TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of August 28, 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, and; ex-officio Gordon Carlstrom. 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 Lisa Jeck, Ivan Byam, Brandy Mitroff, Joseph and Allison McGrail, John & Rita Young, Joan MacDonald, Bob Todd, LLS, Kimberly Messa, Anthony Eberhardt, Dave Ely, Dave Elliot, Jean McCreary, Rick Kohler, Ellen Kambol, Jay Marden, John and Heidi Palmer, Ken Pyzocha, and Chuck Young.
Planning Board discussion, re: subdivision density, drainage calculations, etc.
The Coordinator stated that she had recently spoken with Kevin Leonard of NorthPoint Engineering regarding stormwater management and drainage calculations. She noted that the Subdivision Regulations currently require no increase in runoff post development based on the 2-year storm. She noted that Kevin Leonard thought that the 2-year storm was a good one to use from a treatment perspective since the first flush of water picks up most of the oil and grease from roads and impervious surfaces and transports it to the wetlands. She further noted that to get a site specific permit the design engineers have to use the 10-year storm for the calculations for treatment facilities, level spreaders, etc. Kevin Leonard had noted to the Coordinator that some towns used 50 year
storm models and others used 10, 25, and 50 years depending on the proposal but he thought that New Boston was not at that level. The Coordinator added that Kevin Leonard had suggested that roadway culverts proposed to the Town should be designed according to the 50 year storm model so that in a severe rainstorm they would handle the amount of water and not have runoff overtop the road and cause failures; lots of times road culverts are old and may not have been properly analyzed and upgraded. The Chairman thought that if the same had been done for the Indian Falls subdivision they would not have had the issue with its culvert becoming overburdened from runoff during the major rain events of the previous spring, 2007. The Board agreed with using the 50 year storm to size roadway culverts and associated drainage measure.
The Coordinator stated that she had asked Kevin Leonard his thoughts about the waiver requests put to the Board by applicants regarding small CFS increases on their plans and the options of detention ponds. She noted that Kevin Leonard had said that it was ultimately the Board’s decision as to whether they should entertain such waivers but noted that some town’s never granted them and if there were any increases at all in CFS runoffs, detention ponds were required and maintained by the town and even though this added to the town’s maintenance responsibilities at least it was assured that the monitoring was covered during construction of these facilities. She noted that there was a gray area in this issue where the State often waived small CFS increases for
plans if, for example, they drained into a large wetland with a lot of storage capacity, therefore, in those cases, the Town had the option to be stricter than the State which was acceptable. The Coordinator added that it was possible that small runoff increases from cumulative subdivisions could cause problems in certain areas of Town and neither the Town nor the State had regulations that required these cumulative effects to be scrutinized. Gordon Carlstrom thought that consideration of such cumulative effects was important. Don Duhaime agreed and stated that the Bedford Road area of Town they were referring to was overburdened with water runoff problems.
The Coordinator stated that she had also discussed with Kevin Leonard the clear cutting issue that sometimes occurred on subdivisions and whether or not the potential for more drainage was calculated in at any point during the permit process. Kevin Leonard had told the Coordinator that for a site specific permit for a 10 acre forested piece of land for example, the design engineer has to create a pre-development model including forest characteristics, soil types, infiltration, etc., all of which indicate a certain runoff rate. If a road and 5 lots are proposed a new model is made for post-development that takes account of impervious surfaces, roads, grades, side slopes that used to be forest but are more meadow-like now, etc. For each lot design the engineer makes a
judgment about how much of each lot to call impervious, lawn, treatment and this is included in the post-development model. Any increases in runoff are corrected with detention facilities. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the Board could require that certain amounts of land on a plan remain undisturbed to address the possible runoff scenarios the Coordinator described in post development. The Coordinator explained that there was often a disconnect between what was designed for a plan and what happened in the field, therefore, some things were not accounted for in those drainage calculations. The design engineer may think, for example, that a certain portion of the lot is to remain wooded but the developer cuts all the trees. In this case the clear cutting has not been taken into account during the drainage calculations. For this reason she noted that full stormwater management plans per Section V-V of the Subdivision Regulations should probably be
required rather than the minimum requirements. Stu Lewin thought that if there were significant changes in post development drainage then the applicant should have to come back before the Board. The Coordinator replied that this may be possible at the development level but future property owners of lots may end up cutting trees on their lots that caused these effects. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the Board might need to take a more pessimistic view of plans that might have these post development runoff scenarios. The Coordinator added that Kevin Leonard suggested that the Subdivision Regulations include some positive language about preserving vegetation on sites where possible versus mandating no clear cutting to get that point across. The Board agreed that some language regarding this issue should be added to the regulations. Gordon Carlstrom further added that the Board should keep this issue in mind when going over drainage calculations for
plans. Don Duhaime thought that two main points of this discussion were that developers should be informed that the Board did not want any CFS increases off site on plans and that the Town should be willing to maintain detention ponds to handle on site drainage issues. The Coordinator noted that Kevin Leonard had pointed out the fact that even though the town might incur the extra expense of maintaining such detention areas this maintenance was a planned event and less costly than fixing the emergency situations that runoff issues sometimes caused. The Chairman asked what level of maintenance was required for detention ponds. The Coordinator replied that maintenance of outlets, vegetation growth and clogged drains were some items of that maintenance. Douglas Hill stated that he agreed with the functionality of detention ponds and noted that he had 3 on the subdivision he was currently building but thought that in rural neighborhoods and off narrow
roads which had recently been discussed as future design options for the Town they might be inappropriate as their construction required considerable tree clearing. He noted that a good example of a detention pond was on the right side of the Pulpit Road subdivision and added that these structures definitely required proper maintenance. Don Duhaime added that sediment collections needed to be excavated periodically from detention ponds. The Chairman thought that land owners should be liable for any damage or overflow that was caused to detention ponds. He offered the example of a driveway that might wash out into a detention pond. The Coordinator replied that this would be difficult to enforce as detention ponds were Town maintained structures. Douglas Hill added that the driveway would also be considered a Town permitted driveway, therefore, calling for the lot owner to pay for any repairs to a detention pond as a result of a washout might
become a civil case. Don Duhaime noted that detention ponds did not necessarily need yearly maintenance and were more likely to need review every two to three years. Douglas Hill noted that while this might be the case the boxes should be checked yearly.
The Coordinator stated that Kevin Leonard, Northpoint, would be meeting with the Road Agent regarding road standards and narrowing of roads and would try to come up with suggestions for the Subdivision Regulations regarding drainage calculations, etc. Don Duhaime and Gordon Carlstrom agreed that increasing the baseline to a ten year storm for drainage calculations was a good idea. Gordon Carlstrom added that he liked the suggestion of a 50 year storm standard for culvert designs. The Coordinator noted that she had accessed PlanLink and put the question out there as to whether any New Hampshire towns had made changes to their road regulations in light of the recent rain storm events of 2007 and many of the responses had been that they knew something needed to be done but
the question was what to do. Gordon Carlstrom thought that New Boston was a victim of its topography and that there would be many detention ponds in the Town’s future. Don Duhaime noted that some large commercial properties were installing underground storage facilities in place of detention ponds. The Coordinator replied that Kevin Leonard had mentioned these facilities and noted that their maintenance requirements were questionable and their life effectiveness was not as good as presented. The Coordinator noted that the last three subdivisions (Pulpit Road, One Chestnut Hill and Indian Falls) were the only ones she recalled that had requested waivers to runoff increases. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the Kettle Lane subdivision over on Salisbury Road had also requested waivers for runoff increases. The Chairman wondered if detention ponds could be considered as part of the calculation for contiguous dry space for site plans and felt that
they should not be as they were seasonally wet. The Coordinator stated that the Chairman was alluding to the language for wetland setbacks while the language for contiguous dry spaces required that such land should be able to accommodate septic systems or wells but she would check the language to confirm this. Douglas Hill stated that he would like to see the drainage design calculations for a standard road based on two year versus ten year storms. Don Duhaime asked what a two year storm represented in rainfall. Douglas Hill thought that it was considered to be higher end rainfalls during the last two year period. The Coordinator replied that she would check into how these numbers were calculated. The Board was in agreement, in theory, with raising the design storm to the 10-year versus the 2-year.
From the audience, Dave Ely stated that a two year storm was considered as the most significant storm in the last two years just like a 100 year storm would be the most significant storm in the last 100 years. He added that given the threats of global warming it may come to pass that future intensities needed to be considered over historical ones.
The next topic for discussion was subdivision density. The Chairman wondered if there was an effective way to reduce density because if lot sizes were increased that would in turn increase sprawl. The Chairman asked Dave Ely his definition of sprawl. Dave Ely thought that sprawl was the continued use of lands without setting aside reserves. From the audience Rick Kohler replied that he felt that if larger minimum lot sizes were instituted then more density would sprawl out from the nucleus. Dave Ely noted that this was why he felt cluster subdivisions were good things as they had dedicated open space. Douglas Hill noted that some towns did not approve subdivisions unless they were designed as clusters. Rick Kohler noted that cluster designs offered
the opportunity to keep wildlife corridors open and connected with each other. The Chairman noted that the argument for cul-de-sacs also presented benefits over through roads as the latter reduced the effectiveness of open space land. Dave Ely noted that the Master Plan committee had looked at smart growth plan guides with looped roads, etc., and subdivisions that were much larger than those in New Boston with 50 to 100 lots. The Chairman added that he had seen through road designs with cul-de-sac roads branching off from them and that these were considered great planning designs but he knew that from the Town Fire Department’s perspective they would frown on such layouts in consideration of safety with the added issue of sprawl.
The Board determined that at the next meeting they would continue their discussion on density followed by drainage calculations.
JECK, LISA
Compliance Hearing/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Spiritual Growth and Development Workshop Home Business
Location: 110 River Road
Tax Map/Lot #8/113
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant Lisa Jeck. No abutters or interested parties were present.
The Chairman inquired about exterior lighting that had been revised on the plan. Lisa Jeck recalled that this had been discussed at a prior meeting as it had been determined that exterior lighting was not needed on the garage as lighting installed elsewhere was able to be redirected onto the driveway. The Chairman asked if this lighting change along with changes discussed previously for parking allocations had been revised on the plan. Lisa Jeck replied that it had been.
Douglas Hill MOVED to confirm that Lisa Jeck has complied with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan to operate a spiritual growth and development workshop home business at 110 River Road, Tax Map/lot #8/113, and to release the hold on the Permit to Operate/Certificate of Occupancy to be issued by the Building Department. It is the applicant’s responsibility to apply to the Building Department for a Permit to Operate/Certificate of Occupancy.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2007
1. Approval of the minutes of July 24, 2007, with or without changes, distributed via email.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of July 24, 2007, as written. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Driveway Permits for Kathleen Houghton, Middle Branch & Lull Roads, Tax Map/Lot
#’s 2/112-2-1, 2/112-2-2, 2/112-2-7, 2/112-2-8 and 2/112-2-9 for the Board’s action. (Drive by prior to meeting if needed)
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #’s 06-030, 06-031, 06-032, 06-033 & 06-034, for the proposed driveways to the above noted respective lot numbers, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the driveways shall have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveways to a minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft) from the centerline of the road (except for the driveways to Middle Branch Road, a gravel road); the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of twenty foot (20’) radii minimum; and, the driveways shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. Schedule a site walk for Driveway Permit Applications for Douglas Hill Construction, LLC, (Christian Farm Estates), Francestown Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/16 & 5/16-1 through 21 & 5/16-23, for the Board’s action.
A site walk was scheduled for Saturday, September 8, 2007, at 9:15 a.m. +/-.
4. A copy of a Letter of Transmittal received August 20, 2007, from Kevin M. Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Christian Farm Estates, retaining wall design, was distributed for the Board’s information and discussion.
16. Discussion, re: retaining wall for Christian Farm Estates.
The Coordinator stated that these two items related to the retaining wall at this subdivision and asked that since the design engineer was working with the design based on comments from JGI Engineering who specialized in retaining walls did the Board feel the need to approve the retaining wall design or were they satisfied that the engineers could work out the logistics themselves. Douglas Hill wished to clarify that the retaining wall was actually the headwall to a wetland crossing on site. The Coordinator explained that Kevin Leonard, Northpoint, wished to have clarified whether the Board would need to approve the design as it had not been on the initially approved plan but noted that it would be designed at a later date. She noted to Douglas Hill that if the Board
wished to approve the design it would have to be submitted prior to September 11, 2007, otherwise it would have to wait until the Planning Board's second meeting in September for approval. The Board determined that they would approve the plans and that this wetland crossing location could be viewed at the site walk on 9/8/07.
5a. Copies submitted at Board of Selectmen’s meeting August 20, 2007, re: Right Way Builders, Inc., off site improvement fee, Beard Road, were distributed for the Board’s information.
Addressed with 5b below.
5b. Copies submitted at Board of Selectmen’s meeting August 20, 2007, by Pat Panciocco, Esq., re: off site improvements, were distributed for the Board’s information.
Gordon Carlstrom explained that Rick Martin of Right Way Builders, Inc., did not want to pay the $165.00/linear foot calculated cost. The Coordinator added that Patricia Panciocco, Esq.’s, question related to the estimated $1.3M for road reconstruction being split in the Town's formula between new lots of Right Way Builder’s subdivision, potential future lots and the Town and her question related to what the Town’s cost would be as not all these lot owners would necessarily subdivide. The Coordinator further added that she had posed the question to Town Counsel and was still awaiting a response. She noted that a final question from Pat Panciocco, Esq., had been if the costs incurred to determine and prove that the fair share assessment should be
less than $165/linear foot could be subtracted from her client’s fair share cost.
6. A copy of the Technical Review Committee Subdivision-Site Plan Review meeting minutes from August 2, 2007, re: Shaky Pond Development, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Stu Lewin stated that in looking at the review he felt that the Technical Review Committee had not considered any options to making the revised design for Shaky Pond Development have a workable solution that would appease the Town departments who did not favor it. He added that it seemed as though the Committee had merely stated that it was an unworkable design because the cul-de-sac was over 1,000’. The Coordinator pointed out that the Committee had suggested that a shortening or softening of the looped road option might be considered. The Chairman agreed that in reading the meeting minutes of the Committee it was evident that there had been no constructive input on how to make the proposed cul-de-sac a beneficial design. Don Duhaime felt that certain parties
sided with the opinions of the Conservation Commission and were not considering the safety factors supported by the Police and Fire Departments. Stu Lewin disagreed and noted that at a previous meeting it was suggested that if a cul-de-sac over 1,000’ was the deal breaker then a cistern could be placed at the midpoint of the road to eliminate that safety issue. He added that no out-of-the-box thinking had been initiated to solve the problem and this was what frustrated him. Don Duhaime noted that safety concerns of the Police Department also needed to be considered such as ample access to the road for domestic disputes. Stu Lewin wondered how many domestic disputes that required police assistance would realistically occur on that road. Douglas Hill noted that probability factors regarding the success of fire sprinkler systems had been provided by the Fire Department, therefore, if the Police Department thought that domestic disputes/road safety
was an issue they should also provide some statistics. Don Duhaime still thought that a looped road was the best solution given the safety concerns of the Police and Fire Departments.
7. A copy of a memorandum dated August 14, 2007, from Michele Brown, Planning Assistant, to Peter Hogan, Planning Board Chairman, re: 2008-2013 Capital Improvements Plan, was distributed for the Board’s information.
8. A copy of Notice of Decision received August 24, 2007, from the Zoning Board of Adjustment, re: Tax Map/Lot# 15/12, Mason Drive, Shakey Pond Land Company, for the Board’s information.
The Board determined that they would discuss this item along with item #9 later in the evening.
9. A copy of Notice of Decision received August 24, 2007, from the Zoning Board of
Adjustment, re: Tax Map/Lot# 11/54-25 & 26, Kennedy Lane, for the Board’s information.
10. A copy of the August 21, 2007, Meeting Minutes from the Zoning Board of Adjustment, was distributed for the Board’s information.
11. Daily road inspection reports dated, August 7, 8, 9, 14, 16 & 17, 2007, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: Christian Farm Estates, LLC, were distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman asked Douglas Hill if he had received copies of monitoring fees from Northpoint Engineering to determine if the project was on track financially as far as the construction monitoring was concerned. Douglas Hill replied that he had received only one invoice for the month of July, 2007, and did not have any subsequent ones for comparison.
This will be an informational session with Ivan Byam to discuss a potential site plan for a retail store (feed store) on Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-1-1, in the Commercial “Com” District.
Ivan Byam stated that he sought the Board’s feedback regarding a potential site plan for a feed store that would be located on the commercial portion of his existing lot. He added that he would propose the use of an existing driveway on the lot but move it further up Byam Road to accommodate better access. The proposed 50’ X 120’ building would face in a southerly direction. Ivan Byam noted that the commercial building would have warehouse space, a front sales areas and office space. Stu Lewin asked if the building would be one or two stories. Ivan Byam replied that it would be one story with attic trusses. He asked the board if they had any suggestions for the redesign of the existing driveway. The Chairman asked if the area for
the driveway was flat. Ivan Byam replied that it was. The Chairman then asked the purpose of the retail store. Ivan Byam replied that it would be for feed, equine and pet supplies. The Chairman asked if the “R-A” portion of the lot had anything on it and if he had any interest in having it zoned as Commercial. Ivan Byam clarified that it was a dual zoned lot and he understood that because the predominant usage was Commercial he could not use the remainder as Residential-Agricultural. He added that he could not obtain any additional driveway permits from the State because when the lot was originally a farm there were three driveway permits issued and that was the maximum that the State would allow. The Chairman asked what the case would be if the entire lot was re-zoned as Commercial. The Coordinator replied that the State would still not issue any more driveway permits on the lot. Ivan Byam pointed out that one of
the driveway accesses had become Byam Road and the remaining two were the driveway to the old farm and at the corner of the existing vegetable garden on the lot. The Chairman asked Ivan Byam if he intended to use the space on the Commercial portion of the lot in its entirety. Ivan Byam replied that he thought he might add green houses in the future but knew he would need to adjust the access points if that were the case. The Chairman suggested to Mr. Byam that he should consider expanding his commercial venture proposal into additional commercial rental space. Ivan Byam replied that he had been approached by several parties who were interested in commercial ventures on the lot.
Douglas Hill asked if Mr. Byam could show the architectural drawings of his proposed feed store to the Board. Mr. Byam posted the drawings and the Chairman commented that he was glad to see that the building was not proposed to be located in the middle of the lot which showed that he was leaving options open to adding other commercial structures in the future. Ivan Byam agreed and added that the site lent itself well to commercial structures given its location in Town. Douglas Hill asked Mr. Byam if he would be considering a gravel surface for the driveway and parking area on the site. Ivan Byam replied that he would likely consider bluestone initially as asphalt was expensive and also add perennial plantings that would face out onto Byam Road. He noted that he
would like to keep as much of the existing field lands as possible along the back piece of the lots. The Coordinator suggested to Mr. Byam that he review the Zoning Regulations to clarify whether he would need a variance for anything proposed. Ivan Byam added that Thibeault Corporation had spoken with him and was considering placing a large berm that extended down to a brook on site if the application went forward as they wanted to shield their abutting residential property from his commercial site. He further added that he was also considering the breeding of registered Canadian horses, therefore, wanted to keep the site as open as possible for potential paddock areas. Ivan Byam noted that the colors he envisioned for the proposed commercial structure were barn red with off white trim. The Chairman stated that he was pleased that Mr. Byam was considering a commercial venture as the Town needed more of that and the area he proposed was a great location
as it was outside the congested Village area which had most of the operating commercial sites currently. Douglas Hill asked if the building was drawn to scale. Ivan Byam replied that it was approximately drawn to scale. Gordon Carlstrom asked the location of the parking. Ivan Byam noted this on the drawing. Douglas Hill asked if there would be any sight distance issues from the driveway to the lot. Ivan Byam replied that some scrub trees would need to be removed and he had considered placing some large boulders with perennial plantings around them in their place.
The Chairman stated that he liked the potential site plan and thought that it would be nice if it could get approved before any more residential roads were approved near the site. He added that it might also be helpful when the plan got underway if signs were posted that addressed what was proposed on site. Ivan Byam replied that he had considered signs of that nature that would say something to the effect of “Future Home of…” Don Duhaime asked if the Board could have a second copy of the potential site plan for the Small Scale Commercial Committee meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 30, 2007. Ivan Byam replied that they could. The Chairman clarified that the Small Scale Commercial Committee was a group that had been initiated by the
Planning Board to encourage small scale commercial development. Ivan Byam replied that he would be happy to speak with them if that would be helpful.
McGRAIL, JOSEPH & ALLISON
Compliance Hearing/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Photography Home Business
Location: 243 Mont Vernon Road
Tax Map/Lot # 11/31
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicants Joseph and Allison McGrail. No abutters or interested parties were present.
The Chairman asked what had been done with the railroad ties to delineate parking. Joseph McGrail replied that he had sunk them in the ground with 2” exposed. Allison McGrail added that they planned to better mark the location of the sunken ties by planting perennials on the back side of them. The Chairman thought that before the ties were sunken they were more obvious markers. Joseph McGrail replied that they were trying to make the parking delineation more aesthetically pleasing. The Chairman and Douglas Hill stated that there seemed to be no issue in backing a vehicle out of the driveway to front out onto the roadway. Stu Lewin commented that he liked the signs that were installed on site that informed clients not to back out onto the main
roadway.
Douglas Hill MOVED to confirm that Joseph and Allison McGrail have complied with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan to operate a photography home business at 243 Mont Vernon Road, Tax Map/Lot #11/31 and to release the hold on the Permit to Operate/Certificate of Occupancy to be issued by the Building Department. It is the applicant’s responsibility to apply to the Building Department for a Permit to Operate/Certificate of Occupancy.
The Coordinator asked if there had been any changes with the plan since the revisions were submitted August 14, 2007. Allison McGrail replied that the only new information had been their receipt of a sign permit from the Town.
Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 8:35 p.m. the Planning Board took a 10 minute break.
YOUNG, JOHN H. & RITA K. Adjourned from 8/14/07
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/4 Lots
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/41
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Bob Todd, LLS, and Rick Kohler of Robert Todd Land Use Surveyors and the applicants John & Rita Young. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Don Duhaime stated that he still thought that sight distance from the proposed driveways would be an issue and that road improvements would be needed to Beard Road with the repositioning of telephone poles and walls given the driveway construction. Rick Kohler noted that the biggest pre-development issue would be on the proposed backlot due to its steep grade and once its access way was implemented there would be no sight distance issues. He added that the remaining proposed driveways would not have sight distance problems once foliage at their entry points was removed. Bob Todd, LLS, presented the plans for the proposed driveway layouts. He noted that approximately 5’ of earth would need to be removed only to accommodate the sight lines projected and once that
was done there would be 225’ of sight distance to the northeast and 250’ towards NH Route 77 which accounted for 2’ of snow at the road edges. Bob Todd, LLS, added that trees and brush would be removed as needed for sight distance. Douglas Hill asked how far in from the edge of pavement they were measuring sight distance from. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that they were measuring the standard 10’ back from the edge of pavement. Stu Lewin asked if it would be permissible for lot owners to trim brush, etc., from abutting lot owners driveway entrance areas if that vegetation was hindering sight distance from their own driveways. Bob Todd, LLS, thought that trimming inside the limits of the Town right-of-way would be permissible but Douglas Hill was unsure if this could be done by an abutter to the right-of-way on another property.
The Chairman asked if there were any comments from the site walk. Stu Lewin thought that in comparison to other plans this one was difficult to visualize on site from the plan itself. He thought that it might be better to move the proposed driveway locations given the placement of existing power poles. Don Duhaime thought that the poles would need to be moved anyway when the edges of the road were cleared for construction. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that since the last meeting 25’ from the centerline of Beard Road at the site location had been dedicated which formed a wide sliver that narrowed from west to east along the frontage. He reiterated from the previous meeting that at one time the Town had removed a wall along a portion of the roadway in anticipation
of road improvements to Beard Road. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that on the site walk there had been discussion regarding how the house for Lot # 5/41-4 could be constructed in a specific area in light of certified erosion and sediment control. The Chairman asked if a note could be added to the plan regarding a building envelope for that lot. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this could be done. He added that there would be a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the proposed backlot’s driveway because it would be constructed closer than 20’ to abutting lot lines. The Chairman asked the location for the house to the proposed backlot. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that there was no building envelope but if the house was constructed at the rear of the lot it would have a 900’ driveway, while if it were moved forward slightly it would have a 600’ driveway.
The Chairman stated that the applicant requested waivers for soils maps, Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plans for the lots, and Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. Stu Lewin stated that he would like to see a simplified Traffic Study for the plan if possible for the purpose of tracking traffic impacts from cumulative subdivisions in the area. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that a full Traffic Study had been done by Right Way Builders, Inc., recently for their subdivision off Beard Road and they could extrapolate information from that if needed. Stu Lewin asked if that traffic study accounted only for traffic generated from that subdivision. Gordon Carlstrom replied that it also offered baseline information. Stu Lewin stated that it would be
beneficial to have a simple traffic study done by the applicant in consideration of future traffic impacts along Beard Road by this and other potential subdivisions. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that doing a new traffic study would be costly and they were never brief in their content. Don Duhaime agreed with Stu Lewin’s concerns and noted that the Board had discussed Beard Road improvements earlier in the evening. He thought that a file should be started that would compound this information going forward. Stu Lewin stated that he was merely suggested the baseline information available plus the new counts that the proposed subdivision would generate. The Chairman referenced the offsite road improvement cost calculation for the applicant which listed the traffic counts along Beard Road at 224 per day and added 40 trips (10 trips per day per house) per day from the proposed subdivision. John Young wished to note that once the apple orchard was gone on
the site it would eliminate an average 6.6 cars per day from the tally. The Chairman clarified that the Board did not think that the subdivision proposal would overburden Beard Road. He added that they sought the traffic count for informational purposes.
The Chairman asked if the waivers for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control and the soils maps applied to all the proposed lots. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that Certified Erosion and Sediment Control plans had been submitted for Lot #5/41-3 (backlot) and Lot #5/41-4 (a lot with critical areas). The waiver for Certified Erosion and Sediment Control plans would, therefore, only apply to Lots #5/41 & 5/41-2. Bob Todd, LLS, added that all the soils on site were Paxton soils except for the wetland areas.
Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the waivers requested for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for Lots #5/41 & 5/41-2, Soils Map and Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies as listed in Bob Todd, LLS's, memo of 7/12/07. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Stu Lewin MOVED to accept the application of John H. and Rita K. Young, Major
Subdivision, 4 Lots, Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/41, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that with the acceptance of the application as complete the Board’s deadline for action was November 1, 2007. The Chairman stated that the Road Agent would want to weigh in on the ditchlines and culvert placement for the site as well as sight distance issues. He suggested that the applicant initiate this discussion. The Chairman added that the Road Agent would likely have thoughts regarding slopes along the roadway in that area also. The Coordinator commented that the sightline for Lot #5/41-2 seemed to cross over into the body of one of the other lots. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the Coordinator had mentioned this to him before tonight’s meeting and had prompted a revision to the plan with the sightlines now maintained in the
right-of-way. He explained that a miscommunication in his office to an employee had resulted in the sight line error. The Chairman questioned note #6 of the plan which referenced installation of a stabilized construction entrance. Rick Kohler replied that this note had been edited on the revised plan since the site was to be constructed off an existing gravel roadway and did not need a stabilized entrance. The Chairman then raised the question about the waiver request for the Stormwater Management Plan being stamped by a PE. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that he had more than two years experience in this type of work and was a certified CEPSC for 3 yrs with other employees in his office training for the same status. He added that he could submit this waiver request in writing if the Board so desired. The Chairman asked that the request be submitted in writing. He noted that the offsite road improvement costs for the applicant had been
calculated at $41,273.10. Stu Lewin asked the acreage of the site. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was 13.876 acres.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the application of John H. and Rita K. Young, Major
Subdivision, 4 Lots, Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/41, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to September 11, 2007, at 8:30 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
McCREARY, JEAN M. Adjourned from 8/14/07
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Personal Service Establishment (fitness & therapy center)
Location: 18 High Street
Tax Map/Lot #18/2
Commercial “Com” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Bob Todd, LLS, and Rick Kohler of the Offices of Robert Todd Land Use Surveyors, architect Dave Ely, contractor Dave Elliot, Anthony Eberhardt and Kimberly Messa, owners of New Boston Physical Therapy, LLC, and New Boston Health and Wellness Center, LLC, and property owner Jean McCreary. Interested parties present were John and Heidi Palmer, John & Rita Young, Ellen Kambol, Jay Marden and Brandy Mitroff.
Rick Kohler stated that recent revisions to the plan had been submitted along with State approvals for the septic system and driveway permit. The Chairman commented that the guardrail design seemed to be different than what was on the previous plan in regard to its anchor points. Rick Kohler replied that Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, had done the design work for the guardrail and was not present to speak about it. Rick Kohler added that this was not his area of expertise but it appeared that the anchors were at the end post and at the mid section through the guardrail. The Chairman asked where the end post was located along the guardrail. Rick Kohler noted its location on the plan and stated that it was beyond parking space #14 and #7. The Chairman stated that
it appeared as though two of the end posts were unprotected. Anthony Eberhardt felt that because the guardrail had been engineered its design was not for the Chairman to dispute. Dave Elliot noted that NHDOT specifications did not require cable supports and this was an added precaution to take care of the steel. The Chairman noted that NHDOT did not use wooden guardrails. Dave Elliot replied that the specifications were in their book of standards and whether they used wood was not the issue. Don Duhaime asked why the anchoring would start at the midpoint of the guardrail versus going along its full length. Rick Kohler replied that the guardrail was engineered and would be installed in concert with the development of the lot and what most suited the decisions of the engineer and the contractor (Dave Elliot). The Chairman asked Dave Elliot who would supply the type of wood needed for the guardrails. Dave Elliot replied that custom saw
mills carried such wood. The Chairman did not think that such saw mills would supply wood that would be preserved and finished in accordance with what was needed for the plan. Dave Elliot replied that the preservatives in question did not need to be infused into the wood and there were other methods for treating it. The Chairman clarified that the wood being used for the guardrails would not be pressure treated. Dave Elliot replied that it would not need to be in order to meet NHDOT specifications. The Chairman stated that at a later date he would like the specifications referenced to be submitted for compliance. He then inquired about the State Septic Approval. Rick Kohler replied that this was referenced in note #15 of the plan as #CA2007089479.
Douglas Hill MOVED to accept the application of Jean M. McCreary, NRSPR, Personal Service Establishment (fitness and therapy center), Location: 18 High Street, Tax Map/Lot #18/2, Commercial “Com” District, as complete. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
With the application being accepted as complete the Chairman stated that the Board’s deadline for action on the application was November 1, 2007. He clarified that the ZBA had granted a variance to the setback requirements for parking on the site. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this was correct and that the variance was to the front setback requirement. The Chairman asked if the ZBA had waived the shielding requirement to separate abutting properties. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this was not waivable by the ZBA as it had to do with the site plan. The Chairman clarified that landscaping on the front of the lot was now more aesthetically pleasing than on the original plan. Rick Kohler and Bob Todd, LLS, agreed. The Chairman stated that the only
issue from the Technical Review Committee remained his issue which was the amount of parking available on site. He asked about exterior lighting on the site. Rick Kohler replied that revisions were made to the plan which illustrated a “V” symbol to indicate the lighting, one over the level portion of the wheelchair ramp, another shining in a northwesterly direction over the parking lot and the third in an easterly direction over the same. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the exterior lights were shielded from abutters. Rick Kohler replied that they were noted in note #5 of the plan as being shielded sconce lamps. He then showed a picture of these lamps to the Board. The Chairman asked if the exterior lights would be illuminated during operating hours. Rick Kohler replied that the plan stated that they would be on until 8:00 p.m. The Chairman offered that the plan could be amended to state that the exterior lighting would be
illuminated during operating hours unless the applicant wished to use them as security lighting after hours. Douglas Hill asked if there was security lighting on the plan. Rick Kohler replied that there was not. He noted that another business in Town used their sign which had a light shining on it as security after hours and this could be done in the applicant’s case if they wished.
The Chairman reiterated that he continued to have issues with the proposed number of parking spaces and from what he observed at the applicant’s present business location he would have difficulty accommodating parking if his business grew. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the square footage of the current business location was 4,000 s.f. which required, by the parking formula, 18 parking spaces. He explained that the applicant was proposing the use of a 2,600 s.f. building which reduced that number by 40% and seemed to reflect a change of use in the business needs for parking. Anthony Eberhardt clarified that he was planning to take his business more toward personal training and physical therapy by appointment only which meant that he could only accommodate one or two
people at a time. Bob Todd, LLS, further clarified that this would change the flow pattern of the current parking scenario for the business. The Chairman stated that this addressed his concerns with parking as it would then be more controlled by the applicant versus a scenario with growing numbers of gym members. He added that as the business ran currently he would not want to approve a plan with the knowledge that growth in its current practices would not allow for ample parking, however, the applicant had alleviated his concerns with the explanation he provided. Stu Lewin asked about the hours of operation. Anthony Eberhardt replied that they were what was noted on the plan. Rick Kohler clarified that they were referenced in note #3 of the plan as Monday through Thursday, 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Saturday, 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and closed on Sundays.
There being no outstanding waivers, the Chairman stated that he would entertain a motion.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the Non-Residential Site Plan Application by Jean McCreary, to operate a personal service establishment (fitness and therapy center) from the existing building on Tax Map/Lot #18/2, 18 High Street, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) revised site plans that include all of the
checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of all required engineered drawings for the drainage system;
3. Execution of a Site Review Agreement.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be October 1, 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 pursuant to RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. All site improvements are to be completed as per the approved site plans.
2. The Town of New Boston Planning Department shall be notified by the applicant that all improvements have been completed, and are ready for final inspection, prior to scheduling a compliance hearing on those improvements, a minimum of three (3) weeks prior to the anticipated date of compliance hearing;
3. Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be
submitted;
4. A compliance hearing shall be held to determine that the site improvements have been satisfactorily completed, prior to releasing the hold on the issuance of any Permit to Operate/Certificate of Occupancy, or both. It is the applicant's responsibility to apply to the Building Department for a Permit to Operate/Certificate of Occupancy. No occupancy/use of the fitness and therapy center shall be permitted until the site improvements as noted have been completed, and a site inspection and compliance hearing held.
The deadline for complying with the Conditions Subsequent shall be March 01, 2008, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing as noted in item #4 above.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked if the barn on site was to be moved or torn down. Anthony Eberhardt replied that he thought that it would be removed in pieces but was unsure where it would be relocated.
The motion PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
8. A copy of Notice of Decision received August 24, 2007, from the Zoning Board of Adjustment, re: Tax Map/Lot# 15/12, Mason Drive, Shakey Pond Land Company, for the Board’s information.
Addressed with item #9 below.
9. A copy of Notice of Decision received August 24, 2007, from the Zoning Board of
Adjustment, re: Tax Map/Lot# 11/54-25 & 26, Kennedy Lane, for the Board’s information.
Gordon Carlstrom asked how Mason Drive had become a private road. The Coordinator explained that she did not really know but at some point in time rights-of-way had been deeded across private property and the road was constructed. She added that she imagined a release of liability for the Town would be requested as part of any further subdivision of land off this private road.
In regards to Kennedy Lane, the Coordinator noted that the house on Lot #11/54-26 had been poorly sited on the lot and when it was built its front yard was basically unusable due to the house's proximity to the side setbacks. A homeowner had endeavored to rectify this by building a bigger front yard but in doing so had encroached on Pat Jennings' lot, #11/54-25. The only way around the situation was to do a lot line adjustment to get more land to add to #11/54-26 but this meant that the 200' square on Pat Jennings' lot would then not fit and her lot would become non-conforming. Because it is not permitted to create a nonconformity under the Zoning Ordinance a variance had been sought to allow the lot lines to be moved and to allow Lot #11/54-25 to have inadequate frontage
based on the 200' square. Gordon Carlstrom expressed misgivings over this variance, noting that others may be inspired to approach the ZBA for variances to approve odd shaped lots and lesser frontage lots. The Coordinator thought that this was a unique situation and the ZBA would probably not see a flood of variance applications. She noted that the Planning Board could send their thoughts over to the ZBA if they so chose.
12. The minutes of August 14, 2007, were noted as having been distributed via email, for approval, at the meeting of September 11, 2007.
13. Schedule a compliance site walk for Timothy and Tracy Crowell, 456 Chestnut Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #15/29-9, Auto Restoration Home Business.
The Board determined that they would do drive by compliance individually on Wednesday, August 29, 2007, to report back to the office no later than Friday, August 31, 2007, so that the certified letters for the compliance hearing could be mailed out that day.
14. Discussion, re: sub-committee for multi-family/affordable housing.
The Coordinator stated that only one individual had submitted an application to be on the above noted committee and she knew of a second person who was interested. She asked if there were any Board members who might like to sit on the committee. Douglas Hill stated that he would sit on the committee. The Coordinator noted that work with this committee should begin soon as the end of the year was approaching and there was limited time for drafting zoning. Ellen Kambol was present in the audience and stated that she would be interested in sitting on the committee but wondered if there would be a conflict of interest as she had recently been appointed by the State legislature to the Housing and Conservation Planning Program. She suggested the Coordinator check
this out with the Local Government Center. She also stated that she had more information she would like to give the Board with regard to this subject before a decision was made about this committee.
15. A copy of an article from the Boston Globe titled, Starbucks proposal highlights historic concerns, was distributed for the Board’s information.
17. Ellen Kambol stated that she was present this evening to discuss with the Board New Hampshire Charitable Foundation’s efforts to bring together major conservations agencies of the State in conjunction with groups interested in affordable housing to discuss a common agenda: the inability to create affordable housing while conserving land. She explained that one issue they sought to address was what laws would need to be changed to accomplish this, however, to their surprise, they found that none needed revision to accomplish these goals. Ellen Kambol noted that Senate Bill #217 would make available $400K as direct matched funds to towns in the State that worked on a 4 step process: 1. Information gathering, 2. Master planning, 3. Zoning and planning and 4. pull everything together towards
compliance. She noted that 90% to 100% of grant money was available if a town had completed step #1 and 50% was available if they were at the midpoint of these steps. Ellen Kambol stated that certain towns such as New Boston were ahead in the process and could easily move to steps 3 or 4. She noted that in the first biennium the HCPP would need to write up rules and get their grant offers out there. She noted that the grant money available at step 4 was $30K which could be used for regional planning commissions or anything that could not be afforded through a town’s master plan process. Ellen Kambol explained that in reviewing the regulations in these regards the rules were already in existence and just needed to be reviewed so that planning and zoning could work in conjunction with them. She added that she would like to get on a future agenda with the Board to discuss these topics and noted that the administration of this project was being
done by the Office of Energy and Planning with a public hearing being held on November 13, 2007.
The Coordinator suggested that it might be more prudent to wait until the hearing Ellen Kambol spoke of so that any committee the Board charged to discuss these topics could review the outcome. Ellen Kambol agreed that such a committee might want to hold off on their own discussion about changing Town regulations until this hearing had occurred although it would not hurt to have some discussion as the grant opportunities would be coming up in February and March of 2008. The Board penciled Ellen Kambol in for the 11/27/07 agenda for further discussion and information on this subject.
Ken Pyzocha and Chuck Young of Ambient Engineering were present to discuss minimum impact Dredge & Fill permits and noted that on August 15, 2007, their company had had a site walk with PSNH of a 21 mile long stretch of powerlines, 0.7 miles of which ran through New Boston. He noted that he and Betsey Dodge and Barbara Thomson of the Conservation Commission had walked the 0.7 miles in Town and Betsey Dodge had commented that she was impressed at how PSNH would be upgrading the poles. He explained that poles were being replaced in upland areas through 5 towns in the State in existing rights-of-way and in some cases temporary wetland impacts were involved. Ken Pyzocha stated that 2 of the areas where poles were being placed in New Boston were not impact areas, 5 were in
buffers (not wetlands) and 1 was in a meadow area. He noted that they had applied for the State Dredge & Fill permits but wanted to clarify if they also needed to present before the Planning Board. Ken Pyzocha added that Betsey Dodge had stated to him that she intended to sign off on this permit at their next Conservation Commission meeting. He noted that replacement poles would be positioned where existing ones were now.
Chuck Young explained that minimum impact Dredge and Fill permits usually flowed
through the town clerk who earmarked the permit approval for a conservation commission. He noted that the State gave conservation commissions the authority to review these permits before they did and either sign off on them or not. Chuck Young stated that, traditionally, PSNH looked to conservation commissions to make these decisions. The Coordinator stated that the only issue would be a CUP and she suggested that Ambient Engineering reviewing the Town’s Zoning to see if one would be required once a Dredge and Fill Permit was secured. Chuck Young replied that they had reviewed Zoning and felt that a grandfathered status existed somewhat. He noted that in Goffstown, NH’s case their conservation commission signed off on the Dredge and Fill the decision was made by the assistant town administrator
and the planner that the sign off constituted a CUP for construction in existing rights-of-way. The Coordinator thought the matter was a Zoning Ordinance issue and that discussion should be had between the Selectmen and the Planning Board. Gordon Carlstrom asked Ambient’s timeline on this matter. Ken Pyzocha replied that this was an active ongoing project. Douglas Hill asked what fee was attached to a CUP. The Coordinator replied that it was $50.00. From the audience, Jay Marden asked if the replacement poles were made of wood. Ken Pyzocha replied that they were constructed of laminated materials.
The Board told Mr. Pyzocha and Mr. Young that they would investigate this matter and get back to them with their findings.
At 10:32 p.m. Don Duhaime MOVED to adjourn. Gordon Carlstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien,
Recording Clerk
| 
