 |
TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of August 14, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, Douglas Hill, Don Duhaime, Stu Lewin; ex-officio Gordon Carlstrom and alternates, Barry Charest and Jeff St. John. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were Brandy Mitroff,
Bob Todd, LLS, Jean McCreary, Kimberly Messa, Anthony Eberhardt, Dave Ely, Dave Elliot, Rick Kohler, Christine Pedzik, Burr Tupper, Angela Fitzpatrick, Jack Munn-Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, Stephanie Strauss, Chris Misiorski, John Putnam, France Clark, Ellen Kambol, Christine Quirk, Jay Marden, Janet Nixon, John and Heidi Palmer, Lou and Mary Lanzillotti and Bart Lanzillotti, Molly Hill, Craig Heafield, Joan MacDonald, John and Rita Young, Ken Lombard, Laura Benoit and Wayne Daniels.
Planning Board discussion, re: Small Scale Planned Commercial District Committee.
Individuals present who were interested in joining the Small Scale Commercial District Committee were Joan MacDonald, Christine Pedzik, Burr Tupper, Angela Fitzpatrick and Stephanie Strauss. Jack Munn, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission (SNHPC) was also present. The Chairman stated that he and Don Duhaime were also interested in being on this committee and explained to the parties present that the Board wished to give them some direction this evening as to how their discussions regarding a small scale planned commercial district should be approached. He asked those individuals interested in joining the committee what had enticed them to do so. Angela Fitzpatrick stated that she was interested in not having commercial districts in the Town resemble
downtown Goffstown (Pinardville) in size and concentration. She added that she would not want to see any “big box” stores infiltrate the Town either. The Chairman stated that he would be interested in seeing small commercial satellite districts in different parts of Town such as the northern end of River Road (NH Route 13) and Francestown Road (NH Route 136) which could offset traffic congestion in the Village which was now the only commercial area with retail shops. Christine Pedzik stated that it would be nice to have commercial shops maintained in rural character structures to preserve the Town’s country feel. The Chairman agreed. Joan MacDonald stated that she was looking to maintain a balance between having more commercial services and maintaining the Town’s character but noted that in order for incoming commercial businesses to survive they might need to be located on the main roads of the Town. She added that
satellite commercial areas might provide a good opportunity for commercial businesses. Christine Pedzik wondered if major supermarkets in surrounding towns such as Hannaford’s and Shaw’s might consider introducing smaller versions of their markets to towns like New Boston. Douglas Hill did not think that the current traffic counts in New Boston would support that type of proposal yet. The Chairman added that studies on traffic counts would be beneficial along with cooperation from landowners who would be willing to accept commercially zoned overlays on their properties so that in the event it was ever marketed that land would be there for commercial opportunity.
Douglas Hill asked Jack Munn if he could provide some background information on what the Small Scale Commercial District Committee should be looking at. Jack Munn replied that some of this direction could be taken from suggestions put forth by the Master Plan in striking a balance between residential and commercial properties. He agreed with the Chairman’s comments about researching traffic counts and residential interest in accommodating small scale community styles. Jack Munn added that proposing such a district was also in line with smart growth planning for the Town. Douglas Hill asked Jack Munn if he could reference a town similar to New Boston that had incorporated small scale commercial opportunities. Jack Munn replied that he could not think of an
example at the moment but ways to go about such a proposal would be to look at performance standards and different intensities and scales of commercialism. Douglas Hill asked if the committee should come up with a list of businesses that they would like to see in Town or try and control what business tried to come into the Town. Jack Munn replied that if would be a good idea to decide what types of businesses they would like to host. He added that he would be available to assist the committee if needed.
Burr Tupper wished to note that just as cluster zoning had been offered to get common land they should keep Open Space in mind and having village centers was a good idea as it would cut down on random placement of businesses on individual lots, i.e., the type and placement of small scale commercial business should be considered along with incentives to attract businesses. The Chairman thought that it would be in the Town’s best interest to streamline the planning process for small scale commercial business. Burr Tupper noted that he had spoken with the Coordinator about streamlining the planning process with cluster zoning by, for example, putting homeowners’ association documents, conservation easement documents, etc., in one packet to hand to developers, and the
same standard could be applied to small scale commercial planning.
Jack Munn stated that he had thought of an example town with small scale commercial zoning in New Hampshire which was the town of Deerfield. He explained that Deerfield had a floating commercial district which was an overlay zone based on performance standards. Applicants with small scale commercial plans were given weighted scores based on the performance criteria and could get their plans approved with conditions. The Chairman stated that he was not impressed with Deerfield, NH’s small scale commercial areas based on this description and felt it was an example of what New Boston should not do in their attempts at small scale commercial zoning.
Douglas Hill wished to know what each committee member hoped to accomplish by being on the committee. He noted that he would like to definitely see a specific downtown area and that it was important to protect the Town from “big box” companies, i.e., a commercial business coming into the town should satisfy a certain architectural standard and scale. Douglas Hill further noted that he liked the idea of satellite villages within the Town but in his opinion he thought it would be challenging due to the fact that New Boston had a wide spread layout and hilly terrain. He explained that residents accessed different areas of Town depending on where they lived, therefore, may only be drawn to a satellite village closer to them than across town, however, everyone
traveled to the Village area. Douglas Hill expressed his desire for meeting the needs of residents with the incorporation of local businesses while not succumbing to “big box” layouts. Christine Pedzik stated that the Village reminded her of a town center where she lived in New York that was a hub for residents especially during seasonal celebrations and although the parking and crowds during those times was challenging the character of that town center was what people loved. She added that residents of her home town accessed their main shopping outside of that center which enabled it to retain its “Mayberry” character. Burr Tupper felt that it would be difficult to expand the Village with more commercial development as parking was already a challenge and agreed with Christine Pedzik’s comments regarding village centers on the outskirts of a town. He also agreed with Douglas Hill’s comments about the topography of
New Boston making this a more challenging venture. Burr Tupper added that it was also important to protect scenic areas in Town, such as River Road along NH Route 13. Stephanie Strauss stated that she had studied state wide smart growth principles in graduate school and to incorporate those principals for a small town involved different measures but the gist was to put such development in as few places as possible while still being accessible to all residents. The Chairman remarked that Stephanie Strauss’s comments could provide the insightful counter argument to what the committee would try to accomplish. Angela Fitzpatrick stated that she would like to be a committee member as she found all the points brought up this evening to be interesting ones. Joan MacDonald stated that she liked the idea of outlying satellite villages and felt that such services would be needed as the Town grew. She added that educating residents was a key factor in
the success of this venture and further noted that David Preece, SNHPC, had written some informative articles on economic development for the New Boston Bulletin in order to educate voters in the Town.
It was decided that the committee would meet the third Thursday of each month at the Town Hall with the first meeting being held on August 23, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. The Chairman asked that each committee member fill out an application for appointment form and return it to the Planning Department.
Planning Board discussion, re: road regulations, access, subdivision density, drainage calculations, etc.
The Chairman stated that the purpose of this discussion was to consider zoning that would represent the Board’s concerns regarding density of proposed subdivisions and the subsequent impacts those densities might have on traffic and access roads. The Coordinator recalled that one option in considering density had been to look at lot sizing and frontages, however, the Board had been satisfied to keep with the 2 acre minimum and 200’ frontage requirements, therefore, they were now moving on to the consideration of road standards, through roads and cul-de-sacs. She noted that the Master Plan had an appendix by the Road Committee regarding changes that could be made to the road regulations in the Subdivision Regulations based on traffic counts, etc. Don
Duhaime stated that this was an interesting read as it spoke about narrower road widths (18’) on rural secondary roads. He offered the example of Indian Falls Road which would never be a thoroughfare but he felt was constructed with too wide a road width. Don Duhaime noted that the Fire Department would have their own opinions on road widths and might not be accepting of narrower roads. The Chairman thought that the Fire Department would rather campaign for even wider roads to accommodate their equipment in emergencies. Gordon Carlstrom noted that although Indian Falls would never be a main artery in the Town it was considered a feeder road and the Subdivision Regulations should be referenced to ascertain what road widths were required for certain topographies. The Coordinator suggested that the Board may want to involve the Road Agent and Road Committee on this issue in consideration of maintenance and a session with them might be warranted
before the Board got into further details on road widths. The Chairman thought that accomplishing narrower road widths would be a good question for the All Boards meeting also. Jack Munn noted that SNHPC was working with a couple of road engineers to create flexible designs for roads. He noted that a couple of meetings had been held with planners and road agents and open ended guidelines were being distributed informationally later in the year which may be a good starting point.
The Chairman stated that he was unsure whether narrower road widths would decrease maintenance and thought that they may in fact increase maintenance. He noted that wider roads invited faster traffic speeds and narrower, curvier roads offered more character. Jack Munn added that on street parking was also an issue for narrower roads. The Chairman noted that most of the houses in Town were set back far enough to accommodate overflow parking for parties, etc, in the driveway. Jack Munn stated that he thought it was great that the Town was considering narrower rural road widths. The Chairman stated that other Town departments would need to be keyed into the fact that other towns were also consider this option while maintaining a cautious attitude for safety.
He asked Board member alternate Barry Charest about the narrow road he maintained to his family owned campground in Town. Barry Charest replied that the drawback to narrower roads was that they were more difficult to maintain and in the case of the road he maintained to the campground there were limited areas to push the snow even though it did have rural character. The Chairman asked Barry Charest how far back he needed to plow the campground road. Barry Charest replied that the trees grew to the shoulder of the road and he pushed the snow into the wider bends in the road. Douglas Hill stated that a narrower road design would need to take snow storage into account. He added that the rights-of-way may only need to be 40’ wide in that case. The Chairman noted that narrower road widths would be appropriate only in certain areas of town. He offered the example of Daylily Lane. Don Duhaime agreed that Daylily Lane would have been a
great candidate for a narrower width but ended up having much of its character sacrificed once it was re-engineered. Barry Charest agreed that narrower roads would slow traffic. Jeff St. John stated that he lived on a dirt road that was wider now than it had been in the past and the grade had been raised over the years, however, it had tight corners and hills that slowed traffic unfamiliar with its design. Don Duhaime noted that speed increased on any road once it was paved. The Chairman thought that an 18’ wide road versus a 24’ wide road would have slower traffic even if it was paved. He was fairly certain that the Fire Department would be resistant to narrower roads because of issues with turning radii for their equipment. Don Duhaime stated that there were solutions to those issues and noted that the Master Plan had suggested that narrower roads were a good idea. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the All Boards Meeting should
have a chance to discuss this issue as drainage easements might also come into play. The Chairman replied that he was only concerned with changing the width of the road bed. Douglas Hill agreed and added that the rights-of-way could remain at 50’ for narrower roads but not cut to that capacity as the narrower width of the road would shrink all other factors. He thought that the idea was a great one. The Chairman asked how this concept should be worded. The Coordinator suggested that the Board wait until the All Boards Meeting before getting into that detail.
The Board determined that their discussion at the next meeting would address drainage calculations and where and when subdivision density was appropriate.
YOUNG, JOHN H. & RITA K.
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 and Rita Young. An abutter present was France Clark.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the site was located on the south side of Beard Road and was currently known as Mapadot Orchards. He added that 4 lots were proposed on a total of 13.9 acres which included two small wetland areas. Stu Lewin commented that the plan sheet scale submitted to the Board was too dense for the size provided and very difficult to read. The Coordinator noted that the size provided was required by the Subdivision Regulations but maybe the plan could be divided onto two sheets of that size to make it easier to read. Bob Todd, LLS, agreed that could be provided. He continued with his description of the site and noted that one of the wetlands on site was located in the middle of the property and had been utilized in conjunction with a
spring in loading a spray rig for the orchard with water. Bob Todd, LLS, added that the other wetland was located on the south east corner of the property and the plan proposed no impacts to either. He noted the proposed locations of 3 front lots and one backlot (7 acres) which would require a driveway approximately 900’ in length. Bob Todd, LLS, further noted that, although challenging, the 3 front lots could support their own driveways and they were currently working on sight line profiles for each to show required sight distances in each direction. He added that because Coordinator had asked during her checklist review of the plan how a house could be adequately placed on Lot #5/41-4, they would soon be submitting a lot development plan to illustrate this. Bob Todd, LLS, further added that because the Coordinator and Planning Assistant had aptly noted the criteria for the requirement of submitting a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
for a lot this would also be done for Lot #5/41-4 by the next meeting as the driveway would be within 20’ of the sidelines, and, therefore, required an Individual Stormwater Management Plan. Stu Lewin asked Bob Todd, LLS, if he could trace the outlines of the lots on the plan. Bob Todd, LLS, obliged. He stated that the soils were qualified as Paxton, Group 3 which had a restrictive layer and was found to vary within 19” to 23” as to the perched water table. He explained that this meant that elevated septic systems and extra drainage would need to be considered for the site. Bob Todd, LLS, added that the flow rate was a reasonable 10 to 14 minutes per inch. He stated that there were some moderate slopes on site and small areas of short slopes 15% and greater. Bob Todd, LLS, added that because the soils had been found not to be highly erodible they proposed individual septic systems and wells for each of the lots. He
noted that because traffic was likely to increase on Beard Road in the future the Technical Review Committee had suggested that the road be widened to 25’ from the centerline, therefore, the plan would be revised to accommodate this notation. Bob Todd, LLS, added that making this revision would not affect the sizing of the lots.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the applicants had received State Subdivision Approval, no wetland impacts were involved, Driveway Permit Applications had been filed and they were making checklist revisions to the plan. Stu Lewin asked the size of the proposed lots. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that Lot #5/41 was proposed to be 2.2 acres, Lot #5/41-2, 2.166 acres, Lot # 5/41-3 (backlot), 7.10 acres and Lot #5/41-4, 2.5 acres. Abutter France Clark asked if the driveways to the three front lots on the plan would exacerbate the wash out problem that this area of Beard Road experienced seasonally. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the present ditchline in this area of the road was in poor condition which was a factor in the washouts France Clark described, therefore, the applicant
proposed constructing a large enough culvert to accommodate flows from the driveways along with rip rap so as not to add any further runoff to that ditch. France Clark asked if the proposed culvert would be located straight down the road or feed into the existing one as that was the one that dumped runoff onto her property. Bob Todd, LLS replied that the culvert would carry whatever was in the ditchline. John Young wished to note that the present culvert was part of an easement given by resident Jay Marden at the time he subdivided land along Beard Road so that runoff was accommodated. He added that there was no stone wall along a certain portion of the frontage and that was a result of a previous subdivisions for 119 Beard Road when the Town took that portion of the wall and area of land. Bob Todd, LLS, clarified that this had been done in anticipation of paving the road and was done without a formal dedication. John Young agreed and noted that this
was at the time of the subdivision of Jean Young’s lot and they had agreed to give the Town that part of the stonewall so that the road could be widened for paving. He added that in some areas deep cuts of 4’ to 5’ had been left instead of slopes which added to the washout issues.
The Chairman questioned the length of the driveway to the proposed backlot and wondered if an alternative would be to increase the size of one of the other lots and just have 3 lots. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the lots had been designed as presented due to challenging sight distance because of a crest on Beard Road in that area. Douglas Hill asked the width of Lot #5/41. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was 240’. There was some discussion regarding the driveways to the front lots. Bob Todd, LLS, suggested that the driveway to Lot #5/41-4 could be taken up the inside of the lot or a 300’ shared driveway could be done with the backlot. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that doing so would impact the wetland in the middle of the site which the applicant wished
to avoid.
The Chairman asked if the site was properly flagged. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was. A site walk was scheduled for Tuesday, August 21, 2007, at 6:30 p.m.
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 August 28, 2007, at 8:45 p.m. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
There being time before the next scheduled hearing, the Board took up some miscellaneous business.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 2007
1. Approval of the minutes of July 10, 2007, with or without changes, distributed via email.
Don Duhaime MOVED to approve the minutes of July 10, 2007, as written. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2a. Driveway Permit for Steve LaBranche, Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-4, for the Board’s action. (Drive by prior to meeting if needed)
The Board determined that this item along with item #2b and #2c would require some discussion and, in the interest of time, could be discussed later in the evening.
2b. A copy of a memorandum dated August 2, 2007, from Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, to Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Steve LaBranche, Byam Road guardrail, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-4, Byam Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
2c. A copy of a letter dated August 10, 2007, from Patricia Panciocco, to Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, re: Off Site Improvements to Beard Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator noted that this was related to item #8 and #17 and it would take a little time. The Board agreed to discuss it later in the evening.
3. Endorsement of Site Review Agreement for Timothy and Tracy Crowell, Tax Map/Lot #15/29-9, 456 Chestnut Hill Road, by the Planning board Chairman.
The Chairman endorsed the above noted Site Review Agreement.
4. A copy of a letter received July 27, 2007, from Timothy and Tracy Crowell, to Nicola
Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: request for extension on Conditions Subsequent, was distributed for the Board’s action.
Don Duhaime MOVED to extend the Conditions Subsequent for Timothy & Tracy Crowell for operation of an auto restoration home business at 456 Chestnut Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #15/29-9, to August 30, 2007. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
5. Endorsement of a Site Review Agreement for Heidi Akerman & David Clukay, Tax Map/Lot #1/12, 252 Bunker Hill Road, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman endorsed the above noted Site Review Agreement.
6. A copy of a letter received July 27, 2007, from Robert Corson, Project Manager, Thibeault Corporation, to Town of New Boston, Planning Board, re: Hutchinson Lane, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5, request for extension on Conditions Subsequent, was distributed for the Board’s action.
Don Duhaime asked if the driveway issues for the above noted lot had been resolved. The Coordinator replied that they had been.
Don Duhaime MOVED to extend the Conditions Subsequent for Thibeault Corporation, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5, to October 15, 2007. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
7. A copy of a memorandum received August 6, 2007, from David J. Preece, AICP, Executive Director, SNHPC, to Board of Selectmen/Alderman, Municipal Budget Committees and School District Budget Committees, re: Community Energy Challenge, was distributed for the Board’s information.
8. The recalculated off site improvement fee for Right Way Builders, Inc., and notice of meeting with Board of Selectmen on Monday, August 20, 2007, at 8:00 p.m. to discuss same, was distributed for the Board’s information.
To be addressed with item #2c & 17.
9. Daily road inspection reports dated, July 16, 17, & 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, August 1, 2,and 3, 2007, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: Christian Farm Estates, LLC, were distributed for the Board’s information.
10. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing from the Town of Hopkinton for August 14, 2007,
re: an installation of a telecommunication tower.
11. Read File: Pre-registration application for 32nd annual Municipal Law Lecture Series.
12. The minutes of July 24, 2007, were noted as having been distributed via email, for approval at the meeting of August 28, 2007.
13. A copy of a letter dated August 10, 2007, from William Lambert, to the Board, re: conditions subsequent deadline extension request, was distributed for the Board’s action.
Don Duhaime noted that the building proposed on site was originally metal and it had been constructed in wood. He asked if the structure was larger than the original plan showed because it looked that way to him. The Coordinator replied that the applicant had been approved for an additional 25’ at his request not too long ago. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the Conditions Subsequent had expired on May 1, 2007, and the letter to request an extension was sent 3 months later. The Coordinator explained that the Planning Department’s procedure was to send out notices to applicants when their expiration dates were approaching and typically allowed for a grace period after an expiration if things were progressing with conditions for a plan.
Douglas Hill MOVED to extend the Conditions Subsequent for William Lambert, NH Route 114 aka North Mast Road and Hemlock Drive, Tax Map/Lot #3/52-25, to December 31, 2007. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
15. Discussion, re: SNHPC mailings.
The Coordinator stated that SNHPC had asked if it was acceptable to send time sensitive materials to the home addresses of Board members even though there were mail boxes provided at the Town Hall. The Board agreed that having items sent to their home addresses was acceptable.
16. Schedule a compliance site walk for Lisa Jeck, 100 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/113. (To be scheduled after 8/20)
A compliance site walk was scheduled for August 21, 2007, after the site walk already scheduled for the Young subdivision.
17. A copy of an email received August 10, 2007, from Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, re: Off site improvements to Beard Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Relates to item #8 & 2c to be discussed later in the evening.
18. Invitations to the Fall Planning and Zoning Conference on October 13, 2007, were
distributed for the Board’s information.
McCREARY, JEAN M. Adjourned from 7/24/07
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 was Bob Todd, LLS, and Rick Kohler of the Offices of Robert Todd Land Use Surveyors, architect Dave Ely, contractor Dave Elliot and Anthony Eberhardt and Kimberly Messa, owners of New Boston Physical Therapy, LLC, and New Boston Health and Wellness Center, LLC. Abutters present were John and Rita Young, Lou and Mary Lanzillotti, Bart Lanzillotti and Angela Fitzpatrick. Interested parties present were John and Heidi Palmer, Janet Nixon, Ellen Kambol, Jay Marden, Chris Misiorski, Laura Benoit, Wayne Daniels, Brandy Mitroff and Ken Lombard.
Rick Kohler submitted revised plans to the Board along with preliminary engineered plans and a ramp detail for the site designed by architect Dave Ely. He noted that the Driveway Permit had been granted by the State as captioned in note #12 of the plan and that the Septic Approval had been verbally approved by the State but not formally assigned a number as of yet. Rick Kohler stated that the plantings for the site were discussed at the last meeting with the Board and it had since been noted on the plan that the existing perennial beds would be preserved and that the shrubbery formally proposed for these areas would be relocated and mixed in elsewhere on site. He added that a split rail fence was now shown on the plan on the west side of the parking lot and would have a
flowering rose shrub planted at each fence post. Rick Kohler stated that note #13 on the plan explained that no offsite parking would be allowed, i.e., no on street parking in the site vicinity. He added that note #10 on the plan detailed the replacement of an existing culvert which now ran from High Street to the applicant’s other lot on Depot Street. Rick Kohler noted that erosion and sediment control would be taken care of during construction of the retaining wall and that they were proposing use of Filtrexx TM silt socks as part of the BMPs. He further noted that any disturbed areas would be loamed, fertilized, seeded and mulched. Rick Kohler requested conditional approval of the plan for the applicant pending the State’s formal granting of the Septic Approval.
The Chairman stated that the application could not be considered complete until the Septic approval was granted in writing. He added that he was still concerned about the asphalt surface for the parking lot as he thought it would not be aesthetically pleasing. The Chairman further added that he did not think that the wooden guardrail proposed to protect the slope on site had a chance of providing a safety factor and needed a revised design. Anthony Eberhardt asked the Chairman if he thought a metal guardrail would look any better. The Chairman replied that he was not referring to how the guardrail looked but how it performed and felt that engineering proof was required to satisfy that the guardrail proposed would accommodate safety provisions on that slope.
Interested party Angela Fitzpatrick stated that she had attended the last meeting for the applicant and thought that the fence was for aesthetic purposes only. The Chairman clarified that he was not discussing the split rail fence and was referring to the guardrail proposed which was a different item on the plan. Don Duhaime agreed that the guardrail needed to be proven by an engineer that it could support what it was designed for on the plan. Douglas Hill asked what the grade was from the roadway to the driveway of the site. Rick Kohler replied that it was -3%, then flat and then 1% to the proposed guardrail. He added that the drainage on site flowed westerly into the lot, therefore, the grade sloped away from the edge of parking and proposed guardrail. The Chairman thought that the guardrail as proposed would not protect a vehicle from going over the slope if, for example, that vehicle crossed oncoming traffic on the roadway
(High Street) at 30 m.p.h. in icy conditions. Anthony Eberhardt replied that such a scenario would result in the car hitting the building on site not sliding into the guardrail and over the slope. The Chairman stated that another concern he had was parking and asked the number of employees for the business proposed on site. Anthony Eberhardt replied that there were 2 full time employees and 4 or 5 part time employees. The Chairman asked at any given time how many employees would be working at the business. Kimberly Messa replied there would be 3. The Chairman then asked how many patrons used the gym at any given time at its current location. Anthony Eberhardt replied that the number varied. Kimberly Messa added that the number was anything from 0 to 5 or 10, especially if there was a class in session. Anthony Eberhardt noted that the number could even rise to 10 or 12. The Chairman replied that given this information the
plan did not seem to propose enough parking for the business. Anthony Eberhardt noted that patrons could park around town as they did now for the business’ current location when parking was full. The Chairman stated that the proposed site for the business would be in a more difficult area for patrons to park elsewhere and walk to. He thought that the dual use proposed for the site was not well suited from a parking standpoint and if the applicants ever chose to expand in order to maintain the business they were already maxed out with parking. Interested party Janet Nixon asked if an area in front of the existing building on site could be used for parking by running a driveway parallel with the road in front. The Chairman replied that the whole area could not become a parking lot and proper screening and shrubbery would still be needed which would not be spatially possible in that scenario. Janet Nixon thought that the split rail fencing
proposed could be extended along a driveway running in front of the building to add parking spaces. Douglas Hill asked how the numbers of parking spaces were derived for the plan. Rick Kohler replied that this was based on the square footage of the building and the Zoning Ordinance’s minimum parking requirement. He added that if the business at its current location was operating now with fewer parking spaces it stood to reason that they could make do with what was proposed. Rick Kohler noted that the distance between the current location and the proposed site was not so great that it would deter patrons from parking at other locations around town and walking if necessary. The Chairman stated that his comments reiterated the concerns quoted by the Police Chief who utilized the business. Anthony Eberhardt stated that because his physical therapy patients were scheduled he had the ability to determine the flow of patrons to that end of the
business. The Chairman replied that it was the gym portion of the business that concerned him in regard to parking, not the physical therapy aspect. He thought that a doctor’s office would be more suited with the physical therapy aspect that the gym due to parking concerns. Douglas Hill thought that parking would be self regulating where patrons would make concessions to their schedule or find alternative ways to park and get to the business. The Chairman did not think this would be the case as residents of town worked out of town, therefore, they would have difficulty adjusting their schedules and traveling to work. Heidi Palmer stated that she enjoyed walking to the gym along with several other people and thought that captured the essence of living in a small town. Interested party Ellen Kambol stated that she often parked at a different location from the gym currently and walked for exercise. She added that if the plan met the
regulations put forth by the town to operate in a commercial zone they should be allowed to do so. Janet Nixon added that during the discussion held with New Boston Speaks it was mentioned that residents wished to retain the rural character of the town but not turn it into a historic district as that would have stricter regulations governed by State or Federal departments. She noted that the applicant’s business was successful and needed in the town and any approach to discourage them from purchasing and developing a residential home without ruining the historical appeal of it was unconscionable. Gordon Carlstrom stated that he thought the proposed guardrail presented something of an issue, however, if it could be anchored by, for example, cement bumpers and verified as an appropriate safety measure for the site he would be satisfied. He agreed that the parking issue would be a self limiting proposition in conjunction with patrons to the business being
aware that overflow parking would not be allowed on the street. Interested party John Palmer asked why conditional acceptance of the plan could not be considered given that the State had verbally approved the septic. Gordon Carlstrom replied that the Board did not want to set a precedent for that going forward. Dave Ely returned to the subject of parking and noted that he had designed the current and proposed sites for the business. He added that the existing building on the proposed site had less square footage than the building at the business’ current location and reiterated that in accordance with Zoning the number of parking spaces required was based on the square footage of the building it serviced.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the issue with the septic approval began with the water supply division at NHDES thinking they had jurisdiction over the water supply to the site. He noted that the applicants currently limited the amount of water on their present site they provided to clients, i.e., no showers, and asked that they bring their own to drink. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that they contacted the appropriate administrator at the Concord, NH, offices and explained their case and they in turn phoned them the previous Thursday with clearance to go ahead and agreed not to take jurisdiction. He added that because of this error the documents were at the bottom of the pile for sign off by Mr. Moore of NHDES and they had already been in process for this approval for 6 weeks
versus the typical 2 week turnaround period. Rick Kohler noted that a Building Permit could not be issued without a septic approval anyway, therefore, the applicant was not trying to slide by a requirement. The Chairman stated that the Board had rules also and stated that an application was not complete until the septic approval was in writing. He added that he still wanted to see a revision to the proposed guardrail design as he thought that snow loading would compromise the guardrail as it was designed currently. Rick Kohler noted that the applicant relied on input from the Board for their plan and at the last meeting this issue was not raised. The Chairman replied that all topics had not been covered on the plan at the close of the last meeting as they ran out of time.
Bob Todd, LLS, asked what the Chairman recommended for parking lot surfacing on the plan as he was unhappy with the asphalt proposed. The Chairman replied that he would like to see cobblestone. Dave Elliot stated that a zoned commercial site such as this one needed to have a workable surface for the parking lot and cobblestone would not be the best choice given that in winter conditions it would trap ice in between the bricks. John Palmer stated that if commercial applicants knew the difficulties involved in dealing with the Planning Board they would discourage any business from coming to the Town. Janet Nixon asked if conditional approval of the plan could be granted. The Chairman explained that the absence of the septic approval was the main issue. He
added that this was a common scenario with applicants and that Bob Todd, LSS, could attest to that in his experience before the Board. Ellen Kambol asked if it was a rule that conditional approvals of plans were never granted. Gordon Carlstrom replied that the issue was completeness of the application and one of the requirements was that the septic approval be submitted before any kind of approval could be considered.
Douglas Hill asked what the guardrail had been engineered to do on site. He noted that he preferred a wooden guardrail to a steel version. Rick Kohler replied that it had been engineered to deflect cars from going over the slope on site and that the posts of the guardrail were to align with the center of the parking spaces in order to stop vehicles. Interested party Bart Lanzillotti stated that he felt compelled to mention that cars had gone over the slope in question over the past 20 years. Jay Marden asked if nitpack would work as a surface for the parking lot versus cobblestone. Rick Kohler replied that for the function of the septic system and drainage on site asphalt would work best. He stated that in terms of a revised guardrail the applicant would
need to know what the Board was looking for specifically. Don Duhaime asked if the guardrail was designed by an engineer. Rick Kohler replied that it was designed according to the design of the Post Office guardrail. The Chairman noted that if a car went through the Post Office guardrail they would not be in danger of falling down a significant slope such as the one on site. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that an engineer could be consulted on the guardrail issue. The Chairman offered that a steel backed wooden guardrail might be a solution. Rick Kohler suggested a wood facade over a steel rail. The Chairman liked that suggestion and thought that a rail 3” or 4” thick by 8” tall backed by flat steel would work well. Gordon Carlstrom stated that he would be willing to let an engineer discuss the design logistics. Dave Elliot noted that steel guardrails were an average of 16” to 18” thick. Bob Todd, LLS,
agreed that it would be wise to ask an engineer’s opinion on such a design.
The Chairman stated that in regard to the asphalt surface proposed for the parking lot, while it may not be aesthetically pleasing in his opinion, in may be the best option. Chris Misiorski stated that he was still unclear on the criteria relative to the proposed guardrail stopping a car from going over the slope on site. He asked if this was one reason a professional engineer would be addressing the subject. The Chairman replied that it was. Chris Misiorski asked if there were any Town specifications or regulations that governed guardrail design. The Chairman replied there were not. Abutter John Young wished to state that he had no objections to the applicant’s plan moving forward. Abutter Mary Lanzillotti stated that she found the recent
mailing from Briar Hill Road residents complaining about the proposal to remove the barn on site to be inflammatory. Many people agreed.
Jay Marden recalled that the Community Church had met with the Board for approximately 4 months before their site plan was approved due to septic approval delays along with David Craig, Esq., who ran a business in Town, therefore, the time lag for approval was not an unusual situation.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn 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, to August 28, 2007, at 9:00 p.m. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 8:50 p.m. the Planning board took a 15 minute break.
FRIENDLY BEAVER CAMPGROUND
QUIRK, THOMAS & CHRISTINE (OWNERS)
Compliance Hearing/NRSPR/Construct a 200’ X 50’ Garage
Location: Cochran Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #7/11
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant Christine Quirk. Alternate Board member Barry Charest recused himself for the duration of the hearing this being a family matter.
While other Board members had not been able to view the site prior to the hearing the Chairman stated that he had seen it and had no compliance issues. Christine Quirk submitted color photographs of the site to the Board. The Coordinator asked if the photographs could be retained for the file. Christine Quirk replied that they could.
Douglas Hill MOVED to confirm that Thomas & Christine Quirk have complied with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan to construct a 200' x 50' garage for the storage of equipment associated with the campground on their property at the Friendly Beaver Campground on Cochran Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/11, 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.
Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously
Barry Charest returned to the Board.
HEAFIELD, CRAIG
Compliance Hearing/NRSPR/Stump/Wood Recycling and Log Yard
Location: River Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/16 & 22
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District & Commercial “Com” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant Craig Heafield.
The Chairman stated that upon viewing the site he had no compliance issues. He remarked to Craig Heafield that the site looked very well done.
Stu Lewin MOVED to confirm that Craig Heafield has complied with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan to operate a stump/wood recycling and log yard on Tax Map/Lot #6/16 & 6/22, N.H. Route 13 a/k/a River Road, 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.
Douglas Hill recused himself from the Board as he was an abutter to the applicant of the next hearing.
FAIRBAIRN, GERALD R. & DONA M.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Minor Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: Bedford Road and Pheasant Lane
Tax Map/Lot #8/75
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 who represented the applicant. Abutters and interested parties present were Douglas and Molly Hill, John Putnam and Chris Misiorski.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the site had 164’ of frontage on Pheasant Lane and 200' on Bedford Road. He added that the required 200’ square fit on the site according to the Subdivision Regulations. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that there was an existing cistern 250’ south of the lot. He then noted the location of the existing house, septic system and well and a wetlands border on the western portion of the property. Bob Todd, LLS, pointed out a strip of Steep Slope that was greater than 15% and explained that it would be a challenge to locate a home on the proposed lot but doable. He then noted the proposed location of the home, septic system and driveway on the plan. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the biggest challenge would be the 4 cubic feet per
second runoff for a 10 year storm through 2 existing culverts that drained into a watershed as dispensing to a swale and then along the property line into a wetland. He noted that the applicant was planning to construct a ditchline in that area to keep the flow away from the lot and direct flows into a driveway swale along the easterly lot line to change channel flow into overland flow. Stu Lewin asked if the down slope on the site went from right to left. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it did. He noted that the soils on site were Canton, Group 2 and although there was no restrictive layer there was still an elevated water table that ran 23” to 24”. Bob Todd, LLS, added that the perc was 8 minutes per inch and the soil was not rated by the Natural Resource Conservation Service as highly erodible. He noted that the applicant had State Subdivision Approval and that they were now working on checklist corrections provided by the Coordinator. Bob Todd, LLS, added that the Stormwater
Management Plan was also in the process of being revised. Stu Lewin asked if the house planned for the proposed lot would be in the middle of a 15% slope. Bob Todd, LLS, noted the location of this house on the plan as being located off Pheasant Lane with some portion in the critical zone. The Chairman asked where the driveway for this lot would be located. Bob Todd, LLS, noted it to be on the south side. The Chairman asked the location of the driveway for the existing house. Bob Todd, LLS, noted its location. Stu Lewin asked the acreage of the proposed lot. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was 3.9 acres with much of it wet and the lot with the existing house would have 3.4 acres. Stu Lewin asked what the vertical line on the left of the plan represented. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this line was a soil boundary line which was actually a wetland.
The Chairman asked if the site was flagged. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was. A site walk was scheduled for Saturday, September 8, 2007, at 8:30 a.m. The Chairman stated that the Technical Review Committee had no comments on this plan when they met. He asked if there were any comments from abutters. Abutter John Putnam stated that he was concerned about whether there was enough property on the site to build a house and felt that doing so would decrease the value of his own property. Douglas Hill stated that he was outraged by this proposal as it comprised his property line with a bad lot that would have a cheap house constructed on it. He asked the location of a proposed level spreader and septic system. Bob Todd, LLS, noted this on the
plan. Molly Hill stated that she and her husband were very familiar with the site as they walked the property when they were considering their own purchase in the Pheasant Lane subdivision. She added that the site was very wet and found it interesting that the applicants had lived on the property for so long and were now subdividing as they were moving from town. Chris Misiorski stated that he was an abutter and this was the first he had heard of the applicant’s proposed subdivision. He agreed that there was a lot of water runoff from the site and wondered where it would go if the subdivision occurred. Chris Misiorski added that there was another area on one side of the lot that he felt might be a wetland also. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the wetlands had been delineated for the site and the area Mr. Misiorski questioned was stormwater runoff. Chris Misiorski noted that when he purchased his lot in the Pheasant Lane subdivision there
were covenants that dictated that the homes be a certain square footage and he felt that since this site had frontage on Pheasant Lane it should be held to the same standards. Bob Todd, LLS, asked if the covenants were recorded and if he might have a copy. Chris Misiorski replied that he was unsure if they were recorded but could provide a copy. Stu Lewin asked if the applicant’s site was part of the Pheasant Lane subdivision. Douglas Hill replied that the site backed up to that subdivision. The Chairman clarified that the parent lot was not part of the Pheasant Lane subdivision. Molly Hill asked Bob Todd, LLS, if he could predict the size of the house that could be built on the proposed lot since it seemed as though there was limited area to do construction given the limitations of the site. Rick Kohler replied that he had drawn in a general footprint for a 4 bedroom home, 32’ X 40’, with an 18’ X 16’
breezeway and a 24’ X 26’ garage.
Bob Todd, LLS, wished to noted that it was a good thing that subdivisions were more closely scrutinized now than when the applicant’s lot was constructed as 4 cubic feet per second of runoff in a ten year storm would not be tolerated in the present day. Rick Kohler agreed that treatment of the outflow in that area needed to be addressed regardless of the applicant’s proposal and as distasteful as the concept of a level spreader seemed it should be part of the subdivision. Stu Lewin asked what area the 4 cubic feet per second ran through on site. Rick Kohler replied that it ran through 2 acres of watershed.
Stu Lewin MOVED to adjourn the application of Gerald R. and Dona M. Fairbairn, Minor Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Bedford Road and Pheasant Lane, Tax Map/Lot #8/75, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to September 11, 2007, at 7:30 p.m. Gordon Carlstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill reclaimed his seat on the Board.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
2a. Driveway Permit for Steve LaBranche, Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-4, for the Board’s action. (Drive by prior to meeting if needed)
Addressed at item # 2b.
2b. A copy of a memorandum dated August 2, 2007, from Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, to Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Steve LaBranche, Byam Road guardrail, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-4, Bam Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that engineered plans were submitted for Lot #6/41-4, which was what the Board had copies of. The Chairman thought that the Board could view the driveway after the As-Built was completed for final approval. The Coordinator referenced the driveway’s grade and the fact that the plan did not specify the grade and thought that the applicant would argue that the lot was grandfathered before the stipulations of the maximum 10% grade was instituted by the Subdivision Regulations. She noted that a Driveway Permit had not yet been approved so the Board could require that the grade not exceed the maximum of 10%. She added that the first 12 lots of the subdivision this lot was a part of did not have driveway permits as they were proposed to be
accessed from the back of the lots when Thibeault Corporation’s gravel pit in that location was finished up and redeveloped. She noted that permits had been submitted instead to access these 12 lots from Byam Road and the Board had already approved a few and noted the others that would require engineered plans. She surmised that Thibeault’s argument against being held to the 10% max grade would be that the lots were approved before the Subdivision Regulations included the 10% requirement. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the Board could in turn argue that Thibeault had stated they were not going to develop these lots. The Board determined that they would require a max 10% grade on the driveway and an As-Built submitted before the Driveway Permit was approved.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #05-029 for Tax
Map/Lot #6/41-4 for a proposed driveway, 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 driveway shall intersect with the road
at an angle of 60-90 degrees. Additionally, this driveway will not exceed a grade of 10%. A certified as-built shall be submitted prior to an issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy to verify that this driveway has not exceeded the 10% grade.
Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2c. A copy of a letter dated August 10, 2007, from Patricia Panciocco, to Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, re: Off site Improvements to Beard Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Addressed with item #8 & 17 below.
8. The recalculated off site improvement fee for Right Way Builders, Inc., and notice of meeting with Board of Selectmen on Monday, August 20, 2007, at 8:00 p.m. to discuss same, was distributed for the Board’s information.
17. A copy of an email received August 10, 2007, from Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, re: Off site improvements to Beard Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that the Beard Road subdivision had been proposed in 3 different designs during its process: age 55+ community, duplexes and single family homes, therefore, she had run the formula calculation for offsite road improvement 3 different ways using $65 per foot in road construction costs. She added that the Road Committee had since come up with a figure of $165 per foot subject to negotiations with the developer. The Chairman asked if it had been discussed with the applicant’s attorney that the formula no longer included the number of $65.00 per foot. The Coordinator replied that it had and they agreed to the number the Road Committee came up with as long as it did not reach $200.00 per foot. She added that Patricia Panciocco,
Esq.’s, question related to the estimated $1.3M for road reconstruction being split in that formula between new 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. Don Duhaime asked why the Town had to pay anything. Gordon Carlstrom replied that it was inevitable that the Town footed portions of road improvements due to timing of subdivisions. The Chairman asked if subsequent developers after the improvement would be charged a fair share cost. Gordon Carlstrom replied that they would not be and would be considered beneficiaries of good timing. He added that road improvements were often phased and fair share costs gathered from current developers. The Coordinator noted that the applicant and his attorney were scheduled to meet with the Selectmen on August 20, 2007, at 8:00 p.m. and it might be a good idea to run the attorney’s question by Town
Counsel beforehand. The Board agreed. Don Duhaime asked if the Town paid for the other portion of road improvements on Beard Road if they would reassess the properties on it. Gordon Carlstrom replied that while homes might be reassessed it would not be due to road improvements.
The Coordinator informed the Board that she would be on vacation in October, 2007 and would not be present at either of the two meetings scheduled for the 9th and 23rd but would be in the office to make preparations for the meeting of the 9th. The Board opted to cancel the 10/23/07 meeting in light of the Coordinator’s absence, noting that they had kept up their usual meeting schedule for the summer months.
Don Duhaime stated that in reading the minutes of May 10, 2007, when the Indian Falls and Bussiere subdivisions were approved it seemed as though Mr. Bussiere’s offer of an acre of land to better develop Klondike Corner was not incorporated. The Coordinator thought she recalled that offer to be part of the improvements for subsequent phases of development. Don Duhaime wondered if it might be prudent to inquire about Mr. Bussiere’s offer for clarification. The Board agreed. The Coordinator stated that she would send a letter of inquiry to Mr. Bussiere.
At 9:55 p.m. Don Duhaime MOVED to adjourn. Gordon Carlstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien,
Recording Clerk
| |
