TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of 2007 Meetings
June 12, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Vice Chairman Douglas Hill. Present were regular members, Don Duhaime, Stu Lewin; ex-officio Christine Quirk and alternates, Barry Charest and Jeffrey St. John. Chairman, Peter Hogan arrived at approximately 6:45 p.m. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting, were Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission, Joseph and Allison McGrail, Jim Bath, Al Bell, Kathy Sullivan, Esq., Ray Shea, Andre Araujo, Jay Marden, Damian and Sonia Martineau, Ken Gidude, Joan MacDonald and Brandy Mitroff.
Planning Board discussion regarding future planning.
The Coordinator stated that Jack Munn, SNHPC, had previously spoken with the Board and gone over the Future Land Use Chapters to highlight the issues the Board needed to address. She added that it was up to the Board to determine if they wanted how they wished to proceed as no decisions had yet been made. Don Duhaime stated that he would be interested in addressing small scale commercial zoning for “mom and pop” retail shops. The Coordinator noted that Jack Munn had previously suggested that subcommittees would work best for tackling subjects such as these depending on what the Board wanted to accomplish. She added that interest to be on such subcommittees could be publicized to the Town and other existing boards and the Planning Board could choose to
list items that they would like subcommittees to deliberate on to give them some direction. Douglas Hill asked what other types of commercial businesses the Board would be interested in seeing in the Town. Don Duhaime suggested consignment stores. Douglas Hill noted that research and development businesses could offer a tax boost to the Town and there were many that set up shop in small towns. Don Duhaime offered the example of a recent applicant who proposed a stump grinding business and owned 130 commercial acres in the Town. He added that although this property owner had no current interest in selling his land it could someday make a great site for a town square type of retail area with small shops. Douglas Hill thought that one of the first items to be addressed would be to highlight the areas in Town that were zoned Commercial, then what could potentially be Commercial and finally what future areas might need such zoning as infrastructure
needs grew. Christine Quirk offered that different subcommittees could work on this and, for example, the Fire Department had recently established a committee to investigate future sites for a new Fire Department.
The Chairman arrived at the meeting and Douglas Hill filled him in on the discussion thus far. The Chairman thought that small scale commercial zoning was a great idea but noted that it would meet with some resistance from residents who did not want to live near commercial property. He noted that the current Commercial zoning in Town needed to be expanded and thought there would be a certain level of interest also. The Chairman stated that he was not in support of the scenic byway options that Jack Munn previously discussed and would prefer to have small scale commercial areas over that. Douglas Hill reiterated that the areas for potential small scale commercial zoning should be highlighted first. He noted that they could not necessarily control what type of
business came in. Don Duhaime noted that the style of the
business could be controlled if defined ahead of time. The Chairman added that this could be done simultaneously with Zoning. From the audience, Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission, asked if small scale commercial zoning differed from the zoning of an industrial office park. The Chairman replied that this was different. Douglas Hill noted that reclaimed gravel pits in town might offer good sites for small scale commercial development. Cyndie Wilson worried about small scale commercial areas being an eyesore in the Town. The Chairman replied that some were nicely done and there were examples of this in Bedford, NH, which were aesthetically pleasing and had off road parking such as the layout of Salzberg Square in Bedford, NH. He stated that having all the shops in their own circle of commerce
such as that layout would be an attractive option. Don Duhaime liked the idea of a “mom and pop” design versus large commercial development of big-box type companies. Christine Quirk thought that this should be a charge of the committee the Board organized for this cause. The Chairman added that limited square footage would also play a role. Douglas Hill thought that more sprawl-type commercial design was likely given the traffic counts of the Town. The Chairman agreed that satellite commercial areas were likely, however, if Zoning options were offered to residents they might see some larger commercial areas along NH Route 13 which could eventually become the heart of the commercial district for the Town. Douglas Hill offered that some office space in Town might also be beneficial. Don Duhaime noted that architecture was an important consideration and they might suggest renditions on the Town ballot to get opinions from
residents which could then be incorporated into the Subdivision Regulations.
From the audience, Joan MacDonald noted that an issue discussed during the Master Plan update was to establish an economic development committee and she was unsure if a committee looking at this would also consider land options. Douglas Hill thought that land would be a subsequent step in the process as an economic development committee would go out and solicit business to the Town. Joan MacDonald agreed that areas of major intersections such as at the end of NH Route 13 was where traffic generated. Don Duhaime suggested that small establishments such as a shop for hikers, fishermen and mountain bikers near the Gregg Mill Bridge would be appropriate as that was a heavily trailed area for recreation. Cyndie Wilson noted that the land Don Duhaime referred to was part
of the State Forest. Douglas Hill noted that any ideas needed to be financially viable to an interested developer and it would be difficult to determine what type of developer would come to the Town. The Chairman asked the required size of a minimal commercial building lot in Town. The Coordinator replied that it was 3 acres. Douglas Hill thought that the Board should highlight the type of businesses they preferred in the Town. The Chairman added that incentives could be offered toward the types of businesses they preferred versus the types they did not. Christine Quirk noted that some towns offered 1-2 year tax breaks for commercial developers. The Chairman thought that incentives might not even be needed and if there was commercial land available those developers would come to the Town. The Chairman thought that residents should be polled to clarify their interest in having commercial overlay zoning on their property.
Christine Quirk stated that she would like to see an avenue through the Planning Board versus going through Town Ballot for proposed commercial zoning changes. Douglas Hill thought that there should be a lot of precedent through SNHPC that they could reference for how to go about this task. Christine Quirk wondered how they could approach residents about their opinions before they knew the logistics of the process. The Chairman thought that they needed to know the interest level of this zoning proposal before pursuing it such as a light duty survey so that they did not waste time. He added that the tax effect on such properties would be the next question to be considered. Douglas Hill noted that the Regulations would need to be carefully considered also as there would be stipulations for side boundaries of commercial lots, etc. The Chairman stated that lot lines would need to be looked at also and the consideration to divide them as
residential/commercial or overlay them. He added that he would not limit the scope to NH Route 13 but would consider NH Routes 77, 114 and 136. Jeff St. John offered the example of Clearview Office Park which was located near the New Boston Tracking Station. The Coordinator stated that the Board needed to consider when they would establish a committee to pursue these issues and who from the Board would oversee it. The Chairman replied that he would be interested in doing so and that the committee should be set up as soon as possible.
The Coordinator asked what the Board would like to discuss for future planning at the next meeting. The Chairman thought that multi-family housing would be a good topic.
Don Duhaime also expressed his interest in sitting on the committee that would work on commercial district zoning and suggested that Joan MacDonald (who had already left the meeting) should be approached as well.
PUBLIC HEARING
On the adoption of proposed Subdivision Regulations amendments. (See Separate Notice)
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. No public participants were present. The Chairman asked the Coordinator to hit the high spots of the proposed changes. The Coordinator explained that currently a developer was required to wait for a plan’s review to commence until the Town Engineer prepared their review estimate and the changes proposed to the Subdivision Regulations allowed for an initial $3,500.00 to be deposited into escrow so that the review could begin sooner and prior to the estimate being done. Stu Lewin asked if inflation rates might cause that number to increase in the future and if that would present an issue if a hard number was written into the Regulations. The Coordinator replied that the number could need to increase but
this could be addressed as a minor housekeeping issue.
Douglas Hill referenced another section of the Subdivision Regulations and asked for clarification of when a Stormwater Management Plan was required. The Coordinator replied that subdivisions of 3 lots or more or subdivisions with a road required a full Stormwater Management Plan. She added that if a developer created or disturbed critical areas on lots they were required to do Individual Stormwater Management Plans for that lot. The Coordinator added that the only item the Board had not addressed was the difference between the minimum requirements and the full blown section (F). She noted that the only new item being added was the timing of the bond submission, at the issuance of the Building Permit versus subdivision Don Duhaime thought that this was sensible.
Douglas Hill thought that Stu Lewin’s suggestion to include full scale tax maps of a plan’s surrounding area was a good idea. The Coordinator noted that the only portion of this suggestion that was not included was the colorization as some surveyors that worked with blue paper prints could not colorize that medium, therefore, highlighting that format was an option.
The Chairman raised the question of fire fighting water supply requirements with the understanding that the Fire Department preferred sprinklers, however, they often requested cisterns in addition. The Coordinator stated that if the Chairman was proposing a change to the Regulations regarding this issue it was too late to do so at this time and it was a discussion that should be scheduled for a future date.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adopt the amendments to the Subdivision Regulations as presented at this public hearing. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Don Duhaime MOVED to allow all subdivision/site plans previously approved with the requirement for submission of Individual Stormwater Management Plan bonds to be allowed to submit said bonds at the time of building permit application as described in the newly adopted amendments to the Subdivision Regulations presented at the public hearing on June 12, 2007, and to return any monies already being held for these securities. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
This will be a public meeting per RSA 676:1 for the Board to discuss proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedures.
The Coordinator stated that the Rules of Procedure were distributed at the previous meeting. She added that the only pertinent information being added was from the Rochester, NH, Planning Board based on Stu Lewin’s suggestion which allowed pertinent departments to go on properties at any time during the project and not just at the time of site walks. The Coordinator noted that the only new checklist was for the Stormwater Management Plan and the rest of the items were minor format changes. Stu Lewin asked if it would be sensible to add the Driveway Regulations into the acknowledgement of regulations read segment on the application for subdivision and site plan review. Douglas Hill noted that although a developer reviewed these applications he was unsure if
builders did, therefore, it may not be helpful. Stu Lewin asked if the application checklist and waiver request for preliminary subdivision review regarding wetland scientist stamps was related to a recent discussion with surveyor Mike Dahlberg, LLS, who was assuming the role of wetland scientist for the application he represented. The Coordinator replied that it was. Don Duhaime noted that he thought the Planning Board should have discretion over such decisions and not be tied to State law. Douglas Hill noted that it was State law they were supposed to follow. Stu Lewin asked if the bond estimate form was able to be adjusted for cost increases in, for example, hay bales, silt fence, etc.
The Coordinator replied that it was. Stu Lewin asked if these forms were reviewed yearly. The Coordinator replied that they were.
Stu Lewin MOVED to adopt the amendments to the Rules of Procedure, as presented at this meeting. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
McGRAIL, JOSEPH & ALLISON
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Photography Home Business
Location: 234 Mont Vernon Road
Tax Map/Lot #11/31
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicants Joseph and Allison McGrail. An interested party present was Brandy Mitroff.
The Chairman asked the applicants if they resided on site. The applicants responded that they did. The Chairman asked what employees were proposed for the business. Allison McGrail replied that she would be the only employee. The Chairman explained that the Non-Residential Site Plan allowed for up to two employees not living on the premises. He asked if photography would be taking place in the existing house and if there would be any outside storage. Allison McGrail replied that photography would be done in the house and possibly outside in the yard but there would be no outside storage proposed. The Chairman asked Allison McGrail if she intended to have a black room in the house as that would involve the use of certain chemicals. Allison
McGrail replied that she did not. The Chairman then inquired about parking. Allsion McGrail replied that their driveway measured 34’ X 30’ and could accommodate 4 cars. She added that she expected to have one client/car at a time on site. The Chairman asked if it would be necessary for cars leaving the driveway to back onto the road (NH Route 13). Allison McGrail replied that the driveway was shallow but it was possible to back around other cars that might be there and front onto the road. She noted that in speaking with NHDOT they informed her that, if needed, an amendment to the existing driveway permit could be filed. The Chairman asked Allison McGrail if she anticipated that she would ever do her own developing on site. Allison McGrail replied that she did not. The Chairman explained that if she did a note would be required on the plan that best management practices would be employed in the disposal of any
chemicals used in the process. Douglas Hill asked what the hours of operation were for the proposed business. Allison McGrail replied that she intended to see clients by appointment only but would list hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Stu Lewin asked if the business’s phone number would be listed on her business sign. The Chairman noted that generally, the purpose of the home business sign was to mark the location of it rather than list hours and phone numbers. He asked that the applicants come up with a traffic pattern for their plan that would not require clients to back into the road upon exiting the business. Douglas Hill added that the plan should show customer parking and the ability for those cars to turn around to exit out. The Chairman suggested that the applicants could post a sign that said not to back into the road. Joe McGrail noted that the sight lines from both directions out of the driveway were very
good.
The Chairman asked if the applicants intended to do any construction inside the existing home for the business. Joe McGrail replied that he wanted to put partitions in the existing barn to isolate portions of it from the garage area. The Chairman noted that any remodeling would require permits from the Building Inspector’s office and an approved application would not waive the need for one. Don Duhaime stated that his only issue with the plan was the parking configuration. The applicants showed the driveway area of the plan to the Board. After reviewing the plan Douglas Hill stated that if the applicants could reasonably show that cars could turn around in the driveway and front out onto the road he would not have an issue. Don Duhaime suggested
that the snow removal area on the plan could be flattened out to increase turn around area. Allison McGrail offered that she could add customer parking signs to the plan.
The Chairman asked about exterior lighting. Joe McGrail replied that there were existing flood lights. Allison McGrail added that these were shown on the plan. The Chairman told the applicants to modify the plan with the revisions discussed and then a compliance site walk could be scheduled for the Board. Don Duhaime asked if the business sign needed to be approved by the State. Allison McGrail replied that the State had informed her that the sign was to be addressed by the Town but should not be located in the State’s right-of-way. The Coordinator noted that the State should be addressing the sign as on roads such as NH Route 13 the right-of-ways could be 75’-100’. Joe McGrail asked if something in writing would be required from
the State. The Coordinator replied that it would and that the same would be required for the driveway. The Planning Assistant explained that after an approval of the plan a permit for the sign could be requested of the Building Department.
Brandy Mitroff asked how many days of the week the business would be open. Allison McGrail replied that to keep things broad she would list 7 days of the week.
Don Duhaime MOVED to accept the application of Joseph and Allison McGrail, NRSPR, Photography Home Business, Location: 243 Mont Vernon Road, Tax Map/Lot #11/31, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Don Duhaime MOVED to approve the site plan for Joseph & Allison McGrail, to operate a photography home business from 570 s.f. of the existing dwelling at 243 Mont Vernon Road, Tax Map/Lot #11/31, subject to:
CONDITION(S) PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of three (3) copies of the revised site plan that include all checklist corrections and any agreed-upon conditions from this hearing;
2. Execution of a Site Review Agreement regarding the condition(s) subsequent;
3. Revised driveway permit from New Hampshire Department of Transportation.
4. Receipt of approved sign location from New Hampshire Department of
Transportation.
The deadline for complying with the condition(s) precedent shall be August 15, 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, an administrative NOTICE OF DENIAL shall be issued without further action of the Board being required.
CONDITION(S) SUBSEQUENT:
1. All of the site improvements are to be completed per the approved site plan;
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 and the opening of the business on the site;
3. Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be submitted prior to the compliance hearing;
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 Permit to Operate or Certificate of Occupancy, or both.
The deadline for complying with the Conditions Subsequent shall be August 15, 2007, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing on same as described in item 4 above.
Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 8:45 p.m. the Planning Board took a 10 minute break.
SHAKY POND DEVELOPMENT, LLC
Work Session/Design review/Major Subdivision/27 Lots
Location: Susan Road
Tax Map/Lot #15/15
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
Present for this work session were Jim Bath and Al Bell of Shaky Pond Development, LLC, Attorney Kathy Sullivan and Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering. Interested parties present were Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission and Andre Araujo.
Jim Bath stated that the last time they were before the Board with this plan the preliminary subdivision was denied and they were back to seek guidance as to how they could pursue an honest enterprise. He noted that they had since spent time with their engineer to assure that the plan was in compliance with the Town’s Subdivision Regulations. He recalled that the preliminary subdivision had been denied because they had stated that they would not be able to construct a secondary access road through property they did not own. Jim Bath added that traffic impacts had also been discussed based on the addition of 27 lots to the area and while they had done some independent studies they understood that the Board had charged SNHPC to perform additional traffic studies and if
the results showed that offsite modifications to roads were needed they were willing to participate with surrounding developers. He summarized that they were here tonight to resubmit and try to gain a working atmosphere with the Board. Jim Bath noted that if the results of SNHPC’s traffic study yielded negative results based on their subdivision
they understood that would be their problem to deal with, however, they hoped that the outcome
would be that it was a minimal impact given that they had done their own studies on the issue.
Al Bell stated that they felt their subdivision complied with Town Regulations and if there were any parts of the plan that did not they would like to have those noted. Don Duhaime stated that the two major rain events in the Town during the last year were flags to the fact that adding 27 more lots in a flood prone area required a secondary access out. Jim Bath thought that this issue dealt with many areas in Town and in the State and should not pertain just to their subdivision. Don Duhaime stated that the subdivision in question would be the biggest impact to that area of Town. He noted that emergency personnel would have difficulty accessing that area in the event of a flood without another road out. Jim Bath suggested that measures may be needed to keep the
existing road in that area from flooding. Don Duhaime replied that this road had a 6’ culvert. Al Bell noted that the new access road the Board was suggesting could also flood. The Chairman replied that this would be unlikely as it would be built under the current Regulations. Ray Shea noted that the wash outs that had occurred in Town were on older roads not built to today’s more rigorous standards. He added that some newer areas like Indian Falls had not washed out, they were over topped. The Chairman noted that a 6’ culvert that separated Indian Falls and McCurdy Road from the Fire Station had in fact washed out. He thought it sensible that a secondary access be discussed for this area. Ray Shea stated that there were 2 or 3 ways out of this area already: McCurdy Road, Indian Falls, Bedford Road and two ways from Carriage Road. The Chairman replied that all of these roads led to the same point,
therefore, they should not be considered as multiple egresses. Douglas Hill thought that the discussion was not helping the issue and that it would be better to wait on the results of SNHPC’s traffic study. Jim Bath agreed. The Chairman disagreed as he thought that the traffic study would not address the point he and Don Duhaime were focusing on which was that the major rain events of the last two years had rendered that area of the town inaccessible. The Coordinator wished to note that SNHPC’s traffic study did intend to assess safety factors also. Don Duhaime asked the time table for the traffic study. The Coordinator replied that it had not begun yet as SNHPC’s Scope of Work needed to be reviewed by the Selectmen and the Road Committee first. The Chairman clarified that Shaky Pond Development, LLC, wanted the Board to address the plan without considering traffic impacts which they would address after the results of SNHPC’s studies.
Kathy Sullivan, Esq., stated that while SNHPC’s study was being done her clients needed to pursue State permits and would like to begin that process on a parallel track with the knowledge that they complied with the Subdivision Regulations. She added that Shaky Pond Development, LLC, understood that if the results of SNHPC’s traffic study required them to pay into offsite improvements that was acceptable. Kathy Sullivan, Esq., noted that if her clients were made to wait until the traffic study was completed before pursuing State permits there would be an 8 month lag and she felt that was unfair. The Chairman replied that this was not an unreasonable statement and added that he felt his standing objections regarding the intensity of the subdivision were
understood. He added that while he was not against the option for development in the area being discussed he felt that a density equal to half of what was being proposed was more palatable. The Chairman noted that when the roads in that area overflowed from Campbell Swamp removing half the pavement it could be assumed that there were water issues in that area and each additional house lot would exacerbate that problem. Jim Bath replied that density numbers higher than 10 but less than 27 had been discussed between himself and his partners but it boiled down to what would be the best economic variable. He asked if they were able to feasibly reduce the density the Board would be willing to waive the required cul-de-sac length. The Chairman noted that he liked the idea of backlots in a subdivision but not too many and not in areas where wildlife should be protected. He added that even if the Board waived the cul-de-sac length the Fire Department
would be against it. The Chairman noted that they could legally do a 1,000’ cul-de-sac with a few 1000’ driveways off of it and this would be the same result as a 2,000’ cul-de-sac with short driveways from the Fire Department’s standpoint. Al Bell stated that they had looked extensively into the economic viability of 19 lots. He added that they could not do a cluster design for this plan because of wetlands located at the front of the site. Al Bell added that the problem was to get to a certain point beyond 1000’ and put driveways after a second wetland crossing instead of doing several crossings with driveways. Jim Bath noted that the increased road length would reduce the wetland crossings by half. The Chairman noted that his former point was that a 2,000’ cul-de-sac with 1,000’ driveways was not the preferred scenario.
The Coordinator asked Jim Bath and Al Bell their thought about sprinkling the houses and installing a cistern. Al Bell replied that he felt doing both would be an unnecessary expense. Douglas Hill asked how far the proposed subdivision was from an existing cistern. Al Bell replied that there was a cistern on Carriage Road. Ray Shea offered that this cistern was located 1,500’ from the intersection of Susan Drive and Smith Road. Al Bell noted that they would be willing to compromise with the Board if they were willing to let the cul-de-sac extend beyond 1,000’ as the Town could gain more land from the subdivision (30 acres vs. 10, 2 water crossings versus 4 and a piece of property along the side of the site as a wildlife buffer).
Andre Araujo wished to note that he lived near the cistern Ray Shea noted and still had fire sprinklers installed in his home. The Chairman stated that he was unsure about the proposition of 19 lots as well. Al Bell replied that they would have to reconfigure the layouts. Jim Bath added that the financial viability of the project needed to be considered also. Al Bell explained that they needed 19 lots for this financial viability and did not want to spend engineering money to redraw the plan unless there was Board consensus to accept less density with a longer cul-de-sac. Jim Bath stated that 19 lots was not a large profit plan but they were pleased that the board was willing to entertain the options they had discussed. He stressed that they would not
redraw the plan and present 24 lots to the Board. The Chairman reiterated that the Fire Department would have a different opinion on extending the cul-de-sac. Douglas Hill explained that the topic of combined cistern/fire sprinkler protection for the lots was raised because historically the Fire Department had wanted both when proposed cul-de-sacs were over 1,000’ long. The Chairman asked if underground utilities would be proposed. Al Bell replied that underground utilities could likely be considered given that they might be seeking a waiver to the cul-de-sac length.
Al Bell asked the opinions of the other Board members on tonight’s discussion. Jeff St. John asked where on the plan map the existing cistern discussed was located. Ray Shea noted its
location on the plan. Al Bell added that the system appeared to be at the 2,200’ mark from the proposed subdivision. Ray Shea clarified that the existing cistern covered areas along Susan Drive. Jeff St. John stated that the Fire Department would want a cistern and multiple access points for the proposed subdivision. The Chairman asked Al Bell if they planned on installing fire sprinkler systems for the homes on the lots. Al Bell replied that they did. The Chairman stated that because it was assumed that the Fire Department would recommend both a cistern and fire sprinklers for the proposed subdivision even though the Subdivision Regulations stated either/or, Shaky Pond Development, LLC, should come up with a compelling reason as to why fire sprinklers alone would be adequate means of fire
protection so that the Board had some leverage in their justification to the Fire Department. Don Duhaime suggested that the cul-de-sac design could be adjusted with a right-of-way left open to the Bussiere property so that it could make a better approach toward Bedford Road. Al Bell noted that the cul-de-sac length needed to be 1,900’ to work. He added that they were aware of the issues that the Fire Department would have. Jim Bath added that because of the outlets that future developments in the area might provide he wished to have this proposal stand on its own merits when considered by the Board. Al Bell asked if more engineering was done to derive a concept that would get the lots they needed for financial viability if there was a better chance that the Board would consider accepting the plan. Andre Araujo interjected that he thought the compromises discussed this evening were good ones that could work. Al Bell added that if SNHPC’s traffic study dictated that they
needed to become actively involved in offsite improvements then they would accept that.
Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission, stated that she thought Shaky Pond Development, LLC, had done a great job in understanding the difficulties with the preliminary design and the reasons why the Town opposed it. She added that she liked the idea of one road going into the subdivision. She noted that she liked the idea of open space because the McCabe lot was to the right of where it would be located and she knew they had no desire to develop their land. Cyndie Wilson further noted that other properties around the proposed subdivision site were large with a lot of acreage. She wondered if there would be a way to locate the two acre lots on the east side of the site instead of along her boundary. Al Bell replied that doing so would be problematic as the
better land was along that boundary. Cyndie Wilson suggested that the driveways to the lots could be short and the houses, therefore, closer to the road. Jim Bath agreed that long driveways were not good for anyone. The Chairman added that this would be a good selling point to the Fire Department. Barry Charest asked if the proposed road could be designed as a shallow loop instead of a long cul-de-sac. Jim Bath replied that they had looked at this scenario and the land was too steep to accommodate such a design. Barry Charest asked if two short cul-de-sacs could be considered. Al Bell replied that the roads would still need to be slightly more than 1,000’ because while one road could pick up lots in the center portion with the option of two backlots, the other road could only pick up 3 or 4, therefore, it was not financially feasible to design it this way. Stu Lewin thought that the solutions discussed this evening were better
than what the original preliminary plan had offered. Christine Quirk agreed. Don Duhaime stated that if the new design proposed a road any more than 1,500’ or 1,600’ long he would not be in agreement. Jim Bath thought that comment was a “non-starter” to the discourse as it required a specific number which they had not fully investigated. The Chairman advised that they consider in their next design making backlots behind shallow front lots but not at the end of the cul-de-sac because that would theoretically increase the length of the road. Al Bell asked if they could request another work session with a new concept plan. The Chairman noted that if the timeline was reasonable then the Board could adjourn tonight’s work session so that notice letters would not need to be resent. Jim Bath stated that he appreciated tonight’s discourse.
Douglas Hill 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 10, 2007, at 8:30 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
ONE CHESTNUT HILL DEVELOPMENT, LLC Adjourned from 5/08/07
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 Survey and Engineering who represented the applicants, Al Bell and Jim Bath, who were also present. An interested party present was Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission.
Ray Shea stated that the plans had been forwarded to Northpoint Engineering and their comments were received back two weeks prior. He added that these comments were addressed and the plan revised and forwarded again which yielded several items to address. Ray Shea noted that a site walk was recently held for new Board members who had not had the opportunity to view the site. Ray Shea noted that an outstanding issue was that the geometry of the curve in the road off Susan Road as it approached Smith Road was below the required geometry for the 20’ centerline. He added that another issue was that there was a small increase in offsite runoff as the site had no enclosed drainage. The Chairman asked what justification the Board should consider for waiving
increased runoff in this area bearing in mind the previous discussion regarding flooding issues. Ray Shea replied that detention ponds could be proposed but this was difficult in subdivisions without enclosed drainage. He explained that the increased sheet flow would be coming from the backlots from three drainage areas and two directions. Ray Shea noted that one of the areas of increased sheet flow was off the back of a lot to property owned by the Bussieres to the southeast. He added that the CFS was the peak flow number as once the runoff went to the drainage ways it slowed down. The Chairman asked if it was acceptable to have these runoffs flow onto other properties. Ray Shea replied that it was an unavoidable occurrence and happened with even 2 or 3 lot subdivisions. He explained that the runoff was sheet flow not a point discharge which was why he did not feel the increases noted would damage properties. Ray Shea recalled that
the recent flooding events which might concern the Board were regional, not local occurrences. Don Duhaime thought that disregarding the option of detention ponds in this area would compound flooding problems. The Chairman asked for clarification of the CFS numbers. Ray Shea replied that the 2-year storm calculations for post development runoff indicated a total of 2.05 c.f.s. and the applicant’s portion of that number was 0.47. Ray Shea noted that the other two areas of increased runoff came together in a ponded area with the majority of the drainage area being from the adjacent Bussiere lot which had runoff increases waived as part of its subdivision. Don Duhaime asked if the ponded area stayed where it was. Ray Shea replied that it all headed toward an area of Bedford Road and Campbell Swamp. Stu Lewin stated that the overall picture of what was happening in that area regarding drainage and traffic needed to be taken into account. Ray Shea noted that two of the runoff
areas drained into Campbell Swamp which the State had approved in their Site Specific permit based on the 10 year storm. He added that when T.F. Moran did drainage numbers for the Susan Road subdivision their CFS numbers were higher. Ray Shea clarified that the CFS was the runoff increase as it left an area, and that once the water reached the pond it effectively became a detention pond, and was not concentrated from a culvert but from the rear of some of the lots. Douglas Hill asked the downside to detention ponds. Ray Shea replied that selection of the site for the detention ponds along with a possibility of needing up to 3 swales was likely. He added that swales slowed water but not enough to affect the increase rate, therefore, detention ponds would be required which would need to be maintained by the town. Douglas Hill asked how big a detention pond would need to be for this scenario. Ray Shea replied that although it might be
small in scale it would be difficult to find a place to catch the water. Douglas Hill suggested that a closed gutter system for each house might be helpful as was being doing currently for a subdivision on Pulpit Road. Ray Shea replied that this may be an option for some of the lots but he was unsure if it would work for all of them or that it would significantly affect the runoff numbers.
The Chairman asked about soils on site. Ray Shea replied that there was a lot of ledge on site. He noted that total flow off site with this ledge was 12.56 CFS for a 2 year storm, post development and of that number their contribution runoff was 1.28 or 10%. Ray Shea added that roof gutters might catch some of that runoff but not all of it. He further added that detention ponds might disturb the ground if they were located behind houses on the lots. The Chairman stated that his main issue with the plan was the 25% increase runoff. Ray Shea offered that gutters could be mandated for the two house lots that had that increase. Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission, asked if it would be possible to reduce the increases by having closed drainage systems
and a detention pond but wondered about its maintenance. Ray Shea replied
that maintenance would be assumed by the Town and an easement to access a detention pond would need to be granted by the developer. Cyndie Wilson noted that she would like to run the drainage data by an environmental engineer who sat on the Conservation Commission. The Chairman suggested that the applicant look at a closed roof drainage system for the lots and see if this would decrease the CFS numbers. Don Duhaime clarified that the Board wanted to minimize runoff impacts in this area. Ray Shea stated that the Board’s questions on this issue were understandable given the recent flooding events in the Town. The Coordinator wished to note that the Board had granted a waiver to the CFS increases for SHB Properties recently, given the size of their watershed and with their incorporation of roof drainage
even though they had not managed to decrease their runoffs.
Ray Shea stated that the radius issue on the proposed road had changed because a portion of the road had been revised/eliminated. The Chairman noted that Susan “Road” would need to be changed to Susan “Drive” because it was not a through road. He added that the angle on Susan Road’s extension would also need to be removed because of this. Ray Shea noted that the radius was kept at 75’ versus 200’ to lessen wetland impacts and traffic speeds and that other towns were looking at similar traffic slowing devices. In this regard Ray Shea felt that a “T” intersection with a stop sign was appropriate for the plan. The Chairman thought that the proposed road should be a smooth loop with the new portion of Susan
Drive being at a 90% angle. Ray Shea added that 80% would also work. Don Duhaime asked if Susan Road could be pulled down 50’. The Chairman noted that the achievement of proper sight distance needed to be considered with the current portion of Susan Road.
The Chairman thought that the runoff issue was a resolvable one and the information for the curve on the 19 lot portion of the road would need to be reconfigured.
Don Duhaime MOVED to adjourn the application of One Chestnut Hill Development, LLC, Major Subdivision, 8 Lots, Location: Susan Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/93-38, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to July 10, 2007, at 8:00 p.m. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MARTINEAU, DAMIAN & SONIA
Compliance Hearing/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Replacement of Existing Restaurant (Shipwreck’s)
Location: 737 River Road
Tax Map/Lot #3/127
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the Compliance/Public Hearing notice. Present in the audience were Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering, the applicants Damian and Sonia Martineau and a finish worker employed by them for the project, Ken Gidude. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Damian Martineau stated that he had submitted revised plans which showed the correct exterior lighting. He thanked the Board for working with him throughout his project and noted that he had three points to address on the plan. Damian Martineau stated that the first point was the location of the proposed gazebo on site which he noted on the plan. The second point regarded the striping of the parking lot for parking spaces which he said he intended to have re-striped and sealed during the upcoming weekend. Damian Martineau added that the existing restaurant sign would remain but be refaced. He further added that the existing stockade fence was repainted. Damian Martineau explained that although the original plan showed three exterior lights on one side of
the building he later discovered that two were more than sufficient with one being an emergency light for the outside stairway and the other a high pressure sodium/vapor light which illuminated the parking lot. He felt that more lighting in that area might become offensive to a nearby neighbor. Damian Martineau stated that a flood light had been added to the front corner of the building and the chain link fence was repositioned closer to the rear of the building than the river bank to enhance the view. He added that with this reconfiguration access to the back of the building would not be allowed to the public. The Chairman asked if the revised plans reflected this change. Damian Martineau replied that they did. Ray Shea stated that he had worked with Damian Martineau on the plan’s revisions.
The Chairman expressed his frustration about the plans being non-compliant with several compliance site walks held for this application prior to their revision. He wondered if an additional compliance site walk was warranted now that the revisions had been finalized. The Chairman then asked about the parking stripes for the parking lot. The Coordinator replied that she did not recall the striping being specifically discussed during any prior meetings with the applicant but thought it was assumed that it would be completed for compliance. Ray Shea noted that the original striping was there but faded. Don Duhaime stated that the plan detailed painted striping for the parking lot. Damian Martineau noted that it was on the plan as a means of detailing the
number of parking spaces and while the existing striping was hard to see it was there. He added that he had not understood the ramifications of this issue and intended to repaint the lines because the building was now new but did not want to hold up his process because of a misconception or oversight. The Chairman asked if site walks were noticed to the public. The Coordinator replied that they were. The Chairman noted that he was not as concerned about the striping as he was about the fact that the Board had gone to the site several times for compliance with the site was not in that state. Don Duhaime inquired about the parking lot lighting. Damian Martineau replied that an existing light from PSNH had been replaced, however, this was not on the plan. Stu Lewin stated that he had visited the site the previous Sunday and everything had been in order as noted on the updated plan except for the light in question. Damian Martineau stated
that his builder had been unaware of the severity of that oversight in regard to compliance. Christine Quirk added that she had been to the site yesterday with Planning Board alternate Barry Charest and everything seemed to comply with the plan. Douglas Hill stated that he was willing to confirm compliance for the site based on Stu Lewin’s visual check. Don Duhaime added that he was in agreement provided that the applicant agreed to stripe the parking lot and assure that the proper lighting was installed as his main concern was public safety.
Stu Lewin MOVED to confirm that Damian and Sonia Martineau have complied with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan to replace an existing one story
2,158 s.f. restaurant and building with a 2,244 s.f. restaurant and building, 8' x 12' walk-
in cooler, full basement and second story office from their property at 737 River Road,
Tax Map/Lot #3/127, and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2007
1. The minutes of May 22, 2007, were noted as having been distributed via email June 6, 2007, for approval at the meeting of June 26, 2007.
2. Approval of minutes of May 8, 2007, with or without changes, distributed by email.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of May 8, 2007, as written. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for New Era CF Trust, Tax Map/Lot #6/12, Beard & Gregg Mill Roads, by the Planning Board Chairman & Secretary.
Due to multiple signature sheets the Chairman determined that this item along with endorsements noted in items #’s 4, 5 and 6 could be addressed at the end of the meeting.
4. Endorsement of a Subdivision Agreement for Douglas Hill, Christian farm Estates, Tax map/Lot #/16, NH Route 136 a/k/a Francestown Road, by the Planning Board Chairman.
5. Endorsement of a Site Review Agreement for Katie L. Napierkoski, Tax map/Lot #3/136, 66 Parker Road, by the Planning Board Chairman.
6. Endorsement of a Site Review Agreement for Lisa Jeck, Tax Map/Lot #8/113, 100 River Road, by the Planning Board Chairman.
7. Driveway Permit applications for SHB Properties, Pulpit Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/65-3 through 9, for the Board’s approval. (Drive-by prior to meeting)
Don Duhaime thought that the Board should charge the Town Engineer to authorize apron paving of driveways at the time that its subdivision road was paved. Stu Lewin asked, as a new Board member, what types of criteria he should be looking at when confirming that a driveway was constructed to Town specifications. The Chairman replied that some items were sight distance and the ability to achieve a grade of 10% or less. Douglas Hill added that the Board could also determine whether there was a need for a pre-engineered plan for a driveway.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the Driveway Permit applications for SHB Properties,
Pulpit Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/65-3 through 9 with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the driveway shall have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft) from the centerline of the 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.
8. Driveway Permit applications for New Era CF Trust, Tax Map/Lot #6/12-12, Beard Road for the Board’s approval. (No Copies)
The Coordinator explained that the above noted lot was viewed at the site walk but had inadvertently not been approved with the subdivision packet.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the Driveway Permit applications for New Era CF Trust, Tax Map/Lot #6/12-12, Beard Road, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: 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.
9. Discussion, re: Driveway Permit for New Era CF Trust, Tax Map/Lot #6/12-12, Beard Road.
Applicant, Jay Marden was present for this item.
The Coordinator explained that the Building Inspector was concerned that the existing road off which the driveway was proposed did not meet the grade requirements needed for the driveway, however, this was an existing approved driveway permit. Douglas Hill suggested that an As-Built plan be required for the driveway. Jay Marden stated that when the driveway’s construction was completed it would conform with Town Specifications.
10a. Discussion, re: driveways, permit applications, etc.
The Coordinator explained that a new box would be added to the Driveway Permit Application form in addition to the Road Agent’s standard requirements which would indicate the need for engineered driveway plans and subsequent As Builts. The Permit to Use form would then include a check off box that the As Builts were received and this form would now require Planning Board sign off as well as Road Agent sign off in order for a Certificate of Occupancy to be issued in those instances that the Planning Board had to confirm compliance with a condition.
10b. Copies of meeting notes from June 6, 2007, meeting with Ed Hunter, Building Inspector & Code Official, Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, John Riendeau, Road Agent, Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator and Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant, re: driveways, were distributed for the Board’s information.
11. A copy of a letter received June 5, 2007, from Susana LeClair, requesting extension on deadline for conditions subsequent from June 30, 2007, until June 2010, for the Board’s action.
The Chairman asked what conditions were involved. Don Duhaime replied that it was for the wetland crossing. The Chairman noted that because the wetland and non-site specific permit expired at the time of the requested extension date this was a feasible approval.
Douglas Hill MOVED to extend the conditions subsequent for Susana LeClair to June 18, 2010. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
12. A copy of a faxed letter dated June 6, 2007, from Dorothy and Jessica Eisenhaure, to Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant, re: request for extension on deadline date for #3 of conditions precedent, was distributed for the Board’s action.
Douglas Hill MOVED to extend the deadline date for #3 of conditions precedent for Dorothy and Jessica Eisenhaure to December 31, 2007. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
13. A copy of a letter received May 22, 2007, from Dwight D. Sowerby, Drescher & Dokmo, P.A., to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: R.J. Moreau Maintenance Bond, Tax Map/Lot #6/32, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that Atty. Sowerby had an issue with the terminology of “maintenance bond” and felt that “maintenance” should be changed to “warranty”, and the Board should discuss this at a future date.
14. A copy of the Notice of Decision and Meeting Minutes for the Zoning Board of Adjustment, dated May 23, 2007, re: Tax Map/Lot #8/6, Clark Hill Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
15. A copy of a memorandum dated June 4, 2007, from Cyndie Wilson, Abutter, to Boston Planning Board, re: McCurdy Development, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #’s 12/19 & 96 and Shaky Pond Development, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #15/15, was distributed for the Board’s information.
16. A copy of an Article from Planning, June 2006, titled Small Town Design: Getting it Right, was distributed for the Board’s information.
17. Daily road inspection reports dated, May 21, 30, 31 and June 1, 2007, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: SHB Properties, LLC, was distributed for the Board’s information.
18. The All Boards meeting minutes of May 4, 2007, were noted as having been distributed by email (No Copies), for the Board’s information.
19. Endorsement of a Site Review Agreement for Craig Heafield, Tax Map/Lot #6/16 & 6/22, River Road, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman endorsed the above noted Site Review Agreement along with the endorsements required for the previous item #’s 3-6.
The Coordinator added that an endorsement was also required for the Site Plan of the former Shipwreck’s Restaurant which the Chairman and Secretary also signed.
At 11:10 p.m. Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien, Recording Clerk
| 
