of the right-of-way on private property. Northpoint wondered if in light of this easements should be gained now. Ray Shea replied that utility companies gained their easements after they decided the locations of their poles/pedestals and then the homeowner signed the easement in order to get electricity for the neighborhood.
Jay Marden asked the number of lots seeking approval for this application and those closely related to it regarding the connector road. Ray Shea replied that it was approximately 31 lots. Jay Marden recalled that the Board had previously requested that land owners of the subdivisions being discussed consider donating 2 lots (one from each plan) for recreational purposes and asked if this was being considered by the applicants. Ray Shea replied that it was not. The Chairman noted that they had discussed this with Recreation recently and they had responded that they would rather have money donated to their department over land. Emile Bussiere thought that if a donation request was applied uniformly to all developers he would consider it but did not feel that it
was fair to just ask him. Ray Shea noted that Bedford, NH, had a per lot recreation fee of $1K+/-. Douglas Hill clarified that the total fee was more like $5.2K with a portion of that going to recreation.
Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the waiver requested for variance for the road profile of the plan at the intersection of Indian Falls Road and “Smith Road” which had been accepted by the Road Committee and Northpoint Engineering. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plan, Prepared for Jacqueline M. Bussiere et al, Tax Map/Lot #12/88, Indian Falls Road, for the subdivision of 13 lots, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of five (5) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing, and including Individual Stormwater Management Plans and the plan note as drafted by William Drescher, Esq.
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F, 3.
4. Receipt of Northpoint Engineering, LLC's approval of the road plans and profiles.
5. Submission of the language of the form of the security for review and approval by Town Counsel, the cost of which review shall be borne by the applicant.
6. Submission of the security, in the amount of $701,088.63 and in the form of a bond, for the construction of Indian Falls Road as shown on the approved plans and profiles.
7. Submission of the estimated construction inspection fees regarding the construction of Indian Falls Road in the amount of $37,800. A mandatory pre-construction meeting is required to be held with the developer/agent, road contractor, Town's Road Agent, and representatives of the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen, as well as the Town's consulting engineer, prior to the start of the road construction project.
8. Submission of security for the ISWMP in the amount of $24,918.85 for Lots #12/88-1, 12/88-3 & 12/88-10 in the form of bond. (if needed)
9. Submission of the off-site improvement fees according to the Town of New Boston's off-site road improvement formula in the amount of $7,275.00.
10. Receipt of revised Warranty Deed for Indian Falls Road, Slope and Drainage Easements, Declaration of Protective Covenants and Declaration of Covenants regarding sprinkler systems that include review comments by Town Counsel.
11. Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.
12. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
13. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be
signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be November 8, 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.
2. Indian Falls Road is to be constructed in accordance with the Application for Inspection and in accordance with the approved plans and profiles. After the base (binder) course of pavement is approved by the Road Agent/town's engineer, the developer will allow the road to set over one winter, during which time the developer will be liable for the roads, including, but not limited to, winter maintenance thereof. The wearing (finish) course of pavement shall be applied no later than one (1) year from the date of application of the binder course. The Application for Inspection must be turned into the Planning Department after the road is 100% complete, in order to initiate final inspection and acceptance of the road,
and the release of the security for same after a compliance inspection and hearing is held.
3. Driveway locations shall be approved at sub-grade and driveways shall be installed through binder to the satisfaction of the Road Agent/town engineer and in conformance with the Application for Inspection and approved driveway permits.
4. Per Subdivision Regulations Section V-S, 1, J), As-Built plans showing the final location of any slope/drainage easement areas, and driveways, and the final road construction details, in the form of three paper print copies and one electronic file, certified by the applicant's engineer that the layout of the line and grade of all public improvements is in accordance with the approved construction plans of the subdivision, shall be submitted for review by the Town's consulting engineer, prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy within the subdivision.
5. Submission of an executed Warranty Deed for Indian Falls Road, Slope and Drainage Easements, Declaration of Protective Covenants and Declaration of Covenants regarding sprinkler systems. The cost of recording any of the Deeds and other legal documents at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
6. Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set, including conservation restriction area designation and the appropriate fee for recording same with the HCRD.
7. The applicant shall install road identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) to the satisfaction of the Road Agent.
8. Driveway permits must be approved for completed acceptable installation by the Road Agent and Planning Board prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy (CO's) for the related lots.
9. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until the sprinkler systems are installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee and the driveways are installed and approved by the Road Agent and the Planning Board and the subdivision roads, Indian Falls Road and Smith Road (as well as the off-site section of Smith Road) are installed through binder pavement and the road identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) are installed to the satisfaction of the Road Agent/town's engineer, guard rails are installed, if necessary, and the As-Built plans have been reviewed and approved by the town's engineer.
10. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD.
The deadline for complying with the conditions subsequent shall be June 1, 2008,
the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing to be held on the application. Prior to the acceptance of the completed road by the Town, an acceptable two-year maintenance bond must be submitted by the applicant for the road in the amount of 10% of the performance bond value.
AND;
Douglas Hill MOVED to accept the application as complete, and to grant the Conditional Use Permit and approve the plans of Jacqueline M. Bussiere et al, to effect one wetland crossing on property on Indian Falls Road, known as Tax Map/Lot #12/88 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 installation as included in the road bond to be submitted as Condition Precedent #6 of the subdivision approval above.
2. Submission of revised plans to include any checklist corrections and any revisions to the site plan as decided by the Board at the hearing.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be November 8, 2007, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should the conditions to approval not be fulfilled by the deadline date, and a written request for extension is not submitted prior to that date, an administrative NOTICE
OF DENIAL shall be issued without further action of the Board being necessary.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. Completion of the site improvements as related to the wetland crossing, as shown on the approved construction design plan.
The financial security shall not be released until the site has been inspected upon
notification to the Planning Department by the applicant that the project has been completed, and a compliance hearing is held and confirms that the project has been satisfactorily completed by no later than June 1, 2008.
Christine Quirk seconded the motions and they PASSED unanimously.
MARK E. LEBLANC TRUST 2004 Adjourned from 3/27/07
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/8 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 who represented the applicant.
Because this application dealt with the same issues discussed during the previous hearing and the proposals were off the same connecting roadway the Board proceeded to act on the application.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plan, Prepared for Mark LeBlanc 2004 Trust, Tax Map/Lot #12/89, Indian Falls Road, for the subdivision of 8 lots, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of five (5) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing, and including Individual Stormwater Management Plans and the plan note as drafted by William Drescher, Esq.
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F, 3.
4. Receipt of Northpoint Engineering, LLC's approval of the road plans and profiles.
5. Submission of the language of the form of the security for review and approval by Town Counsel, the cost of which review shall be borne by the applicant.
6. Submission of the security, in the amount of $412,375.21 and in the form of a bond, for the construction of Indian Falls Road as shown on the approved plans and profiles.
7. Submission of the estimated construction inspection fees regarding the construction of Indian Falls Road in the amount of $31,590.00. A mandatory pre-construction meeting is required to be held with the developer/agent, road contractor, Town's Road Agent, and representatives of the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen, as well as the Town's consulting engineer, prior to the start of the road construction project.
8. Submission of security for the ISWMP in the amount of $42,039.25 for Lots
#12/89, 12/89-16, 12/89-18, 12/89-20 & 12/89-21 in the form of bond. (if needed)
9. Submission of the off-site improvement fees according to the Town of New Boston's off-site road improvement formula in the amount of $4,365.00.
10. Receipt of revised Warranty Deed for Indian Falls Road, Slope and Drainage Easements, Declaration of Protective Covenants and Declaration of Covenants regarding sprinkler systems that include review comments by Town Counsel.
11. Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.
12. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
13. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be
signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be November 8, 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.
2. Indian Falls Road is to be constructed in accordance with the Application for Inspection and in accordance with the approved plans and profiles. After the base (binder) course of pavement is approved by the Road Agent/town's engineer, the developer will allow the road to set over one winter, during which time the developer will be liable for the roads, including, but not limited to, winter maintenance thereof. The wearing (finish) course of pavement shall be applied no later than one (1) year from the date of application of the binder course. The Application for Inspection must be turned into the Planning Department after the road is 100% complete, in
order to initiate final inspection and acceptance of the road, and the release of the security for same after a compliance inspection and hearing is held.
3. Driveway locations shall be approved at sub-grade and driveways shall be installed through binder to the satisfaction of the Road Agent/town engineer and in conformance with the Application for Inspection and approved driveway permits.
4. Per Subdivision Regulations Section V-S, 1, J), As-Built plans showing the final location of any slope/drainage easement areas, and driveways, and the final road construction details, in the form of three paper print copies and one electronic file, certified by the applicant's engineer that the layout of the line and grade of all public improvements is in accordance with the approved construction plans of the subdivision, shall be submitted for review by the Town's consulting engineer, prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy within the subdivision.
5. Submission of an executed Warranty Deed for Indian Falls Road, Slope and Drainage Easements, Declaration of Protective Covenants and Declaration of Covenants regarding sprinkler systems. The cost of recording any of the Deeds and other legal documents at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant
6. Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set, including conservation restriction area designation and the appropriate fee for recording same with the HCRD.
7. The applicant shall install road identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) to the satisfaction of the Road Agent.
8. Driveway permits must be approved for completed acceptable installation by the Road Agent and Planning Board prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy (CO's) for the related lots.
9. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until the sprinkler systems are installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee and the driveways are installed and approved by the Road Agent and the Planning Board and the subdivision roads, Indian Falls Road and Smith Road (as well as the off-site section of Smith Road) are installed through binder pavement and the road identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) are installed to the satisfaction of the Road Agent/town's engineer, guard rails are installed, if necessary, and the As-Built plans have been reviewed and approved by the town's engineer.
10. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD.
The deadline for complying with the conditions subsequent shall be June 1, 2008,
the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing to be held on the application. Prior to the acceptance of the completed road by the Town, an acceptable two-year maintenance bond must be submitted by the applicant for the road in the amount of 10% of the performance bond value.
AND;
Douglas Hill MOVED to accept the application as complete, and to grant the Conditional Use Permit and approve the plans of Mark LeBlanc 2004 Trust, to effect one wetland crossing on property on Indian Falls Road, known as Tax Map/Lot #12/89 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 installation as included in the road bond to be submitted as Condition Precedent #6 of the subdivision approval above.
2. Submission of revised plans to include any checklist corrections and any revisions to the site plan as decided by the Board at the hearing.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be November 8, 2007, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should the conditions to approval not be fulfilled by the deadline date, and a written request for extension is not submitted prior to that date, an administrative NOTICE OF DENIAL shall be issued without further action of the Board being necessary.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. Completion of the site improvements as related to the wetland crossing, as shown on the approved construction design plan.
The financial security shall not be released until the site has been inspected upon notification to the Planning Department by the applicant that the project has been completed, and a compliance hearing is held and confirms that the project has been satisfactorily completed by no later than June 1, 2008. Christine Quirk seconded the motions and they PASSED unanimously.
At 8:40 p.m. the Planning Board took a 15 minute break.
STIMMLER, DAVID AND KATHLEEN Adjourned from 3/27/07
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. No abutters or interested parties were present.
The Chairman stated that as a matter of procedure the application was ready to be accepted as complete.
Stu Lewin MOVED to accept 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, as complete. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that at the recent site walk they had viewed how traffic flow would be handled which seemed satisfactory due to a good turn-around area on the lot. He added that the Board had seen the location for the proposed business sign, parking and exterior lighting. The Chairman felt that all items for the application were in order. He noted that they had also discussed the potential for an incremental increase in traffic as the business progressed which was expected. The Chairman recalled that the “Enter here” sign on site was also discussed on the site walk. He noted that the revised plans submitted by the applicants needed to reflect the hours of operation being 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. which had been discussed at a prior meeting.
Kathleen Stimmler then marked all copies of the revised plan with these hours. The Board had no other issues with the plan.
The Coordinator asked if the Board would consider a drive-by of the site as only minor compliance items remained. David Stimmler noted that all compliance items had been satisfied on site and although he had no hard copy photos he could show the Board the pictures of the site from his digital camera. The Board then viewed the digital photos off the camera and were satisfied with what they saw. Douglas Hill asked if there were any outstanding fees for the application. The Coordinator replied there were not.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the Non-Residential Site Plan for David and Kathleen Stimmler to operate a personal service business for eyelash extensions, 5 Orchard Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/79-22.
Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
ONE CHESTNUT HILL DEVELOPMENT, LLC
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/8 Lots
Location: Susan Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/93-38
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 Al Bell and Jim Bath of One Chestnut Hill Development, LLC. In interested parties present were Brandy Mitroff and Neil and Jacqueline Smith.
Ray Shea explained that this proposed 8 lot subdivision on 25 acres was the third of the link between Indian Falls and Susan Road. He noted that there would be 1,300 total feet of road from Susan Drive to the Bussiere property line for this plan and that all lots proposed were front lots. Ray Shea added that the subdivision would provide two southerly access points to an as yet undeveloped 100 acre parcel. He stated that the applicant requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) at the beginning of the proposed road (“Smith Road”) as they would be going between two wetlands and slightly clipping them at 1,200 s.f. Ray Shea noted that this area had been previously permitted when the project came in with a prior developer and engineer. He stated that the
applicant had received preliminary approval of the plan in September, 2006, documents had been submitted for review and State permits had been received.
Douglas Hill MOVED to accept the application of One Chestnut Hill Development, LLC, Major Subdivision, 8 Lots, Location: Susan Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/93-38, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked if a site walk had been held for this application. Ray Shea replied that one was held during the process of the preliminary hearing. He added that the road profile was a level grade with small fills and no major cuts or slopes.
Stu Lewin asked why there was a discrepancy in the proposed road’s length in the Fiscal Impact study and the Site Specific Drainage Report. Ray Shea replied that the stationing for road design was begun back before the cul-de-sac but the fiscal impact study was based on the actual new road length in the subdivision. Stu Lewin then asked why the calculation for traffic impacts was based on the number of residents rather than the number of vehicle registrations. Ray Shea replied that, historically, that information was provided on a per capita basis. Stu Lewin noted that in Table #7 of the Fiscal Impact Study 931 was the divisor for educational costs which he perceived as the number of school children in Town, however, the same divisor was not found in the
reference to Table #9’s list of choices. Ray Shea confirmed that 931 was a number obtained from the School Department and he was unsure why it was excluded from Table #9. Stu Lewin questioned the positive fiscal impact presumed by the report. Ray Shea replied that Fiscal Impact Studies served a purpose but were based on how much money homes were selling for and when fiscal impacts of subdivisions were calculated to be negative the Board seemed to knowingly agree in contrast to a positive impact result which they tended to not believe. He reiterated that the calculation was dependent on estimated housing values. Brandy Mitroff asked what homes on the lots proposed would be offered at. Al Bell replied that they would be listed at approximately $425K.
Stu Lewin stated that in the language of the Environmental Impact Study noted spatial relationships and rural character the homes were proposed with 300’ to 400’ spacing in between, however, he measured approximately half that when looking at the plan. Ray Shea replied that while two lots could be considered questionable against the measure quoted the others were in the 300’ range. Stu Lewin asked about the Traffic Report. Ray Shea explained that because this plan was closely tied to two other applications one Traffic Report had been done for all three. The Chairman asked Ray Shea if had had read the comments provided by the Road Committee regarding the plan’s road. Ray Shea replied that he had not. The Chairman read from the Road
Committee’s comments: “It is assumed that signage and/or some type of barrier will be installed at the end of Susan Road until such time that it is extended into the Shaky Pond development. Sign placement and type should be coordinated with the Highway Department and clarified in the plan package.” Ray Shea thought this was a sensible suggestion as to how to handle the intersection and he would discuss this with the Road Committee. The Chairman added that the Road Committee had also pointed out that references to “Harvey Lane” should be changed to reflect its proposed renaming of “Smith Road”. Ray Shea replied that he would check the plan. The Chairman continued with more quotes for the Road Committee’s review letter to do with the need for Smith Road to be built into the abutting subdivision and never be allowed to terminate at the Bussiere property line. Ray Shea noted that this was shown on the
road profile for the purpose of continuity, however, the plan could be shown without it if that was preferred. Douglas Hill asked if the proposed lots were noted on the plan. Ray Shea replied that they were and noted their location along with the area where the cul-de-sac ended. Stu Lewin noted that in the Site Specific Drainage Report an attached Figure 8 was referenced which he could not find. The Coordinator explained that the Planning Department usually copied just the first part of a large document to the Board for meetings and this attachment was likely to not be part of that. Stu Lewin asked if the inspection maintenance would be done by the Town Engineer (Northpoint Engineering). Ray Shea replied that it would be handled by an on site contractor that would address State Site Specific, silt fencing and drainage which would likely be impressed by the Town Engineer onto the contractor.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she had any outstanding issues. The Coordinator informed Ray Shea that the Planning Department would be running a formula for the applicant’s offsite road improvements which were likely to mirror the calculations done for the Indian Falls Subdivision. She noted separately that if the applicant would like to escrow $3,500.00 before the full estimate was completed the plan review by the Town Engineer could begin more quickly. Al Bell and Jim Bath stated that they would escrow this amount ahead of time. Jim Bath asked how long the plan review would take. Ray Shea replied that it should be done by the time of the next meeting with the Board. The Coordinator stated that an additional set of plans would be required
for the Town Engineer. Ray Shea then submitted an additional copy to the Coordinator. The Coordinator stated that legal documents for the plan could now be forwarded to Town Counsel and the plan to the Town Engineer.
Stu Lewin asked if he was allowed, as a Board member, to visit the site or any site with an application in progress, on his own without a formal noticed site walk. Ray Shea replied that he would be happy to walk the site with Mr. Lewin and could be available on a weekday. Christine Quirk, Barry Charrest and Jeffrey St. John stated that they would also like to attend. A formal site walk date was set for 5:00 p.m. on May 17, 2007, as several Board members were interested.
The Chairman stated that recent discussions with the Recreation Department had highlighted their preference to receive money donations over land from developers. He asked the applicants if they would be willing to make a monetary donation to Recreation given that their subdivision would introduce more children to the Town. Jim Bath replied that there was a possibility given the interaction with other developers for this project that a donation could be considered.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the application of One Chestnut Hill Development, LLC, Major Subdivision, 8 Lots, Location: Susan Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/93-38, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to June 12, 2007, at 9:00 p.m. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Informational Session for Kimberly Messa and Anthony Eberhardt to discuss a potential relocation of New Boston Health and Wellness Center and New Boston Physical Therapy to 18 High Street, Tax Map/Lot #18/2, located in the Commercial “COM” District and currently owned by Jean M. McCreary.
Kimberly Messa, Anthony Eberhardt and Architect, Dave Ely were present for this discussion. Property owner Jean McCreary was also present along with Real Estate Agent John Palmer. Dave Ely stated that a site walk with members of the Board had been held at which time an alternate parking scheme had been suggested. He noted that implementing this idea would have cost three parking spaces, therefore, the plan was not revised, as 8 spaces would not be enough to accommodate clients. The Chairman asked if any creative shielding to compensate for the proposed removal of the existing barn and parking lot surfaces had been considered. Davy Ely replied that as the architect he was more involved with overseeing the aesthetic aspects of the building and construction while
Bob Todd, LLS, would be looking into landscapes and parking lot surfaces. He added that he supported these improvements. He noted a small strip on the plan that tapered down which could support plantings and possibly a tree. Douglas Hill thought that issues could arise if a paving surface other than asphalt was proposed due to the fact that the parking lot was on a hill. The Chairman suggested that leaving the grade low after the entrance level to the lot would require less fill. He asked if two parking levels were proposed in the lot. Dave Ely replied that this was not really the case and that grade changes meant that retaining walls would be needed. The Chairman suggested that the grade be left the way it was at its lowest level in the parking lot and the remainder be lowered to meet it. Dave Ely thought that type of grade might cause a safety issue in icy conditions. The Chairman added that grading the lot the way he
suggested would make the lot look less expansive from the road especially if it had to be paved with asphalt. Dave Ely replied that the site was very restrictive but they would do what they could to optimize the aesthetics. The Chairman asked Planning Board alternate, Jeffrey St. John, his thoughts on the issue. Jeffrey St. John agreed that the site was restrictive with considerable run-off off the back portion of the site. Stu Lewin thought it would be an important feature to have some type of shrubbery at the front corner of the site.
The Chairman thought that the Board’s next step would be to consider a recommendation for submission of a formal application. The Coordinator pointed out that this was an informational session so no action was required although a consensus that the Board generally agreed with the ideas presented might be helpful to the applicant. The Board indicated their consensus. Dave Ely added that he thought that the ZBA would need to hear their case because the lot was non-conforming and an addition to the back of the existing structure on site was proposed which would add 2’ to its width. He asked if his clients were allowed to be in progress with both the Planning Board and the ZBA concurrently. The Chairman replied that this was allowed.
LOCUS FIELD, LLC
Compliance Hearing/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/NRSPR/Condominium
Location: Kettle Lane
Tax Map/Lot # 13/15-5
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant Rob Starace. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Stu Lewin stated that he had viewed the site and could not locate one of the granite markers. Rob Starace thought that a dumpster might have been placed over the spot where it was located. Stu Lewin replied that he could not recall a dumpster on site. Rob Starace was certain that a dumpster was on site and that all the markers had been set which was done at Bob Todd, LLS’s, direction. Stu Lewin stated that he had noticed some erosion over the silt fence on site. Rob Starace replied that this had occurred after the recent major rain event, however, D&S still needed to do some final grading. Stu Lewin asked, as a new Board member, what other items of compliance he should have noted while on site. Rob Starace explained that compliance items
included things such as exterior flood lights, driveway aprons, locations of structures and wells and anything else noted on the plan. The Chairman noted that Rob Starace had always been a very compliant and cooperative applicant.
Christine Quirk MOVED to confirm that Locus Field, LLC has complied with the
conditions precedent and subsequent to the approval of the condominium subdivision and site plan, Unit A & Unit B, Tax Map/Lot #13/15-5, Kettle Lane and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department.
Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Rob Starace left the meeting but returned later to inform the Board that he had visited the site right afterwards and confirmed that the dumpster was still located on site and that the granite bound was in place.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 8, 2007
20. Driveway Permit for Vista Road, LLC, Hutchinson Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5-15, for the Board’s action.
Joe Landry of Build Savvy and Ted Ianowski, owner of the above noted lot were present for this item.
Douglas Hill asked the grade of the driveway. Joe Landry replied that according to the surveyor’s drawings it was 9.85% on average and over 10% in some spots. He noted that the Road Agent had signed off on the driveway and it had been his intent to be within a 10% grade. The Coordinator noted that the Road Agent had not yet signed the permit. Joe Landry noted that the Road Agent had measured a grade of 8.5% with his smart level even though his own engineer abided by the grades on the plan. Joe Landry stated that because the driveway was only 46’ in length he did not think that emergency vehicles would choose to back down it as it was. He noted that his engineer had stated that the driveway’s worst grade was 12.34% in a 20 foot section. Joe Landry reiterated that the Road Agent had measured the grade after paving at 8.5% for the entire length of the driveway. He asked what the Subdivision Regulations stipulated for a maximum grade. Douglas Hill replied that they
stipulated that the grade could not exceed 10%. Joe Landry stated that the Road Agent had no issue with the driveway and had spoken with the Coordinator. The Coordinator stated that the Road Agent and the paver had both used a smart level to check the grade and that she had asked Phil of Eric Mitchell’s office to go back out and verify his as-built since she had received conflicting information. She stated that Phil had reported back that his survey engineer measured 12.34%. Joe Landry stated again that he had not intended to exceed a 10% grade but did not think that an ambulance would back up the driveway. Barry Charrest noted that an ambulance would back in. Joe Landry explained that he was not part of the subdivision in this neighborhood and had bought the finished subdivision lot to build on not being aware of what the Subdivision Regulations required for grades until the week prior. The Chairman stated that the Board could view
the site using their own smart level and try to resolve this issue without excavating the driveway. Lot owner, Ted Ianowski asked how long this issue should take to resolve since he was waiting to move in with his family which was in transient housing at the moment. Douglas Hill stated that he could view the site the next evening. The Coordinator stated that an email consensus from the Board would be necessary in order to approve the Driveway Permit for a Certificate of Occupancy. Christine Quirk offered that the Board members could also sign a paper for consensus. It was determined that the Board would visit the site at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 9, 2007.
4. Driveway Permit for Vista Road, LLC, Hutchinson Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5-10, for the Board’s action.
Douglas Hill MOVED to confirm compliance for Driveway Permit Application #04-112, Tax Map/Lot # 6/40-5-10, Hutchinson Lane based on the as-built plans. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously
1. Approval of minutes of April 10, 2007, with or without changes distributed by email prior to the meeting of April 24, 2007. (No Copies)
Christine Quirk MOVED to approve the minutes of April 10, 2007, as written. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Endorsement of a Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Barbara L. Hill, Tax Map/Lot #11/19, and 11/19-1, Hooper Hill Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
Because of multiple signature sheets the Chairman stated that the above noted endorsement could be done at the end of the meeting. The same was said for item #3.
3. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Robert & Margorie Moreau, Tax Map/Lot #2/95, Weare Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
5. A copy of a letter received April 23, 2007, from Dwight D. Sowerby, Drescher & Dokmo Professional Association, to Ms. Nicola Strong & Ms. Michele Brown, Planning Department, re: SHB Properties, for the Board’s action.
Douglas Hill MOVED to release the above noted letter to SHB Properties. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
6. Discussion, re: Memo from Planning Coordinator dated April 9, 2007, re: Planning Board Procedures, etc., distributed at the April 10, 2007, meeting.
The Chairman noted that he could not be expected to discuss this intelligently so late in the meeting. Stu Lewin stated that the memo was helpful for him as a new Board member as it provided local context and history and better clarified certain items that were discussed at the OEP Conference. The Coordinator stated that it would be helpful to discuss Rules of Procedure, etc., as there were new members to the Board. She asked that the Board review this memo so that a discussion could be had at the next meeting no matter what time it was.
7. Information from OEP Conference, April 28, 2007, re: Work Force Housing, for the Board’s discussion at the May 22, 2007, meeting.
8. A copy of a letter received April 27, 2007, from Kevin Leonard, PE, Principal Engineer, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Christian Farm Estates, revised Construction Monitoring Estimate, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator noted that the estimate now reflected the revision made to underdrain inspections at part time rather than full time monitoring.
9. A copy of a chapter update for the Planning Board in New Hampshire, Handbook for Local Officials, was distributed for the Board’s information.
10. A copy of a letter received May 2, 2007, from Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, to Jeffrey St John, re: Planning Board Appointment, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman welcomed Jeffrey St. John to the Board.
11. A copy of an article by Peter Francese, Director of Demographic Forecasts, New England Economic Partnership, titled Community Planning: its Impact on our Future Well Being, was distributed for the Board’s information.
12. Copies of miscellaneous literature from OEP Conference, April 28, 2007, were distributed for the Board’s information.
13. Daily road inspection reports dated, April 3, 9, 10, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 2007, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: SHB Properties, LLC, were distributed for the Board’s information.
Douglas Hill noted that the inspections seemed straightforward. Stu Lewin asked why there was a mileage variation of 50 miles versus 62 miles for trips to the site. The Coordinator explained that it depended where the inspector was coming from as the starting point was not always their offices.
14. Read File: Flyer from East West energy project, re: project details.
15. A copy of a letter dated May 4, 2007, from Ari Pollack of Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Christian Farm Estates, Doug Hill Construction, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman stated that the letter noted that monitoring fees by the Town Engineer for Christian Farm Estates would be closely scrutinized. The Coordinator clarified that the letter suggested Douglas Hill was requesting some type of payment format regarding the escrow for monitoring fees and the Board would need to consider this. Douglas Hill replied that was correct and he would like to put 50% of the required escrow down because the total estimate was so large. He added that Selectman, Dave Woodbury had suggested this some time ago. The Chairman stated that problem arose historically with having to go back to a builder for more money when the escrow ran down. He suggested that a benchmark amount be considered where if, for example, the escrow balance reached
$5K this would trigger another deposit to the escrow as long as it was not $2K and $3K at a time. The Chairman noted that $30K could be put up front and then when $25K was spent with $5K remaining $10K increments would be added. The Planning Assistant preferred not to have this format of contribution. The Coordinator added that the last time this was tried it worked terribly in the administrative sense. She noted that the Board should consider what kind of a precedent they were setting by allowing this type of payment schedule for an applicant. Stu Lewin agreed. Douglas Hill noted that New Boston was the only town in the State that accepted the entire escrow amount up front and in his case he felt that $60K was a large number to require at once. Stu Lewin noted that he considered the precedent issue at the Town level not the State level. He added that the Board could justify the Chairman’s suggestion for payment by saying that
this was a one time scenario being allowed in consideration of a new Town Engineer and a disagreement with the applicant. Christine Quirk was concerned that a precedent would be set by allowing the payment method discussed. The Coordinator noted this had been tried once before with Thibeault Corporation and it had been an administrative nightmare. She added that the time lag between billing and the next inspection that was due for an applicant often caused a negative balance in the account when it had been tried. The Planning Assistant further noted that the Treasurer’s department was not always as quick as they preferred with releasing funds which compounded the issue. Douglas Hill stated that he was willing to let the trigger level be $10K and then another $10K would be submitted. The Chairman added that if at any time the deposits to escrow were not submitted in a timely manner and burdened the Planning Department the entire balance
would be submitted. Douglas Hill replied that he would sign a letter to that effect. Stu Lewin added that the justification regarding it not being the norm for procedure and it being a new Town Engineer should be included. The Coordinator stated that she preferred the matter be couched as a “continuing disagreement between the applicant and the Town Engineer”. She wanted to go on record as saying that she was not in favor of this idea but realized that it was the Board’s decision and they needed to make their own statement on the matter. The Chairman suggested wording to the effect: Due to the ongoing dispute between the applicant and the Town Engineer and several miscalculations due to the Interpretation of the Ordinance by the Town Engineer some discrepancies of the estimate were noted and the Board was willing to negotiate the way the funds were escrowed for this applicant in the hope of alleviating any animosity between the
Planning Board and the applicant. Based on that the applicant agrees to put slightly more than 50% of Northpoint’s original estimate down and when the balance reaches $10K the applicant will submit an additional $10K to bring it up to $20K and maintain that $10K balance. If at any point in time it becomes too much to monitor in the opinion of the Planning Board office Douglas Hill agrees to write a check in 48 hours to bring the amount escrowed up to $56,520.00. It’s also noted that this agreement is being entered into between thePlanning Board and the applicant against the experience and judgment of the Planning Department and the Planning Board accepts responsibility for the same. Douglas Hill stated that he appreciated the consideration as an applicant and would draft a letter along with giving his word that this scenario would run smoothly The Chairman doubted that the Board would receive another estimate in the format this one had been
provided again given that there had been misinterpretations of the Regulations, nor did he think that the accommodations being offered to the applicant for escrow payment were likely.
16. A copy of a letter dated May 1, 2007, from Dwight Sowerby of Drescher & Dokmo, to Nicola Strong & Michele Brown, Planning Department, re: General Highway Easement, Comeau, Davis Lane, Tax Map/Lot #2/63, for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator explained that this was a suggestion to note the plan number in its deed instead of saying that the plan would be recorded. She noted that a motion was necessary if the Board agreed that this letter could be released to the applicant.
Christine Quirk MOVED to release the letter dated May 1, 2007, from Dwight Sowerby of Drescher & Dokmo, to the applicant. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
17. The minutes of April 24, 2007, were noted as having been distributed via email, for approval at the meeting of May 22, 2007, with or without changes.
Stu Lewin stated that he liked the email version of the minutes versus hard copy. The Chairman agreed.
18. Copies of information, re: Historic District Commissions received at the OEP Conference on April 28, 2007, were distributed for the Board’s information.
19. Copies of information, re: Agricultural Commission received at the OEP Conference on April 28, 2007, were distributed for the Board’s information.
21. A copy of a memo dated April 30, 2007, from the New Boston Fire Wards, to the Planning Board, re: One Chestnut Hill Development, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #12/93-38, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that the Fire Wards had issued the above noted memo regarding One Chestnut Hill Development, LLC, only and had neglected to notice the _____ between Indian Falls Road and the extension to Susan Road. The Board agreed that the discussion during the Bussiere and LeBlance hearings earlier should satisfy the Fire Wards’ concerns.
22. Daily road inspection reports dated, May 1, 2 & 3, 2007, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: SHB Properties, LLC, were distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator noted that an endorsement of the Non-Residential Site Plan approved this evening for David and Kathleen Stimmler, 5 Orchard Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/79-22, was needed by the Chairman and Secretary. The Chairman and Vice Chairman (in the Secretary’s absence) endorsed the above noted Non-Residential Site Plan.
The Chairman and Vice Chairman (in the Secretary’s absence) endorsed the Lot Line Adjustment and Subdivision Plan noted in item #’s 2 & 3.
Stu Lewin asked if an applicant signed off as part of their application process that Planning Board members had permission to informally view their sites during construction if they wished; referring to SHB properties specifically. The Coordinator replied that applicants signed permission for site walks by the Board and while it was not written otherwise, it was inherent in the process that Board members were allowed to check sites on their own if they desired.
At 10:45 p.m. Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn. Stu Lewin seconded the
motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien, Recording Clerk
| 
