TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of July 10, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, Douglas Hill, Don Duhaime, Stu Lewin; ex-officio Christine Quirk and alternates, Barry Charest and Jeff 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 John Bunting, Mark & Christine Bilodeau, Nick & Brenda Ferro, Cliff Plourde, Wayne Blassberg, Dick Moody, Dan MacDonald-Fire Chief, John Riendeau-Road Agent, Roch Larochelle, Chris Krajenka-Police Chief, Brandy Mitroff, George St. John, Dan Teague, Burr Tupper-Conservation Commission, Ray Shea, Al Bell, Jim Bath, Carter Brown, Andre Araujo and Jonathan Willard.
Discussion with Fire Wards, re: cisterns and sprinklers.
The Chairman stated that the discussion this evening was to be focused on the recent spate of Fire Wards' requests that subdivisions be constructed with sprinkler systems in the homes and 10,000 gallon cisterns and what the Fire Wards were proposing for changes to the subdivision regulations to make this a requirement.
Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, did not know that this would be the focus of the meeting and thought that the Planning Board would benefit from some background information regarding cisterns and sprinklers and noted that Assistant Chief Cliff Plourde would begin.
Cliff Plourde stated that in the late 1970's the need for reliable water supply was recognized and began with using pools, ponds and rivers with dry hydrants. Dry hydrants quickly turned out to be high maintenance items since the hydrant fills up with sediment and in certain locations Dredge and Fill permits were needed from the State to clean them up. Peter Hogan noted that the Planning Board had understood for some time that the Fire Wards would not accept dry hydrants and had been instructing applicants of this fact.
Cliff Plourde noted that the answer to the reliable water supply needs came in the form of cisterns which were available to the Fire Department 365 days a year and which needed little maintenance except cutting vegetation from around the intake pipe and drafting sites. He noted that part of the set up for a fire requires establishing a hydrant system with one truck pumping from a cistern to another truck which can cause a problem if there is a lack of manpower. He further noted that the Fire Wards began to look at sprinklers as a source of fire protection.
Dan MacDonald pointed out that it was the Planning Board who asked the Fire Wards to look into the sprinkler idea to offer an alternative to developers although at the beginning there were worries that the sprinklers would not be as reliable as the cisterns.
At this time Stu Lewin pointed out that he did not know everyone present at the meeting and introductions were made all round.
The Chairman stated that fire sprinkler systems were first introduced to the Board as a cost effective solution that would meet the needs of the Fire Department and satisfy developers who the Planning Board felt sometimes opted to increase density in their subdivisions as a means to cover cistern costs. He added that the guiding ordinance to establishing fire sprinklers in the Town was NFPA-13D.
Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, wished to note that the Fire Wards and Fire Department had never compromised safety and the Town’s best interests when dealing with contractors as they did not care about the cost of subdivisions but more the safety of Town residents and keeping the Fire Department volunteer to preserve the budget and tax rate. The Chairman agreed and stressed that it was not in the interest of the Board to maximize the developer’s profit but it was essential to present them with a cost effective solution in order to entice them to design a subdivision that the Board felt was in the best interest of the Town. Dan MacDonald noted that his prior comment was meant as a mission statement and not a debate starter. Dan MacDonald stated that cisterns were
great sources of water supply that required minimal manpower and in the late 90’s the Fire Department started looking into the option of fire sprinkler systems with the American Home Sprinkler Association and how they could introduce sprinklers to the Town and comply with NFPA-13D. He explained that fire sprinklers were proactive systems as they started combating a fire immediately. Dan MacDonald added that there were times when both cisterns (possibly reduced ones at 10K gallons) and fire sprinklers were desired for the added protection of outbuildings, etc., therefore, the Fire Department came up with a regulation that would allow the option of requiring a cistern as well as sprinklers and a Cistern Master Plan to get water supply to undeveloped areas of town. The Chairman stated that he had no recollection of Dan MacDonald making these statements and thought the only Fire Ward member who had admitted at that time that he preferred both means of
fire fighting water supply was Dick Moody. He recalled that Dan MacDonald had stated that he would love to request both but did not feel that the Town would support it. Dan MacDonald stated that the Fire Department had put together a plan that they had wanted the Planning Board to back as they did not feel comfortable being the point source given that they needed the Town’s support for voting in replacement of truck equipment every so often and did not want to compromise that need.
Douglas Hill asked if the Fire Department had to choose between a cistern or fire sprinklers for a 20 lot subdivision what they would select. Dan MacDonald quoted from a letter on record from the Fire Wards that gave their opinion that fire sprinklers were their first choice as they were the more proactive choice to saving lives. He recalled that resident Jay Marden had expressed concern that the Fire Department would continually try to recommend both cisterns and fire sprinklers anyway once they got the Sprinkler Ordinance passed but this had not been the case although there were certain instances when both means were more appropriate. The Chairman recalled that at the time he had asked the Fire Department to give him an example of an area in Town that might warrant both
types of fire fighting water supply. He added that he had no issue in supporting the requirement of having both systems but the problem now was that the Regulations did not reflect that in the language. Dan MacDonald recalled an application that they had recommended both a cistern and fire sprinklers on a 2,800’ cul-de-sac and asked the Chairman if he recalled what the Planning Board decided upon. The Chairman replied that he did not remember. Dan MacDonald informed the Chairman that the Board had gone with the choice of a cistern which was what the developer wanted and not the first choice of the Fire Department which was fire sprinklers. Don Duhaime stated that his issue was that if the electricity was out the fire sprinkler system would not work. He added that he did not think homeowners would maintain their systems and also that there was a good chance that certain variables would cause the system to fail versus a cistern that provided
a ready water supply. Don Duhaime felt that the Fire Department had been on the right track in asking for both systems and at the last minute went with fire sprinklers to get the ordinance in place. The Chairman thought that Don Duhaime had misread the notes on this as the cisterns would not have been tied into the sprinkler language for that ordinance. Cliff Plourde stated that there was a high percentage of success for sprinkler systems working in emergencies and providing a life safety benefit. John Bunting noted that the success factor relied on probability. The Chairman agreed that the probability factors were weighed extensively at that time and recalled flawlessly that it was determined that a lightning strike would be the most likely cause of wiping out an electrical system in the event of a fire. He added that sprinkler systems had been presented to the Board as a good way to keep the Fire Department volunteer as they would operate off
an existing electrical system for a house and provide life safety. Dan MacDonald stated that he recalled the Board had said that both cisterns and fire sprinkler recommendations were not an option. The Chairman clarified that he recalled both parties agreeing that requiring both for a subdivision would not be supported by the Town. He added that this was due to the fact that the wording of the Subdivision Regulations would not support recommending both.
The Chairman noted that he still believed that fire sprinklers were the best option even though they were not represented properly to the Board at the time noting his continuing complaint that the system had been presented to the Planning Board as being able to run off the domestic water supply but they all ended up being installed with tanks in the basement. Dan MacDonald replied that it was on record that the Fire Department said they could use a well head for the system as it would need 3 to 6 gallons a minute but as they got further into the engineering aspects it was discovered that they would need 16 gallons a minute. He noted that a letter on file said that if that requirement could not be met with a well head then a 200 gallon storage tank would be needed in order to
have 10 minutes of water supply at 17 gallons a minute. The Chairman stated that this was nowhere in the meeting minutes. Dan MacDonald disagreed. George St. John noted that in the historical minutes supplied by the Coordinator he noted that such discussion had occurred at the same time they were weighing the options of writing their own sprinkler ordinance or following along the lines of NFPA-13D. He added that the two conversations were going on simultaneously which may be where the confusion lay. Dan MacDonald then read from the minutes of 12/18/01: “Peter Hogan explained that the system would be tied to the domestic water supply and did not require a storage tank. He pointed out that may raise a concern if the house were to lose electricity. The Coordinator added that the regulation stipulates the domestic water systems would be required to produce at least a specific amount, and in some cases a storage tank may be required.” He added that this statement was repeated
several times throughout the minutes. The Chairman then quoted from the 9/19/00 minutes: “Dan MacDonald stated that with the reserve water supply in the well casing and the low number of gallons per minute required by some of the low volume sprinkler heads, there should be no problem with running the systems from the wells.” Dan MacDonald admitted that errors were made but corrected as they moved forward in the process. The Chairman asked if a fire sprinkler system had ever been installed in New Boston without holding tanks. Dan MacDonald replied that this had never been done and pointed out it was 13D compliant. He asked the Chairman what point he was trying to make. The Chairman replied that the Subdivision Regulations should be reviewed in respect to how cisterns and fire sprinkler requirements could be integrated. He noted that at the time the Sprinkler Ordinance was being drafted it was presented to the Board
by the Fire Wards that only in specific circumstances would a cistern(s) be recommended in addition to fire sprinklers, therefore, if the case going forward was that both were preferred in many cases, the Subdivision Regulations should be amended. Douglas Hill asked if the Fire Wards were recommending that cisterns and fire sprinklers be installed for every new subdivision. Cliff Plourde of the Fire Wards replied that they were not necessarily suggesting large cisterns but cisterns that could offer supplemental water for fires that might start in garages, outbuildings, etc., that did not have fire sprinklers installed. The Chairman wished to note that he had no issue in requiring both means of fire fighting water supply for new subdivisions. He added that developers made sizable profits from today’s subdivisions and there should be no issue in adding a $60K cistern to such plans. Dan MacDonald offered the example of exploring the Town’s
support of a Village cistern but wondered if it was fair to risk the lives of residents in that area if the Town did not support installing one with tax money. From the audience, Brandy Mitroff noted that the CIP Committee was presented with the Cistern Master Plan 5 or 6 years prior and they chose to create a line item for a Village cistern first so that if the taxpayers voted to support that one they could feel comfortable going forward with proposing other cisterns in outlying areas of the Town. Dan MacDonald noted that the Fire Department used some of their budget money three months prior to have surveying completed for a cistern site in the Village. Don Duhaime stated that he thought that Dan Teague had said that the surveying would be done free of charge. Dan MacDonald explained that the surveying was to fall within the survey project being done to explore land for a middle school on the grounds of the Central School but the job became more involved,
therefore, the Fire Department contributed money from their budget and the Selectmen also contributed $1,200.00 to the cause. Dan MacDonald asked if the Planning Board was asking the Fire Wards this evening what means of fire fighting water supply they wanted for new construction in subdivisions. George St. John of the Fire Wards added that fire sprinklers saved lives which was their first priority but cisterns provided back up protection, especially if fire sprinklers were not properly maintained. Dan MacDonald noted that the Fire Department was going to be distributing a mailer to residents that offered check ups on fire sprinkler systems by the Fire Department for $75.00 per year. Douglas Hill thought that the fire sprinkler issue became a marketing problem for developers.
John Bunting felt that the discussion was becoming muddled and wished to offer some background information on cisterns. He explained that if a cistern was located within 2,200’ of truck travel to a lot the house on that lot went from a class 9 to a class 6 in fire insurance rates. The Chairman asked if the house placement on the lot had any bearing to that measure. John Bunting replied that it did not. He added that if a cistern was installed by a developer and a future developer benefited by subdividing near it that was to his benefit and just how the dice fell. In the case of fire sprinklers, John Bunting noted that these systems were designed on the probability that in the event of a fire the electricity that powered the pump would not go out,
therefore there were benefits to having both means of fire fighting water supply and in consideration of outbuildings as Cliff Plourde had mentioned earlier. He noted that the two cases where fire departments used the most water was when a fire fully involved a structure, such as in the case of 5 Inkberry Road, and in the case of exposure fires where structures were burning within a certain distance of other structures. George St. John wished to respond to Douglas Hill’s earlier comment regarding fire sprinklers and stated that if the system was working properly they were successful at safely getting people out of the house and while the second goal was to have the system extinguish the house cisterns provided that back up if needed. Douglas Hill asked if there was a standard distance between houses that qualified them as more or less safe from burning in the event one caught fire. Dan MacDonald replied that the distances varied based on different
factors such as vegetation, wind velocity, etc. He added that the Fire Department had handouts of research they would submit that detailed how other towns in New Hampshire dealt with fire fighting water protection. The Fire Chief noted that New Boston was considered a leader in the workable use of cisterns and the Fire Department had received calls from other towns since the 1980’s asking for the Town’s cistern plan and strategy. He added that the Town had set a national standard in some areas regarding cisterns.
The Chairman felt that some criteria should be established for what circumstances would require that both cisterns and fire sprinklers be installed for new subdivisions. The Fire Chief stated that up to the point of tonight’s discussion the Fire Wards had been under the impression that the Board frowned on the recommendation of both systems, therefore, they never felt empowered to request both. The Chairman replied that the Board would support both means if the Fire Wards justified a certain area as having a lack of water which could cause excessive exposure to fire. John Bunting asked the Chairman if the Board would then abide by the maximum cul-de-sac length of 1,000’ for the Town. The Chairman replied that that was a loaded question. He noted
that while cluster subdivisions were often looked upon as great design ideas the dual fire fighting criteria posed could make them uneconomically viable to construct. He offered the example of a current applicant who was willing to reduce the number of lots proposed and justified a longer cul-de-sac by hitting every point suggested in the Master Plan with his design. Douglas Hill echoed the Chairman’s comments, noting that when faced with 18 lots instead of 27; 2,200’ of road instead of 5,500’; 50 acres of open space instead of 10; while knowing all the life safety issues, the Planning Board was faced with a set of dilemmas to consider. Dan MacDonald quoted from minutes of 10/23/06: “He (The Chairman) stated that this (Fire Ward’s justification) along with the Police Chief and Road Agent’s comments would provide the Planning Board with an unshakeable justification for not allowing anything longer than 1,000’.” He felt that accepting such justifications traded away life safety.
John Bunting added that because cisterns needed to be installed before the first lot was sold in a subdivision the developers sought to maximize the value of their lots by choosing to place the cisterns on some more undesirable land with ledge and rock that required drilling and blasting and forced the cost of the cistern even higher. He felt that sympathy for developers needed to be minimized. Don Duhaime suggested that requirements could be set for clusters where they needed to have at least a 10K gallon cistern and fire sprinklers if the site exceeded the 2,200’ truck travel distance from an existing cistern. John Bunting noted that the Board had two separate issues to consider:
Working towards future changes for the Town and applying good changes to existing Regulations. The Chairman disagreed that there were two separate issues involved and added that he was not against requiring both means of fire fighting water supply. He noted that his main issue was stretching the current Subdivision Regulation language to cover the requirement of both systems. The Chairman clarified that it should be made clearer in the Regulations that most new subdivisions would require both a cistern and sprinklers and the Fire Department could choose to waive that requirement if they chose. He added that justifying the requirement for both systems for heavily wooded areas described most of the Town and could tempt clear cutting by developers so language needed to be carefully considered. He offered that
mentioning exposure issues and the lack of easy building sites left in town would add to the justification for requiring both. Dan Teague, Fire Wards, noted that when the Sprinkler Ordinance was adopted some members of the Fire Wards were in favor of both cistern and sprinkler requirements but felt this was not deemed viable by the Board due to feedback they received from developers. He added that he was glad to hear they were pursuing this option now as it should have been done initially. Dan Teague added that he liked the fact that developers were offering extra acreage for waivers and understood the quandary the Board faced. He further added that if he had to choose one means of fire protection it would be sprinklers over cisterns.
Brandy Mitroff thought that if the Fire Department recommended both sprinklers and fire cisterns in their subdivision review letters but included a paragraph that justified their choice the Planning Board would have more weight even with the current Regulations in place. The Chairman agreed but added that the language of the Regulations still needed to be amended to change the requirement for both systems from a rarity to a desirability. Brandy Mitroff asked how the phrasing read in the Regulations. Douglas Hill replied that he believed it read as “in certain circumstances”. Brandy Mitroff thought that it was the Board’s discretion to interpret that phrasing. The Chairman disagreed. Brandy Mitroff stated that she understood the process
to be that if the Fire Wards justified their recommendation the Board could consider it. Douglas Hill wished to note that if cisterns became a requirement for affordable housing subdivisions which had been discussed during recent Board meetings then that cost would cancel out the affordability factor. Don Duhaime asked the Coordinator if impact fees were no longer an active item in the Town. The Coordinator replied that was correct.
The Fire Chief felt that parameters needed to be established by means of a work
session among the departments. The Chairman agreed and there was Board consensus. He felt that they needed to tie in the Subdivision Regulations with the Cistern Master Plan so that there would be no question as to what was required. The Chairman thought that the option of a waiver could also be added. Barry Charest thought the subject was still a difficult one to follow and recalled past discussion about teachers working in the Town not being able to afford to live here. He noted that the Board was discussing the addition of cost to new subdivisions and the first priority should also be saving lives. Jeff St. John felt that the Fire Wards and the Board had the same goals with requiring fire sprinklers in new subdivisions as they were a life safety benefit. He added that it would be easier
to support cistern recommendations going forward if the wording the Subdivision Regulations was revised to reflect that. Stu Lewin agreed that it seemed
to be the proper time to revise the language in the Subdivision Regulations to support cistern and sprinkler recommendations for new subdivisions. Christine Quirk thought that continuing with work sessions on this subject was also a good idea. Don Duhaime volunteered to sit in on such sessions. The Chairman felt that there was consensus to have the wording revised in the Regulations which could then be adopted by the Planning Board. Dan MacDonald stated that he would contact Don Duhaime with a scheduled time for a work session. Jeff St. John offered to attend also.
The Chairman suggested that because the Board was running behind time they address the Bilodeau hearing as it required limited discussion and then take up with the discussion with the Fire Wards, Road Agent and Police Department regarding cul-de-sacs which was likely to be more extensive. The Fire Wards, Police Department and Road Agent had no issue in doing so.
BILODEAU, MARK R. & CHRISTINE A.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Cordwood Home Business
Location: 229 Joe English Road
Tax Map/Lot #14/44
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicants Mark and Christine Bilodeau. Abutters present were Nick and Brenda Ferro and Cliff Plourde. Interested parties present were Police Chief, Chris Krajenka and Dan Teague.
Mark Bilodeau submitted revised plans to the Board. Abutter, Brenda Ferro noted that the fence the applicant had discussed installing between his property and theirs had been put up. She noted that she and her spouse were present at tonight’s hearing to clarify the applicant’s proposed hours of operation for the business. The Chairman stated that the hours of operation should be listed on the revised site plan. He then quoted them from the plan that the cutting hours were listed as 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays. Stu Lewin recalled a recent applicant who had noted the term “or dusk, whichever was earlier” in his hours of operation for a similar business to account for earlier quitting times in the winter and wondered if
that should be added to this plan. The Chairman replied that he was comfortable with the phrasing of the cutting hours as they were because the applicant would not be using exterior lighting to work outside, thus the hours were self-regulating as it became dark in the winter at approximately 4:00 p.m. Mark Bilodeau stated that the hours listed for cutting were intended as summer hours as there would be longer daylight. The Chairman added that the discussion regarding cutting hours was clear in the minutes and if the applicant ever added exterior lights to the site so that he could cut after dark he would be in violation of his site plan. Brenda Ferro stated that her specific concern was what the weekend hours of operation would be. The Chairman stated that the hours on Sunday had been revised as 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Christine Bilodeau clarified that these were just cutting hours on Sundays not working
hours. The Chairman agreed. Douglas Hill asked if the splitting machine the applicants would be using for the wood was loud. Christine Bilodeau replied that the splitting machine was as loud as a lawnmower. Interested party Dan Teague commented that larger wood splitting processors were much louder. The Chairman noted that the applicant’s site could not support that type of equipment. He clarified with the applicants that it was not their intention to ever use that type of processor. Mark and Christine Bilodeau replied that this was not their intent.
The Chairman asked abutter Cliff Plourde if he had any comments. Cliff Plourde replied that he had had numerous conversations with the applicants since the last meeting and that since then they had planted some buffer trees to quell noise generated by the cutting operation. He added that he had no issues with the plan. The Chairman asked if there were any other comments or issues and there were none. Brenda Ferro asked if the plan would be recorded with the county clerk. The Chairman replied that the plan would be recorded with the Town’s Planning Department. He asked the Coordinator if she had any issues with the plan. The Coordinator replied that she did not. The Police Chief asked if he could have a copy of the plan to have on file at
the Police Department in case any noise complaints from the business were called in. The Planning Assistant replied that she would make a copy of the plan for the Police Chief.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve site plan for Mark Bilodeau to operate a cordwood processing and sales agricultural business from property at 229 Joe English Road, Tax Map/Lot #14/44, subject to:
CONDITION(S) PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) revised site plans that include all of the
checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing, the first hearing and the site walk.
The deadline for complying with the condition(s) precedent shall be August 10, 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 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.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Discussion with Fire Wards, Road Agent & Police Department re: cul-de-sacs.
Present for this discussion were Police Chief Chris Krajenka, Fire Wards George St. John, Dick Moody, Wayne Blassberg, Dan Teague and Cliff Plourde, Fire Chief Dan MacDonald, Road Agent John Riendeau, former Fire Ward John Bunting, Burr Tupper, Brandy Mitroff, Roch Larochelle, Jim Bath and Al Bell.
The Chairman stated that a recent application’s road design had evoked much attention from Town departments and he wished to offer some background information on the subject so that it did not seem like the Planning Board was disregarding the suggestions of other departments. He stated that the Board needed to establish the best subdivisions they could based on what the Subdivision Regulations allowed and the subdivision he alluded to could legally subdivide a large number of lots on their site, impacting the land and its environment, along with the safety and condition of nearby roadways. The Chairman added that the Board/Town had a traffic study being conducted currently and even if the Board wished to use their discretion to label the application in question as
“scattered and premature” for the area the study may not support that claim, therefore, the developer could legally subdivide the higher lot number they initially proposed which would disrupt many points that the Master Plan suggested the Town follow for good development. He explained that the developer had since offered to take 9 or 10 lots off the total number proposed in return for having a longer cul-de-sac (over the maximum length stated in the Regulations) and the Board realized that the Fire Department and Road Agent would not be in favor of this. The Chairman added that it was not in the Board’s interest to go against the wishes of these departments, however, the proposal of fewer lots seemed a good one which complied with safety factors. In addition he explained that the Board had discussed the need for a secondary egress out of the area being discussed, however, the applicant did not own the property where such a road could be built,
therefore, it would be an interesting challenge if it went to court. The Chairman noted that the loop road proposed had its entrance and exit approximately 200’ apart, therefore, it seemed like a cul-de-sac in that respect. He stated that the applicant, in good faith, asked the Board what they could do to keep the plan active and replied to the suggestion of less density with a 2,200’ cul-de-sac. The Chairman noted that he did not think that a cul-de-sac of this length was any more of a safety issue than the formerly proposed 5,200’ loop road onto an existing congested roadway and while it may appear that the Board was disregarding the desires of other departments’ road specifications he wished to stress that it was the Board’s charge to get well designed subdivisions in addition to what was legal. He further noted that 5,200’ of loop road was legal, he would deny the application for bad design/density and the Town would
be taken to court. The Chairman stated that in the spirit of compromise sought by the applicant they were now at the juncture of a 2,200’ cul-de-sac which was not unanimously liked by the Board, however, some members, including himself, preferred it to the 5,200’ loop road. He asked the Board if they had any comments. Douglas Hill thought the Chairman had covered the issue. Stu Lewin agreed. Don Duhaime stated that he did not like either proposal but noted that the Board had not yet seen the second design proposed.
Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, stated that with all due respect to the Chairman, he did not think that it was the Chairman’s position to decide the safety risk factors between the two road designs proposed just as he himself would not have any knowledge of Planning Board matters.
The Chairman agreed but added that he did not think that the 5,200’ loop road served as a through road from a safety standpoint because its entrance and exit were so close together. Dan MacDonald thought that this proposal was a perfect example of a plan that should go before a technical review board given the factors of safety, conservation, etc., as such a board could jointly discuss what was best for the Town through such a process. The Chairman noted that representatives from other departments in the Town were usually present at Planning Board meetings such as the Conservation Committee, Road Committee and sometimes the Road Agent and Fire Wards. Dan MacDonald noted that SNHPC had suggested that separate non-public meetings had historically worked well for other towns. The Coordinator noted that an All
Boards meeting was currently scheduled for August 2, 2007, and this topic could be discussed as well. She added that Jack Munn of SNHPC would be in attendance. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, noted that he had been to such meetings and thought they worked very well. He added that he felt the cul-de-sac topic being discussed was a separate and specific issue that warranted its own forum. The Police Chief thought that separate, non-public meetings would be positive and productive. The Chairman noted that he could not make daytime meetings.
The Chairman stated that the applicant in question’s written justification for proposing a longer cul-de-sac with fewer lots was compelling as it supported all points of the Master Plan that applied. He added that the longer cul-de-sac design also proposed shorter driveways, therefore, the net distance for emergency travel on the road was less than the initial proposal of the looped road with longer driveways. Dan MacDonald stated that a rule was a rule (cul-de-sac maximum length) and that the proposal should be put before a technical review committee so that recommendations could be given. He suggested that in the interest of work schedules he would be willing to meet on a Saturday morning as he thought this was an important issue. The Chairman noted that the
subdivision being discussed may be the only example that ever came before the Board, as barring extraordinary circumstances applicants were not allowed to extend cul-de-sacs beyond 1,000’. From the audience, Cliff Plourde, Fire Wards asked how the term “extraordinary” was defined. The Chairman felt the example being discussed was extraordinary, however, many cul-de-sac proposals were not and recalled only two that had impressed him as such, the one being discussed and Christian Farm Estates. He added that the initial proposal for the subdivision in question planned too many lots around too little land and that was perfectly legal according to the present Subdivision Regulations. Dan MacDonald asked if the Subdivision Regulations maximum cul-de-sac length stipulation of 1,000’ meant that the Board could deny the applicant’s proposal for a 2,200’ cul-de-sac. The Chairman replied that this was correct. Dan
MacDonald reiterated that he felt the plan should go before a technical review committee. Douglas Hill agreed that the plan fit all the parameters to require such a review. Dan MacDonald stated that any cul-de-sac over 1,000’ presented a life safety issue in the Town. The Police Chief noted that his limited staff would be put at risk as well as residents on such a cul-de-sac.
The Chairman stated that the theory of anti-sprawl supported cluster designs, however, the Master Plan also suggested promoting open space and clusters, therefore, there were many contrasting suggestions to consider. He repeated that he felt a longer cul-de-sac with shorter driveways was better from a safety standpoint than a shorter cul-de-sac with longer driveways and backlots. The Chairman added that the Conservation Commission greatly favored the option of the longer cul-de-sac by the applicant as it offered open space that would connect with existing wildlife corridors.
The Chairman stated that the next factor to consider from a safety point of view was whether the Fire Department preferred to have both cisterns and fire sprinklers proposed for new subdivisions. Dan MacDonald noted that the justifications the Chairman presented for the example subdivision with the longer cul-de-sac were not the kind of information they received in their letters from the Board requesting recommendations for fire sprinklers or cisterns in subdivisions. Dick Moody, Fire Wards, returned to the subject of waiving the cul-de-sac length and felt that doing so would set a precedent for every future proposal with land to bargain with. Don Duhaime agreed. Dick Moody added that future applicants would look at this example and may manage their site to appear in
a better light with bartering options like longer cul-de-sacs so that it would be tempting to grant waivers. The Police Chief added that the courts would support such precedents. The Chairman disagreed. Don Duhaime stated that he agreed with Dick Moody’s and the Police Chief’s statements and noted that opening the door for one applicant would open the door for anyone. The Chairman stated that the Board was very familiar with the area in question and while the applicant’s proposal fit well for the site he could not see the same scenario in other areas of Town. Dick Moody replied that this could not be known for certain until another application presented itself. He added that the Town was running out of easily developable land and was left with Steep Slopes and swamps. Douglas Hill thought that these comments also tied in with the issue of through roads and stressed that changes would need to be made in the Subdivision
Regulations to support arguments against bad designs and limited access ways in subdivisions. Burr Tupper felt that developers should be more responsible in researching land they were looking to purchase so that they would know its possible limitations at the outset. John Bunting asked if there were an infinite number of wetland crossings allowed in subdivisions. The Chairman replied there were not. John Bunting felt that this proved a valid point to the fact that there were limits as to what was permissible. The Chairman replied that the State set certain limits also. John Bunting noted that the Town did not need to accept the State’s limits and could set lower ones if they chose to. Douglas Hill thought that this could risk being taken to court. The Coordinator noted that the case of Durant v. Dunbarton was one which proved that towns had some leeway over State approvals in that DES had issued permits but the Town denied the
subdivision on the basis of their local knowledge of the land and area in question and the court upheld the town’s decision. The Coordinator noted that this was all to do with the Planning Board’s limited discretion as noted in her fairly recent memo to the Board. Burr Tupper agreed that although they might be faced with a better subdivision design at the sacrifice of waiving cul-de-sac lengths it could set some risky precedents and the Board should be proactive on all the issues that contributed to this problem. Douglas Hill felt that the conflicting opinions of growth, fire safety, etc., could be worked out in a technical review as he wanted to see good development done in the Town. Burr Tupper added that as a member of the Conservation Commission he was not “anti-development” but rather for “responsible development”. He thought a technical review board/committee would be good for the Town.
It was decided that a technical review committee would meet on July 17, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. at the Fire Department.
At 8:45 p.m. the Planning Board took a 10 minute break.
ONE CHESTNUT HILL DEVELOPMENT, LLC Adjourned from 6/12/07
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 the applicants Al Bell and Jim Bath. Abutters present were Carter Brown and Andre Araujo. Interested parties present were Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission and John Bunting.
Ray Shea stated that this application was the third of three subdivisions that connected Susan Road with Indian Falls Road and at the last meeting there were two outstanding issues. He noted the first issue to be a waiver requested for the geometry of the curve in the road off Susan Road as it approached Smith Road which was below the required geometry for the 20’ centerline. Ray Shea stated that the second issue was a waiver requested for a small increase in offsite drainage. In regard to the first issue he noted that the Board had suggested reconfiguring Susan Road which is what the applicant ended up doing. Ray Shea explained that they were now proposing a curving Susan Road more to the east to tie in directly into Indian Falls Road which worked well.
He added that an extension to Susan Road was now proposed to be “Shaky Pond Lane” and since this addressed the geometry issues there was now no waiver necessary. Ray Shea added that this change was also addressed by the Town Engineer who in their letter replied that it was a “good idea”.
Ray Shea stated that the second issue involved offsite drainage in three areas and that in the previous meeting mitigation, detention and enclosed gutters had been discussed. He noted that these items were included in the plans that were sent to the Town Engineer and he now had information to present to the Board on the reductions that would result from incorporating additional measures for drainage. Ray Shea explained that the submitted chart showed pre-development flows and post development flows with the incorporation of roof drainage systems. He noted that one drainage area would be unaffected and that flow came from the abutting Bussiere property. Ray Shea added that the biggest drainage area which headed north to Carriage Road saw a decrease from 1.12 cfs to
1.03 cfs and the third small drainage area that headed in a south westerly direction went from 0.47 cfs to 0.21 cfs. He further added that detention ponds would not be practical for this site. Given this new information Ray Shea stated that he still wished to request a waiver for the small cfs increases. He noted that the town Engineer had some comments in their review letter regarding proposed dry wells and had 4 or 5 questions addressing their configuration and installation. Ray Shea further noted that new details on the plan addressed those concerns. He stated that there were also some minor technical issues noted by Northpoint that could be easily addressed, therefore, he was anticipating that final approval of the plan could be considered by the Board this evening. Stu Lewin asked if all the offsite drainage flowed into undeveloped areas. Ray Shea replied that one of the drainage flows went through a substantial wetland which acted as
a detention pond before reaching the Carriage Road area. He added that downstream culverts would adequately address this runoff and there would be no impact to Carriage Road or its lots. Jeff St. John asked if the substantial wetland area Ray Shea referred to was the same area that flooded this spring. Don Duhaime noted that it led into that area. Jeff St. John stated that he thought this area had reached its flow capacity. Ray Shea replied that he was not aware of that point as he had researched the history of this area and its culvert sizings. He noted that while 0 cfs was the desired number it was difficult to achieve and even 2 or 3 lot subdivisions had runoff increases. Stu Lewin asked the total cfs flow increase for the site. Ray Shea replied that it was approximately 3.0 cfs into a 3,000 acre watershed, therefore, not a large impact. He added that the flow dissipated as it meandered through this wet area. Don
Duhaime asked if dry wells would be proposed on both sides of the houses that were constructed on the lots. Ray Shea replied that usually the dry wells were installed on one side of the house and PVC pipe was installed underground to lead to the other side. Stu Lewin asked if this was a successful practice. Ray Shea replied that it worked well. He added that if there was no receiving layer then the pipe would go out to daylight and whatever was not absorbed would go into proposed depressions. Stu Lewin asked how many gallons a dry well held. Ray Shea replied that it held approximately 40-50 gallons. Barry Charest asked what the case would be if the system became clogged. Ray Shea replied that it would flood, therefore, normal upkeep and maintenance was required. Burr Tupper asked how many other surrounding subdivisions to this one directed water flows in the same direction. Ray Shea replied that this was the only one as
its topography was like a bowl where it rose upward and dropped off with the Carriage Road area being downhill.
Don Duhaime MOVED to grant the waiver requested for post-development runoff increases as presented and justified by Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
John Bunting asked about future rights-of-way to abutting lots. Douglas Hill replied that this application was considered a “connector” subdivision to developments on either end, and, therefore no rights-of-way were being pursued currently. John Bunting asked if this subdivision would commit the Town/Planning Board to future subdivisions without certain flexibilities. Ray Shea explained that this subdivision would also lead to the one discussed in the previous hearing. The Chairman added that the potential for a loop road or a single route through the other property was possible.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she had any outstanding issues. The Coordinator replied that the legal review of the documents had not yet been released. The Chairman asked if there were any exceptional items in the review. The Coordinator replied there were not.
Douglas Hill MOVED to release the legal review letter of the plan to the applicants which regarded the warranty deed, slopes and easements. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Stu Lewin inquired about a tax map scale for the plan. The Coordinator replied that the timing for this plan’s requirements just missed the Subdivision Regulation updates that were completed. Ray Shea noted that he would be happy to provide the tax map scale to the Board anyway.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plan, prepared for One Chestnut Hill Development, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #12/93-38, Susan 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.
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 $311,086.35 and in the form of a letter of credit, for the construction of Susan 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 $28,260. 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. The security for the ISWMP in the amount of $2,626.25 for Lot #12/93-43 will be submitted at the time a building permit is pulled for that lot in accordance with the Town of New Boston regulations.
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 $4,656.
10. Receipt of revised Warranty Deed for Susan Road, Slope and Drainage Easements, Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions 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 January 10, 2008, 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. Susan 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 Susan Road, Slope and Drainage Easements, Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions 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, 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, Susan Road (as well as the off-site section of Susan Road and Indian Falls 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 July 10, 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 One Chestnut Hill Development, LLC, to effect one wetland crossing on property on Susan Road, known as Tax Map/Lot #12/93-38 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 January 10, 2008, 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 July 10, 2008.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously
Don Duhaime left the meeting at approximately 9:30 p.m.
SHAKY POND DEVELOPMENT, LLC Adjourned from 6/12/07
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 the applicants Jim Bath and Al Bell and Ray Shea of Sandford Survey and Engineering. Interested parties and abutters present were Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission and Andre Araujo and Carter Brown.
Jim Bath stated that he had listened to the discussion earlier in the evening with the different Town departments as this application was the subdivision they were referencing. He added that in listening to the discussion it was easy to lose focus of what was trying to be accomplished. The Chairman stated that the only option at the moment was to see what the technical review meeting solved as the Board was unsure what the appropriate direction was until other department heads offered more input. He added that members of the Planning Board would be in attendance and they would present their opinions along with the developers’ and along with the input of the remaining departments would try to see a way to make the design palatable from a safety standpoint. Al
Bell asked if they could be in attendance. The Coordinator replied that if there was a quorum the meeting would have to be an open meeting but if a separate meeting was held with individual/specific departments it would be considered closed.
Ray Shea explained that the initial proposal showed 4 wetland crossings, 27 lots (1 being a 10 acre open space lot adjacent to the Tracking Station). He noted that the latest proposal left one road in place of the loop road in the same location but at 2,000’ to a cul-de-sac, 18 lots (1 backlot off a frontage lot) and 54 of the total 108 acres being Open Space. Stu Lewin asked if that Open Space would have public access. Ray Shea replied that it would have a 50’ access way and could be deeded to the Town as a standalone lot if desired. Burr Tupper noted that the Conservation Commission would be willing to take over such a deed as opposed to an easement which could affect the lot’s monitoring. Andre Araujo stated that he liked the revised plan
very much. The Chairman agreed. Jim Bath thought that the plan worked for both the Town and themselves. Burr Tupper agreed that the proposal worked well with the grand scheme of what was trying to be accomplished environmentally for this area. Christine Quirk did not see any issues with the revised plan. The Chairman asked John Bunting his thoughts on the plan. John Bunting thought that there could be some phasing of the plan’s construction or some middle ground that would be a variance from the initial looped road toward this type of cul-de-sac. Burr Tupper supported this design as he felt it was significantly better, from the standpoint of the Conservation Commission, with its single wetland crossing and 50 acres that abutted conservation land and contributed to creating a bigger corridor all the way to McCurdy Road. Stu Lewin stated that he understood that other department representatives might have issues with this plan but
did not understand them enough to factor them into his personal opinion which was that he found the revised plan to be much better than the initial proposal.
Douglas Hill asked John Bunting what the fire safety issue was in going beyond 1,000’ on a cul-de-sac if a cistern and fire sprinklers were installed. John Bunting first noted that he did not represent the Board of Fire Wards but had some experience in these matters and that operational complexity was the main factor which involved a certain amount of emergency vehicle movement and placement. He explained that in the event of a fire an attack pumper entered the road first followed by a tanker which needed to attach a large diameter hose to a cistern. He noted that having tankers and fire sprinklered homes on site bought valuable time in a fire emergency. John Bunting noted that fire sprinklers were an excellent resource for life safety but may not extinguish an
involved house, therefore, the vehicle movement issue was crucial. He added that winter conditions on roads also needed to be considered as roads were narrower with snow. Douglas Hill asked if a 1,000’ road would not have the same issues as a 2,000’ road. John Bunting replied that it would but the hose could be laid in from the main road and supply the fire in the case of a 1,000’ road whereas over that length tie-ins would be needed. Douglas Hill asked if the same scenario would be present if a cistern were at the midpoint of a 2,000’ road. The Chairman noted that manpower issues also came into play. John Bunting added that having an ingress and egress route for tankers was more optimal than a one way in and out scenario. Jeff St. John noted that a cul-de-sac road could easily be blocked with fire trucks inhibiting the evacuation of houses. Carter Brown thought this could occur on any cul-de-sac. Jim
Bath thought that cul-de-sacs should be designed according to the limits of their water sources and not the number of fire fighters or length of hose. Al Bell noted that a cistern placed at the midpoint on a cul-de-sac road might be more helpful. Jim Bath stated that he approached the Boston Fire Department regarding this issue and was told that water supply and the ability to get it to a fire were the main objectives which was why there were fire hydrants every 400’ in that city.
Jim Bath asked the Chairman if the Board had copies of the written justification for their design. The Chairman replied that they did. He asked who wrote the submittal. Jim Bath replied that he and Al Bell composed the justification letter. Stu Lewin stated that he was not a Board member when the first site walk was held and asked if he could visit the site. Ray Shea replied that he could walk the site with him. Jim Bath asked what the next step was for the application. The Chairman replied that the technical review meeting would take place and the Board would submit the applicant’s written justifications. He added that the applicants had likely heard some of the comments from other department heads in the earlier discussion this evening.
Stu Lewin MOVED to adjourn the Work Session/Design Review/Major Subdivision/27 Lots, Location: Susan Road, Tax Map/Lot #15/15, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to July 24, 2007, at 8:00 p.m. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JULY 10, 2007
1. Approval of the minutes of June 12, 2007, with or without changes, distributed via email.
Stu Lewin MOVED to approve the minutes of June 12, 2007, as written. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Discussion, re: 20 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #18/20, (Jon Willard will be present).
Jon Willard stated that he was considering condexing the above noted site which would separate the barn that housed Little People’s Depot Preschool from the main two family house. He noted that the usage of the site would not change and that they had a 20 year lease signed with the preschool. Jon Willard clarified that he understood that for an application proposing condexing he would need architectural floor plans, site plans and condominium documents and asked if anything else would be required. The Coordinator explained that such an application would be approached as a subdivision plan and site plan, therefore, both Subdivision and Site Plan Regulations would be considered simultaneously along with the checklists that accompanied them. She added that many
waivers would be involved as no subdivision of land was involved only internal structures. Christine Quirk asked if the two family was being condexed. Jon Willard replied that it was not and explained that he would propose condexing the barn from the main house. He asked the Chairman if he thought more than one meeting with the Board would be necessary for such a proposal. The Chairman thought that 2 or 3 meetings would be needed. The Coordinator clarified that due to legal reviews of the condominium documents by Town Counsel there would likely be a lapse in between the hearing dates. Jon Willard asked if it would be possible to at least have his application accepted at the initial meeting. The Coordinator replied that as long as everything necessary was submitted this could happen. Jon Willard asked the typical duration of the legal review of the condominium documents. The Chairman replied that it would likely take a month or
longer. Jon Willard thanked the Board for their time.
3. A copy of a letter received June 29, 2007, from Dwight D. Sowerby, Drescher & Dokmo, to Nicola Strong and Michele Brown, Planning Department, re: LaChance/Houghton Woods, Tax Map/Lot #2/112-2, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator noted that since Dwight Sowerby, Esq., had been in contact with Atty. Bielagus regarding this matter and had copied his letter to Atty. Bielagus there was no need in this case for the Board to move to release the letter.
4. A copy of the Pre-Construction Meeting Minutes, dated July 2, 2007, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Meeting Attendees, re: Christian Farm Estates, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that the meeting went well.
5. A copy of a letter received June 28, 2007, from Kirsten Pulkkinen, Wetlands Specialist,
Department of Environmental Services, to Twin Bridge Land Management, LLC, re: Tax Map/Lot #2/62, Twin Bridge Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
6. A copy of a letter received June 28, 2007, from Ed Hunter, New Boston Building Official, to Damian Martineau, Damien’s Restaurant, re: Occupant Load, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman asked if Damian Martineau had responded to the above noted letter. The Coordinator replied that he had not. She clarified that when Ed Hunter, Building Inspector, had gone to the site to issue the Certificate of Occupancy he had counted 60 seats in the restaurant and noted to Mr. Martineau that the Board had approved him for 44 and that anything over 49 made the site a “place of assembly” which had different requirements. The Coordinator added that the Building Inspector told Mr. Martineau that he would allow 5 waiting area seats which would bring the total seating to 49 and anything desired above that would require going before the Board to amend the site plan.
7. The minutes of June 26, 2007, were noted as having been distributed by email for approval, with or without changes, at the meeting of July 24, 2007.
8. A copy of a letter received July 6, 2007, from Donna Carlstrom, re: request to operate a consulting business from residence at 9 Cemetery Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #19/34, was distributed for the Board’s action.
The Board determined that the standard letter would be sent to the Carlstroms noting that as long as the business continued to have no employees, no sign, no customers at the site and no storage of materials they would not be required to apply for site plan review. Should anything change, however, the Board should be notified to determine whether or not a site plan would be required at that time.
9. Discussion at Stu Lewin’s request regarding name plates or other identification for Planning Board members at meetings.
Stu Lewin stated that he felt it would be helpful for first time applicants to better aquaint them with the names of the Board members. The Coordinator stated that she was looking into getting these name plates. The Board liked the idea.
10. A copy of letter dated July 6, 2007, from Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, re: drainage improvement construction inspections, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Douglas Hill noted that in speaking with Dave Elliot of D&S Excavating he had mentioned to him that the former Town Engineer (Dufresne-Henry, Inc.) had not inspected drainage installation on construction sites on a full time basis. He added that he was not aware of any other towns in New Hampshire whose town engineers did full time inspections for drainage construction. The Coordinator explained that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had likely inspected part time for drainage construction because they were familiar and comfortable with D&S Excavating and Kevin Leonard of Northpoint had noted that once his company saw how the contractor was working on a site they may be able to go from full time to part time inspection for drainage construction. She noted that the proposal was
to continue full time pipe inspections and back off if the contractor demonstrated it was feasible to do so. The Road Agent had agreed to this system also. The Board thought that sounded reasonable.
11a. Update from Planning Coordinator and Planning Board Assistant re: Golding et al v. Town of New Boston. (No copies. Copies of lawyers’ memorandums are available in the office upon request.)
This item addressed with item 11b.
11b. A copy of a memo dated July 9, 2007, from Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, to the Board of Selectmen, re: Golding, et al (Beard Road) Trial, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that Town Counsel had done a fine job in court the previous week presenting the arguments for the Town. She thought that it would be approximately 90 days for the judge’s ruling as that particular judge preferred to read the trial record after all arguments were presented.
12. Notice of Fall OEP Conference to be held October 13, 2007. (Read file.)
The Coordinator stated that daily road reports for SHB Properties had been distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that the Barss/Bernier Lot Line Adjustment needed signatures by the Chairman and Secretary.
The Coordinator wished to address the topic of technical review committees which was brought up during discussions earlier in the evening with the Fire Wards. She noted that she had distributed information to the Board earlier this year regarding how such committees were handled in the towns of Manchester, Raymond, Hollis and Bedford New Hampshire. She noted that some of these towns held informal meetings every other month and Manchester, New Hampshire’s subdivision regulations included meeting times and the number of people permitted to attend technical reviews with recommendations from those meetings being submitted to their planning board. The Coordinator advised that representatives from the Board go to such meetings and suggested that they could have an
inter-departmental meeting that was non-public. She added that because the Board was already familiar with the subdivisions and the site they need not be present and would receive a complete report of the meeting but if many Board members wished to be in attendance then that would steer the requirement toward a public meeting. The Coordinator further added that while developers being discussed could not be excluded from attending if they wished, their comments could be excluded. She noted that she had not yet completed a set of procedures regarding the All Boards/Technical Review Committee reporting to the Planning Board and wished to stress that holding such meetings in an informal fashion was an acceptable option also.
The Chairman recalled earlier comments by the Police Chief, Fire Wards and Road Agent and thought that interesting points were made that dealt with the issues of road safety over bad road design. The Coordinator replied that if the Planning Board felt strongly about road design in consideration of density and access then they needed to consider making changes to the Subdivision Regulations to support their arguments with Town departments and developers. Stu Lewin asked if such changes would require a Town vote. The Coordinator replied that any changes made to the Zoning Ordinance would. She offered that the Board had discussed topics on future planning for commercial and multi-family zoning and may next wish to discuss density issues. Stu Lewin thought that
limited access to new subdivisions seemed to be the overriding concern and asked how that could be solved with Zoning. The Coordinator replied that she had seen ordinances for other towns that limited certain lengths of cul-de-sac to a certain number of lots. She noted that the Town’s current Subdivision Regulations required that the Board approve looped roads unless it could be proven that it was not a feasible option.
Douglas Hill asked why there even needed to be a Planning Board if all they were going to do was write new regulations and approve applications. The Coordinator noted that the Board did much more than that as they were charged to keep up with the pulse of the Town and plan for what the Town would need in the future and that acting on applications should be a small part of their business. Stu Lewin asked for copies of the information on Technical Review Committees.
The Chairman and Stu Lewin requested copies of the Fire Cistern Plan. The Coordinator replied that she would provide these to the Board along with the Technical Review Committee information.
At 10:25 p.m. Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted, Suzanne O’Brien, Recording Clerk
| 
