 |
TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of February 12, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, Douglas Hill, Don Duhaime, Stu Lewin, and; ex-officio Dave Woodbury. 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 Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Jay Marden, Heather Alton and her husband, Iain Guthrie, Kevin Leonard, PE and Earney Mayo.
Discussion, re: Stormwater Management Plans
The Coordinator noted to the Board that there were not too many changes proposed in the draft they were viewing tonight as she had since learned that the State was currently working with a team to revise their 1992 Site Specific rules which would then be due for publication this summer. She added that interestingly everything the Board had been discussing on this topic for instance, on site retention, innovative stormwater management, and so on, was being addressed with the State update. The Coordinator further added that anyone doing a project that impacted over 100,000 s.f. of land would be required to comply with these new regulations and her thoughts were that the Board might wish to consider waiting until these were in place and then reference their requirements. She explained that language could then be added to state that any applicant who was required to follow the Stormwater Management Regulations would also need to follow the guidelines set by the State. Dave
Woodbury asked how many cases would not be required to go through the State and just need to appear before the Planning Board. The Coordinator replied that this scenario would not occur too often as far as major subdivisions were concerned. She noted that very few major subdivisions have put roads in without having to do Site Specific. The Coordinator added that Twin Bridge Management, LLC, was one applicant that just fell under that requirement due to the length of their cul-de-sac but that was an exception. The Chairman noted that the Board could always use their discretion to require that certain applicants meet certain criteria of the State. The Coordinator agreed and added that some small projects with frontage lots requiring Stormwater Management may need to meet certain (but not all) State requirements. Dave Woodbury felt that there was a benefit to being uniform with the State practices.
Dave Woodbury noted that section E,1,g, of the Stormwater Management Regulations had language which read: “…no requests for runoff increases shall be granted…” and he felt that sooner or later there would be an applicant who had a genuinely good reason for a runoff increase request but would be limited by this language. He suggested phrasing such as: “…requests for runoff increases shall be seriously discouraged…” to make the Boards preferences clear but not be absolutely limiting at the same time. Douglas Hill and Don Duhaime agreed.
The Coordinator explained that the changes suggested in section E were from the Town Engineer. She noted that other areas within the section that were considered for revisions by the Town Engineer had to do with designing drainage facilities to the 10 year storm model, road crossing culverts to the 50 year storm and rip rap in ditches with grades greater than 5% versus any grade. In section F,2,f, Dave Woodbury asked who would make the determination that a site could change enough to require a Stormwater Management Plan and what standards the Town would use. The Coordinator replied that she had not included this language to keep things fairly loose and could deal with this by saying that the Planning Board or their designee, such as the consulting engineer who would
be the most likely party to catch these issues. Dave Woodbury wondered if this could cause back and forth arguing between the Board and an applicant about whether a site qualified. The Coordinator replied that in that case it would be the design engineer’s charge to recalculate site areas and prove to the Board and the Town Engineer that revised calculations were necessary or not. Don Duhaime thought that the Board should first ask how a design was going to be handled and set criteria from that point forward. The Coordinator noted that Kevin Leonard, PE, had explained to her that small design changes may be hard to catch while larger ones such as the clear cutting on the Foxberry Road subdivision would be evident. Stu Lewin noted language in section E that referred to design assumptions during plan preparation. The Coordinator explained that this language referred to the fact that a design engineer made certain assumptions about a site when
doing their calculations such as lot size, paved areas, impervious surfaces, etc. The Chairman noted that the Board was also making assumptions when a plan was presented to them. The Coordinator suggested that the language could be revised to read: “…from those assumed by the design engineer during plan preparation and presented to the Planning Board during the application process…”. Stu Lewin asked if these assumptions were documented somewhere. The Coordinator replied that they were within the drainage calculation packets with acreage listed to what was thought to be the final product of a site. She noted that she was yet to discuss legalities with Town Counsel as to whether or not such statements should go into the Subdivision Agreement or be noted at the time of approval. Dave Woodbury suggested that this could be noted on the plan. The Coordinator agreed and added that the language could also be repeated
in the Subdivision Agreement. Douglas Hill asked about section E,1,h, regarding 50 year culverts and asked what they were based on currently. The Coordinator replied that she believed that they were based on 2 and 10 year storms. Douglas Hill wondered what difference sizing culverts and other structures would run into by using the bigger storm. The Coordinator added that the new Site Specific rules would look at the 50 year storm models for runoffs also. The Coordinator further added that Kevin Leonard, PE, would be in later in the evening to discuss another topic and Douglas Hill should ask this question then. Dave Woodbury asked when the State updated regulations would be out. The Coordinator replied that she thought April 14, 2008, was the first public hearing after which the regulations would go to a review committee. She felt that the updates would be set by July or August of this year. Dave Woodbury asked if the Town would
stand to lose anything by waiting for these regulations to be updated. The Coordinator replied that she did not think so because the Town did not have the budget to do that work and it could not be done in the same time frame if they attempted it themselves.
The Coordinator stated that the next item to address was the Road Regulations. She added that the Road Committee and the Road Agent needed to be involved which could take time to schedule, therefore, she asked if the Board preferred to adopt the minor changes suggested thus far to the Stormwater Management Regulations or if they wanted to wait until the Road Regulation information was done and the State’s stormwater management regulations adopted. Dave Woodbury replied that he would be inclined to move ahead under the theory that the States revisions would not be that different. Don Duhaime agreed. The rest of the Board was in agreement also. The Coordinator stated that once the proposed revisions to the sections discussed tonight were verified with Town
Counsel a hearing could be scheduled.
The Coordinator then recalled to the Board that Ellen Kambol had spoken to them at a previous meeting about the State’s Housing and Conservation Planning Program which was offering grants for towns to apply for technical assistance in looking at different types of housing options that paralleled with conservation aspects. She noted that the first round of grants needed to be applied for by April 11, 2008, and because New Boston was already beyond step 3 of 4 steps (Master Plan updated and smart growth and development addressed) they could receive a good size grant to help them with making changes to Zoning that could have positive effects toward affordable housing options. Dave Woodbury thought that the Town would benefit in the area of affordable housing as it would help
to sustain those who worked for the Town (police, teachers, etc.) as residents. The Coordinator added that conservation was also linked to this program where open space development would be encouraged where suitable. The Chairman asked how such a program could be executed. The Coordinator replied that it would not be a boiler plate format and would require a scope of work, i.e., how Zoning should be changed to make it a reality, what the goals were, etc. She added that Randal Arendt was an expert on this type of development and a few towns in the State already followed his guidelines. The Chairman asked what type of person who owned 20 acres would be willing to subdivide 10 times and sell at $30K to $50K per acre which would be how an affordable housing project would commence. The Coordinator replied that it could involve inclusionary Zoning where 1 or 2 lots in a conventional subdivision would be kept at affordable status, in other words, a design “mix”. She added that
incentives to developers for such designs could involve approving a few extra lots for a plan. Don Duhaime asked who would maintain records of these lots to assure they remained affordable in the event of a change of ownership. The Coordinator replied that if a finance authority ordinance was adopted then there would be a way to monitor this. She added that some towns chose to set up their own internal organizations to accomplish this while others used land trusts. Don Duhaime felt that this could mean that an extra employee with wages and benefits would need to be hired. Stu Lewin asked if a town could refuse the findings at the end of grant work. The Coordinator replied that she hoped the town would be involved enough in the process for that not to happen but was unsure how it would be handled if that were the outcome. She did not think that the town would simply turn a consultant loose on such a project without being involved through a “scope of work”. The Coordinator
noted that the Board did not need to make a decision on this tonight, however, applications for grants needed to be in by April 11, 2008. Douglas Hill thought that the worst case scenario would be that the town did not favor the outcome of the grant work and did not see how they could be forced to adopt it. Stu Lewin asked about the cost to prepare the application. The Coordinator replied that there was a small match for Stage 4 grant money and that the maximum grant was $30K. She noted that towns needed to come up with 25% but that could also be “in kind” payment, i.e., staff work equivalents. Douglas Hill asked how many grants were available. The Coordinator replied that the State had $400K to allocate in the biennium. She noted that it was interesting to see that volunteers were valued at $18.04/hour in the application documentation. Don Duhaime thought that the application process should be started. The Board
agreed.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 2008
1. Approval of minutes of January 8, 2008, with or without changes, distributed by email.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of January 8, 2008, as written. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. The minutes of January 22, 2008, were noted as having been distributed by email for approval, with or without changes, at the meeting of February 26, 2008.
3. Schedule site inspection for Driveway Permit Application for Steve LaBranche, Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot # 06/41-2. (driveway is staked – plan in read file, No Copies)
A site inspection was scheduled for March 15, 2008, at 8:30 a.m.
18. Schedule a site walk for Kenneth Barss, Jr., 501 Mont Vernon Road, Tax Map/Lot #14/90, conditional Use Permit for a structure within the Wetlands and Stream Corridor Conservation District on a vacant lot.
Addressed with #3 above for scheduling purposes a site walk for Kenneth Barss, Jr., was scheduled for March 15, 2008, at 9:15 a.m. +/-.
4. Driveway Permit Applications for Twin Bridge Management, LLC, Twin Bridge Road, Tax Map/Lot #s 02/62-8 through 02/62-15 and 02/62-29, for the Board’s approval. (No Copies)
The Coordinator explained that the above noted lots were the road frontage lots of the plan. The Chairman asked if the applicants had further challenged the Town’s fair share cost calculations as this had been discussed with them at a prior meeting. The Coordinator replied that she had not heard anything further on this subject from the applicants and was of the understanding that they were going to pay the cost calculated. Dave Woodbury inquired about Town Counsel’s opinion letter on that subject. The Coordinator replied that she had asked Town Counsel to write back to the applicants regarding their questioning of the calculation and did not think he had done this yet.
The Chairman asked if any of the above noted lots had Steep Slopes or other issues that could affect the Board’s consideration of approving their Driveway Permit Applications. The Coordinator replied that they did not and the lots on the plan that would require Stormwater Management Plans were attached to the subdivision and already approved.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Applications for lot #’s 02/62-8
through 02/62-15 and 02/62-29 for proposed driveways, 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 ten foot (10’) 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.
5. Discussion with Heather Alton, re: 229 Joe English Road, Bilodeau cordwood business.
The Coordinator stated that Heather Alton planned to be in attendance later in the evening for this discussion.
6. A copy of a fax received January 25, 2008, from Iain Guthrie, Apple Barn Garden Center, to New Boston Planning Board, re: selling garden sheds. (Iain Guthrie to be present)
The Board postponed discussion of this item until later in the evening when Iain Guthrie would be in attendance.
7. A copy of a letter received January 28, 2008, from Dwight G. Sowerby, Esquire, Drescher & Dokmo, P.A., to Nicola Strong, Town of New Boston, re: Fairbairn, Tax Map/Lot #8/75, Bedford Road & Pheasant Lane, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that this letter had to do with the Board wanting assurance that the tree buffer design proposed as part of the Stormwater Management Plan done by Bob Todd, LLS, for the Fairbairn subdivision was carried forward in the event that different professionals were involved with the subdivision when it got underway. She noted that Dwight G. Sowerby, Esq.’s, response was that these conditions needed to be included on the subdivision plan as notes.
Don Duhaime MOVED to adopt Dwight G. Sowerby, Esq.’s, comments and forward them to the applicant. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
8. A copy of a letter received January 30, 2008, from Kevin M. Leonard, P.E., Principal Engineer, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, New Boston Planning
Coordinator, re: Indian Falls, LLC, Maintenance Bond Construction Deficiencies, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that Kevin Leonard, PE, was ok with Northpoint’s bill being paid at the time of the road repairs. She added that this item could be further discussed with item #9 later in the evening when Kevin Leonard, PE, was present.
9. A copy of a letter received January 29, 2008, from Marc E. LeBlanc and Earney A. Mayo, Members, Indian Falls, LLC, to the Town of New Boston Planning Board, re: Indian Falls Road was distributed for the Board’s information.
To be addressed later in the evening.
10. A copy of a letter dated February 5, 2008, from Ed Hunter, New Boston Code Enforcement Officer, to Jon’s Auto, 666 N. Mast Road, re: Boundary setbacks/rear 25’ buffer, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator noted that Ed Hunter had received a further complaint from an abutter to the above noted business and would proceed to the next level if the issue was not addressed by the owner. She noted that cars and trucks were being parked in the buffer area set aside on the plan and that this had been addressed once but the owner had allowed it to happen again.
11. A copy of the Cistern Acceptance Flow Test received January 31, 2008, for Douglas Hill Construction, Christian Farm Estates, was distributed for the Board’s information.
12. A copy of a memorandum dated January 25, 2008, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Peter Hogan, Chairman, and Planning Board Members, re: Bedford Road Traffic Study, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that this was a draft of the study and if any Board members had comments she asked that they forward them to her so that she could pass them on. The Chairman thought the draft seemed light on substance. Stu Lewin agreed that for the amount of time it took to receive the draft he would have expected more information. Douglas Hill thought that a dollar value would have been recommended for what it would cost to bring Bedford Road up to appropriate standards. The Coordinator stated that there had been 3 main questions in the scope of work for this project that needed to be addressed and this was not a full blown traffic study. She added that the Road Agent also needed to weigh in and after that a dollar value assessment would be
prepared.
Don Duhaime asked if a letter had ever been written to Emile Bussiere regarding his previous offer to donate an acre of land to the Town so that they could better address intersection issues at Klondike Corner. The Coordinator replied that this was on her “to do” list.
13. A copy of a memorandum dated January 25, 2008, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Peter Hogan, Chairman, and Planning Board Members, re: Sawmills, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that Tom Miller (a recent visitor to the Board who had discussed his options for a portable sawmill) had since met with the Selectmen who had issued him a permit for the same. She added that he would soon come before the Board with a Site Plan. She noted that the Selectmen and the ZBA had a different opinion than the Planning Board on what a portable sawmill was and there was nothing to go on as an explanation except for the definition provided in Zoning. The Chairman noted that any sawmill was portable because the Town did not have enough power available to run a permanent sawmill since it would require 100 horse power. The Coordinator added that the Zoning definition was established in the 1970’s and most likely irrelevant to
this scenario and although she had sought information on any further details regarding a more appropriate definition within meetings held by the Small Scale Commercial Committee she had not been able to find anything. The Chairman stated that the Town may need to differentiate between a band saw and circular saw mill which could be part of the problem.
14. Daily road inspection reports dated, December 4, 5, 8, 17, & 18, 2007, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: Hutchinson Lane, were distributed for the Board’s information.
15. Daily road inspection report dated December 8, 2007, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: SHB Properties, LLC, were distributed for the Board’s information.
16. Daily road inspection reports dated, December 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, and 20, 2007, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: Douglas Hill Construction, LLC, Christian Farm Estates, were distributed for the Board’s information.
17. Read File: Public Hearing Notice from the Town of Hooksett, Building Department, received January 31, 2008, re: construction of a telecommunications facility.
Douglas Hill recused himself from the Board and took a seat in the audience as his hearing was up next.
DOUGLAS HILL CONSTRUCTION Adjourned from 1/22/08
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: Christian Farm Drive
Tax Map/Lot #5/16-21 & 5/16-22
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Douglas Hill of Douglas Hill Construction and Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, of Sandford Surveying and Engineering. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that graded in driveways were now shown on the plan to indicate their feasibility for the lots involved. He added that a 10’ cut put embankments at 3:1 side slopes but they proposed instead to extend the embankments using existing contours which would wrap the driveway around in a south easterly direction. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that they had adjusted the common driveway split back from 150’ to the maximum allowance of 100’. In this regard he requested a waiver for the requirement of a Stormwater Management Plan which would be triggered by the design change to lot #5/16-22, as it would place the driveway less than 20’ from the property line. Stu Lewin asked how close the driveways were to each other at the
point of divergence. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that a 10’ separation was maintained for purposes of snow removal. Stu Lewin asked how far the driveways went in after the split mark. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that they were 250’ past the first 100’, therefore, 350’. Dave Woodbury inquired about the 20’ rule and asked why a Stormwater Management Plan was not needed even if a driveway was not within 20’ of a property line. The Coordinator replied that at the time the Stormwater Management Regulations were updated it was determined that they would include as a critical area anything within 20’ of a side lot line intending to catch driveways for backlots which generally exceeded 250’ in length and could cause erosion issues during construction. Dave Woodbury noted that in this case backlots were not involved, therefore, the reason for the Regulation did not exist. The Coordinator noted
that the driveway lengths were still a factor which was the main issue. Don Duhaime asked if the driveways would have different levels. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that there would be a slight terracing situation. Stu Lewin asked if runoff from the driveway to the upper lot would run across the driveway next to it. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that if the scenario warranted a culvert there would be enough room to install a swale. Douglas Hill noted that there was already a swale on the inside of the lot to the left. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, added that a conveyance swale was possible. The Chairman noted that the Stormwater Management Plan would change with the driveway design revision as there would not be as much room to work with. Douglas Hill noted on the plan the direction from which the runoff flowed and the fact that the swale he mentioned directed that water down to the road. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, agreed that this
was the case and the water ran to an existing culvert and across by way of a significant swale. The Chairman stated that he did not recall there being enough pitch on the driveway to lot #5/16-22 to handle that runoff. Douglas Hill noted that the driveway was not yet built to plan. The Chairman stated that he felt the only issue would be snow storage along the driveway given the revised design. Douglas Hill replied that he agreed and that the driveway would have accommodated snow removal much better if the split had been at 150’ versus 100’. He added that he would construct the driveway to the terms of its Stormwater Management Plan. Stu Lewin thought the new design was a bad practical way to go but could not argue the case if it met the Regulations. He added that his only concern was the water runoff from one driveway to the other as he had personal experience with this on his own lot. Douglas Hill asked Stu Lewin if
there was a swale between his driveway and his neighbor’s. Stu Lewin replied that there was not and that his neighbor’s driveway sloped toward his own.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, asked if the Board would consider granting a conditional approval of the plan based on submittal of the Stormwater Management Plan. Dave Woodbury asked if the Board was ready to decide in favor or not of a waiver to the requirement of a Stormwater Management Plan for lot #’s 5/16-21 & 22. The Chairman did not favor granting a waiver. Don Duhaime agreed but added that the driveway revision seemed fine to him. Stu Lewin stated that the driveway design met the Regulations. Dave Woodbury agreed with Don Duhaime’s comment. The Chairman stated that he was satisfied with the Stormwater Management Plan. Don Duhaime thought that the driveway design fit the contours much better than the blasting option. The Board’s consensus was that a Stormwater Management Plan would be required and they had no further issues with the site. Dave Woodbury asked if conditional approval could be granted for the plan with submittal of a Stormwater Management Plan for the
lots as Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, had requested. The Chairman replied that it needed to be for the new design of the driveway as the existing one was not valid. He thought it a good idea to do both on the same plan so that there could be no mistake as to how the two were to be done. The Board determined that if Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, did the work needed it could be passed in by Douglas Hill at a subsequent meeting without the need for Earl to take the time to appear before the Board again. The Chairman asked if the tax map scale plan had been submitted in order for the application to be considered complete. The Coordinator replied that this was not vital as the change just involved a different shape to lot #5/16-22. Douglas Hill stated that the tax map was done. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that this could be supplied separately.
Stu Lewin MOVED to adjourn the application of Douglas Hill Construction, Public Hearing, Minor Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, Location: Christian Farm Drive, Tax Map/Lot #5/16-21 & 5/16-22, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to March 25, 2008, (due to Douglas Hill being out of town for the last meeting in February and there being no meeting on the first Tuesday in March because of Town Meeting) at 7:30 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill returned to his seat on the Board.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
5. Discussion with Heather Alton, re: 229 Joe English Road, Bilodeau cordwood business.
Heather Alton and her husband were present for this discussion. Heather Alton stated that she believed she was an abutter to Mr. Bilodeau’s property. Mr. Alton added that they were not notified of the Bilodeau hearing last summer. He noted that their property was a frontage lot abutting property that was adjacent to 2x50’ rights-of-way to backlots. The Coordinator clarified that the law stated an abutter to be one whose property shared a lot line with an applicant’s site or was across street or stream and that was not the case here. Mr. Alton went on to state that, from their property, they were within view of a substantial amount of timber stockpiled on Mr. Bilodeau’s site. The Altons submitted a letter with several color photos
attached illustrating the site. Dave Woodbury added that Mr. Bilodeau’s site more resembled a stock piling operation than the cord wood business he was approved for. Douglas Hill asked if the wood on site was cut there as well. Mr. Alton replied that it was as there was a splitter and a conveyor on site. Don Duhaime recalled that Mr. Bilodeau had stated to the Board at the time of his hearing(s) that he might have several piles of timber on site but he had not interpreted that to mean that there would be three at one time. The Chairman noted that he recalled on of the areas to be stock piling for his own personal use. Heather Alton stated that she felt the business resembled a commercial operation rather than a home business. The Chairman noted that Mr. Bilodeau’s operation was not classified as a home business. Heather Alton stated that according to minutes from one of the hearings it was noted that if the operation
became obtrusive to the neighborhood surrounding it the site plan would be reviewed. The Chairman asked the Altons if they knew how many people were working at the cordwood business. Mr. Alton replied that this was unclear and that the operation was not running every day. Heather Alton noted that her home had been on the market since the previous fall season and she had put $100K of work into her home. She added that the cordwood business was unsightly and the first thing that was seen when approaching her property. She asked if Mr. Bilodeau was accessing his front and rear stockpiles from his own driveway or the shared driveway it abutted. The Chairman noted that the abutters who shared the driveway had no issue with the business including the abutter whose property looked down onto the rear portion of this site from above. Heather Alton replied that in her review of the minutes for the Bilodeau hearings she thought the abutters felt
contrary to the business. Stu Lewin noted that at the conclusion of the hearings the abutters were satisfied and had been appeased by the applicant offering to plant a tree buffer. He recalled that some abutters had attended the applicants site walk also. Heather Alton stated that she had recently had her home reappraised and the difference in value prior to the cordwood business becoming unsightly had her realtor suggesting that she drop her listing price by $80K. She added that her realtor had also suggested that she plant a tree buffer to decrease visibility of the cordwood business from her property. Douglas Hill asked if the size of the cordwood business was mentioned on the plan. The Chairman replied that it noted truckloads that would be stored for the purpose of drying the cordwood. Don Duhaime thought that it had been discussed at one of the Bilodeau hearings that there would not be as much timber on site at one time as was evident
now. Dave Woodbury thought that the minutes should be reviewed to see what representations were made. Douglas Hill then referenced a portion of the minutes from one of the hearings: “He added that if the business became more intense as a commercial operation it would no longer be suited for the residential neighborhood it was in”. The Chairman stated that those had been his words exactly but his recollection was that it had to do with having a cordwood processor along with more people working on site. Mr. Alton stated that he did not see a difference between stockpiling logs or other materials from a business standpoint. The Chairman replied that he did see a difference because these were just logs. Mr. Alton replied that logs were harvested materials. Dave Woodbury stated that he had recently driven by the site not knowing the details of the plan and was shocked at the scope of the business especially if representations
had been made during the applicant’s proposal to a certain size of operation. Douglas Hill added that if he had seen pictures at the time of the applicant’s proposal like those submitted by the Altons this evening as representation of what the business would become he never would have voted to approve the plan. Heather Alton thought that the size of the stockpiles posed a safety hazard also. The Chairman asked the Altons if they had voiced their concerns to Mr. Bilodeau. Heather Alton replied that they had not and had called the Town first to see how they should proceed at which time they were told that they should approach the Planning Board. Dave Woodbury wondered if the size of the current stockpiles might represent a high water mark to future sales.
The Chairman suggested to the Altons that they have a conversation with Mr. Bilodeau expressing their concerns. Heather Alton replied that she did not think this would be effective. Mr. Alton asked the maximum amount of timber stockpiling approved on the plan. The Chairman replied that a maximum amount was not listed. Mr. Alton asked if the current scenario of large stockpiles was the intent of the Board at the time of the plan’s approval. The Chairman replied that it was. Don Duhaime interjected that he felt that there was much more going on at the Bilodeau site than what was proposed to the Board. Douglas Hill noted that there were two areas of cutting/work area on the plan and if Mr. Bilodeau had gone outside of these areas he was not in
accordance. The Chairman felt that the site was within its scope. Don Duhaime thought that the tall stockpiles presented a hazardous situation. The Chairman replied that this was a ridiculous comment as trees were stockpiled in this fashion all the time. He added that other neighbors of the Bilodeaus would not disagree. Heather Alton felt that they would also be strongly averse to what was going on at the site as they were quoted in the minutes of the application as having concerns about how the site would be laid out, effects on the values of their homes, etc. Several Board members agreed that the scope of the business had exceeded its intent. Dave Woodbury read from another portion of the plan’s minutes: “The Chairman replied that the applicant’s site plan represented him as the sole employee, stated hours and no principal parking, therefore, he was limited as to how far he could take this operation without returning
to the Board to amend those parameters. He added that if the business became more intense as a commercial operation it would no longer be suited for the residential neighborhood it was in”. Mr. Alton asked if Mr. Bilodeau was the sole employee how long it would take him to cut the stockpiled wood. Dave Woodbury replied that this would be an impossibility. He added that while he did not see very much written in the minutes about the size of the operation the applicant had seemed to represent the fact that the business would not become too big in scale. The Chairman referred to one of the pictures of the site submitted by the Altons and asked if this was the common driveway. Mr. Alton replied that the picture was of a pathway off the common driveway. Douglas Hill noted that it had been his thought at the time of the application that Mr. Bilodeau would be accepting wood deliveries to split and deliver back out, not stockpile
trees. Dave Woodbury added that even though the minutes did not represent how large the stockpiles would be he felt that what had transpired since the business had been approved seemed very large for a residential neighborhood. He asked if the Board members at the time of the approval had the conception of this much wood on site. Don Duhaime and Douglas Hill replied that they did not. Mr. Alton stated that the business seemed more like a logging operation than a cordwood business. The Chairman felt that the Altons should approach Mr. Bilodeau with their concerns. Mr. Alton replied that unless they knew the parameters of his business they would be uncertain as to how to approach him. The Chairman stated that if it were him, he would approach Mr. Bilodeau and say that he found his business offensive and in light of the fact that he was trying to sell his home could the stockpile in view of his home be depleted first so that the house would be
more marketable and he could move. Mr. Alton noted that they could not assure potential buyers that the large stockpiles would never reappear. Mr. Alton stated that their realtor had offered that if they could get something in writing from Mr. Bilodeau stating that the excessive stockpiling would cease then they might be able to successfully place their home back on the market. Dave Woodbury suggested that copies of the site plan be reviewed as most of the conversation in the minutes had to do with hours of operation and not size. He noted that the outstanding question that remained was whether an argument could be made that the applicant has overstepped the boundaries of his proposal. Mr. Alton asked if the site plan had indicated the predicted size of the stockpiled timber. The Chairman replied that it had indicated the location of the work areas but that there was nothing that could be pinpointed as a violation of the site plan.
Heather Alton noted that the piles of timber had only increased with no stock being delivered off the site as proposed. Mr. Alton agreed and added that it would be taking in stride if the wood was delivered in the spring/summer season and split and delivered out in the winter as the plan proposed but this was not what was happening. He added that if Mr. Bilodeau was in fact accessing the common driveway noted in the way described previously then they were abutters to the site. Dave Woodbury clarified that whether or not the Altons were abutters did not matter in this case as they were recognized by the Town as offended neighbors. Heather Alton stated that Mr. Bilodeau’s business had affected the aesthetics of the neighborhood and was not befitting to the size and location of his lot. Dave Woodbury noted that other neighbors/abutters who had attended the hearings for Mr. Bilodeau’s plan had at the time expressed concerns over the
aesthetics of the business even though at the approval phase of the plan they seemed satisfied. Mr. Alton stated that he did not think the same neighbors would still be satisfied given the outcome of the site since its approval. He reiterated that Mr. Bilodeau’s site was not a cordwood business, it more resembled a logging operation. Dave Woodbury stated that he agreed but that his opinion did not necessarily mean that the plan was not approved to be the way that it was. The Chairman added that the site had not gone grossly beyond what he had anticipated. Stu Lewin noted that it had for him. The Coordinator suggested that given the time, the minutes and site plan for Mr. Bilodeau could be copied to Board members so they could drive by and look at the site and come back for discussion at the next meeting at which time they could decide if they wished to invite Mr. Bilodeau to appear before the Board. The Chairman reiterated that the
Altons fastest avenue given the Planning Board’s time schedules was to speak with Mr. Bilodeau. He recalled that at the time of the application Mr. Bilodeau had addressed all abutter concerns and seemed to be a reasonable person. The Chairman noted that the Building Inspector might find Mr. Bilodeau in violation and order the piles moved but he could not say which way things would go. Mr. Alton added that he also had the option of legal recourse in civil court. Douglas Hill agreed. Mr. Alton asked if the Board’s consensus was that the operation in its current state did not represent the intent and size proposed during the application phase. The Chairman replied that in his opinion the operation had not exceeded its scope because it did not resemble a commercial site which was dictated in his mind by a cordwood processor and multiple employees. Mr. Alton asked if the size of the inventory was being considered. The Chairman
replied that this was a self regulating factor because if the logs were not processed in a timely manner they would rot. Dave Woodbury suggested that the neighbors/abutters be approached again to obtain their sense of the current scenario and if they agreed with the Altons this would be more backing for their cause. The Chairman stated that the Planning Board would also contact Mr. Bilodeua and review their minutes. Mr. Alton asked if he could obtain a copy of Mr. Bilodeau’s site plan. The Chairman replied that he could. The Planning Assistant made a copy for Mr. Alton.
6. Fax received January 25, 2008, from Iain Guthrie, Apple Barn Garden Center, to New Boston Planning Board, re: selling garden sheds. (Iain Guthrie to be present)
Iain Guthrie stated that he was interested in having a model garden shed (10’ X 12’) placed next to his existing garden shed at the Apple Barn Garden Center as advertisement of sheds for order by a company for whom he would conduct sales. He noted that the shed would be a model and no additional sheds would come to the site, however, upon contacting the Building Inspector he had instructed him to check with the Planning Board first. The Chairman clarified that this was likely to check the site plan for what it was originally approved for. Dave Woodbury noted that garden sheds under 100 s.f. were exempt from requiring a permit, however, the one mentioned by Iain Guthrie exceeded that measure. He asked if the sample shed would be for sale. Iain
Guthrie replied that it could sell and from time to time the model could change. The Chairman stated that as long as the model could be moved without a permit (which would limit the height and width allowed) he had no issue. Dave Woodbury added that he had no issue with a model shed on the property. The Coordinator noted that when this site was originally approved it was approved for the Apple Barn building and a coordinating garden display area. She added that she wanted it clarified in the minutes that the site of the garden center was separate from the Apple Barn building as it now had a different use. Dave Woodbury stated that the distinction did not bother him. The Chairman reiterated that as long as the model shed was not so big that it could not be moved he had no issue. Don Duhaime asked Iain Guthrie if he planned to have just one model at a time on site. Iain Guthrie replied that he did and that he did not have room for any
more. Dave Woodbury asked if the model shed would be considered a sample. Iain Guthrie replied that it would and that there would be posters inside with different models for which he would handle sales. The Board’s consensus was that they had no issue with a model shed being on the Apple Barn Garden Center site for this purpose.
8. A copy of a letter received January 30, 2008, from Kevin M. Leonard, P.E., Principal
Engineer, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, New Boston Planning Coordinator, re: Indian Falls, LLC, Maintenance Bond Construction Deficiencies, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Addressed with item 9.
9. A copy of a letter received January 29, 2008, from Marc E. LeBlanc and Earney A. Mayo, Members, Indian Falls, LLC, to the Town of New Boston Planning Board, re: Indian Falls Road was distributed for the Board’s information.
Earney Mayo and Kevin Leonard, PE were present for this item. Earney Mayo stated that there had been a crack in the road base of Indian Falls Road before the top coat was sealed. He noted that there appeared to be heaving in the road from moisture and even though all the layers had been inspected with a review by Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, and reports submitted, they were still not sure what was causing the issue and would need to take a look at the road in the spring 2008, season. Earney Mayo thought it likely that they would need to take out the cracked area in the road and install a drain to the underdrain. He wondered if an underground spring might be the culprit and added that there were no underground utilities in that area. Earney Mayo added that the Town
Engineer at the time (Dufresne-Henry, Inc.) had changed the design plan for that area and they had every intention to work with the current Town Engineer to solve the problem. The Chairman asked Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, if he was aware that a lot of water from Bedford Road in the area of Indian Falls Road came around the corner and discharged into the wetland area on Indian Falls Road. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that he was and felt that the intention of addressing this was by a shallow swale/catch basin along the side of Indian Falls Road. He added that he was concerned about the rate capacity of that catch basin. Earney Mayo noted that it had been initially designed to cross the road to another catch basin, however, Dufresne-Henry had made changes to that outlet’s design. Kevin Leonard, PE, stated that he was surprised to see a 6” outlet to the level spreader. He added that he was concerned over the shallowness of
the swale and would have better defined it to the wetland on site. The Chairman noted that it had to be this way in order for the level spreader to work. Kevin Leonard, PE, added that failures were happening on the far side of the road which was surprising to him. The Chairman clarified that the problems with the road were going to be resolved between Earney Mayo and the Town Engineer.
The Coordinator asked Kevin Leonard, PE, if he felt it was ok to dig up the road or if the drainage calculations should be checked first. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that Earney Mayo had suggested resurfacing the road and not changing the drainage. He added that he would like to involve Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, also as he had been part of the initial process with the road design. The Chairman thought that a culvert should also be added under the road. Earney Mayo stated that they had initially thought that the crack in the road was a result of construction trucks turning in from Bedford Road and pushing the asphalt. Kevin Leonard asked if the crack had now heaved. Earney Mayo replied that it had which was why he felt it should be addressed in the coming
spring. Douglas Hill asked the location of the crack. Earney Mayo replied that it was between stations 66 and 114 on the plan. Don Duhaime felt that closed drainage was needed to keep in the pipe. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that if surface water was the culprit then that would be ok but not if ground water was the issue. He added that he was concerned about the expiration of the maintenance bond (fall 2008). Dave Woodbury wondered if work to repair the road commenced in the spring if the Town should receive the difference of the bond amount or if it would be released even though remedial work was being done. The Chairman asked Earney Mayo how he felt about posting a new bond. Earney Mayo replied that they would fix the road. He added that they had originally designed something that would have worked but were told by the Town Engineer at the time to alter the design. The Chairman stated that he would like to see a detail of
the original design. Earney Mayo asked the Chairman if the Board had received all copies of the inspection reports on the road as they had only received the first month and half’s worth. The Chairman replied that they had. He added that it did not seem to him as though the bond should expire, however, the bond amount may need to be modified. The Chairman further added that he felt the new section of road to be constructed should also be warranteed against repair problems for two years. The Coordinator stated she would check with Bill Drescher, Esq., regarding keeping or modifying the maintenance bond.
With Kevin Leonard, PE, present Douglas Hill wished to ask him some questions regarding 50 year culverts. He asked what the size differential was between culverts installed based on 2 year storm events and 50 year storm events. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that most 2 year storm culverts had 12” culverts which seemed excessive but was the Town’s minimum. He added that a 50 year storm was a common storm designed to and the culvert was not necessarily designed to open channel flow. Kevin Leonard, PE, added that for a 50 year storm one did not want to overtop the road but it was considered ok if the water came on the high side of the culvert. He noted that it was not just the size of the pipe, i.e., it would not extend to a 48” measure, but the
design to the pipe. Kevin Leonard, PE, stated that the culvert could extend to a 24” measure but not to anything absurd, just enough to keep the road from being overtopped.
19. Endorsement of subdivision plans for Twin Bridge Management, LLC, Twin Bridge Road, Tax Map/Lot #2/62, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary. (No Dates)
The Planning Board Chairman and Secretary endorsed the above noted subdivision plans.
20. Discussion, re: Planning Board Alternates.
The Coordinator stated that they needed to advertise for alternates. She added that the Board might also consider asking alternate Travis Daniels to resign since he had not been to a meeting in over a year. She added that alternate Jeff St. John had resigned to the Board several months prior, therefore, his position was open and although alternate Barry Charest had noted to the Planning Department that he would like a 2 month leave of absence she did not have high hopes that he would make attendance. Don Duhaime thought that three positions should be listed as open for alternates. The Chairman noted that Barry Charest could be given the opportunity to resign and could always sign back on later if he was able. The Board agreed.
21. A copy of a letter dated January 26, 2008, from Damian Martineau of Damian’s on the River to Michele Brown and Planning Board members, re: signage, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that the above noted letter was Damian Martineau’s response to a letter sent to him by the Board regarding the fact that no discussion had been had on using the sign he had recently installed which was illuminated from the inside and by some opinions distasteful in appearance. She noted that Damian Martineu’s response in the letter was that the sign location was grandfathered and he had chosen to use it for his business.
22. A copy of the Small Scale Planned Commercial District minutes dated February 4, 2008, was distributed for the Board’s information.
At 9:30 p.m. Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk
| |
