 |
TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of December 9, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members, Douglas Hill, Peter Hogan, Don Duhaime, alternate, Mark Suennen, 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 Brandy Mitroff, Jack Munn, AICP, SNHPC, Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, Willard Dodge, Brian Dorwart, Road Committee, Brian Roy, PE, Dean Glow, Dana Lorden, John Riendeau, Road Agent, Neil Smith, Ray Shea, Vincent Iacozzi, Art Siciliano, LLS, Jim Bath, Ruth Trussell, John Ashworth, Katherine Kachavos, Gordon Russell, Jay Marden, Betsy Whitman, Rodney Towne, James Dodge, Steve LaBranche, Gloria Chandler, Jon Brooks and Joseph Cabral.
Discussion with Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, re: Cistern Requirements.
Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, stated that the Fire Wards had a meeting the month prior, which some Planning Board members had attended and they had discussed a potential new supplier of cisterns. He added that Kevin Leonard, PE, had looked into the warranty issues and other agreements with the present supplier given that when anything other than potable water was put in the fiberglass tanks the warranty dropped from 40 years to one year and when the Fire Wards and the Town Engineer confronted the manufacturer with it they were unwilling to budge. In looking into Michie Corp, they offered a pre-built concrete multi-chamber cistern with a 50 year warranty which they installed to assure end to end quality. Peter Hogan stated that this was the issue with fiberglass tanks as if
the installer did something wrong there could be warranty issues. He thought in this case, that if the company installed the cistern and a rock crept up and broke the pipe that would be covered under the 50 year warranty. Douglas Hill noted that the pipe was only warrantied for one year and defects in the tanks were under the 50 year warranty. Dan MacDonald stated that he believed they guaranteed that the tanks could shift up to 6% to 8% elevation so if one chamber started to rise or sink that was covered by the warranty. He added as background information that in the mid 1980’s the Town started with cast-in-place concrete cisterns and had experienced minor issues followed by the current fiberglass cisterns, a one piece installation at less cost and the Fire Wards had been pleased with this, not wanting to consider multi-chamber tanks but had now learned that the quality and warranty was significant. Dave Woodbury asked if the advantage to the
multi-chamber tanks was the installation by the company. Dan MacDonald replied that it was mostly the warranty and Michie Corporation was a long standing company who offered one vendor to deal with in all aspects A-Z. Peter Hogan noted that this was better than the original concrete ones that had essentially no warranty, were poured in place and monitored by an engineer at a cost, followed by the fiberglass type with a quick, simple installation and a warranty. He stated that now there was an even better alternative. Dan MacDonald added that multi-sizing was also available and flexible in those terms. He added that the Town Engineer was very sold on the option and that they had spoken with Weare, NH and some other towns who recommended them. Dan MacDonald thought that this option represented a good replacement for the current type of cistern being installed in the Town. Peter Hogan asked if that would be the only option or would the Fire
Wards accept anything else per the Regulations. Dan MacDonald replied that he believed the wording in the Regulations stated “…or an equivalent solution…” which would cover that. Douglas Hill thought that an applicant would follow the path of least resistance anyway and go with the Town’s recommendation. Dan MacDonald noted that cisterns were a key element and the Fire Wards were looking at cisterns for the Village also. Peter Hogan asked about the cost of the multi-chamber systems. Dan MacDonald did not know and felt that it was comparable in terms of value and although they tried to consider costs to developers they would put the best solution for the Town ahead of an increased cost to a contractor/developer. He added that according to some of the quotes he had received they were in the ballpark of the current costs and being located in Henniker, NH, would be more competitive without the freight cost. Peter
Hogan stated that the Planning Board needed to be somewhat responsible and concerned about the expenditure of the money and if the cost was about the same the Town made out better with a warranty added on. Don Duhaime noted that the warranty, in his opinion, waived any extra cost. Dan MacDonald stated that he would gather some quotes for the Board. He noted that the installation was the variable cost given that ledge may or may not be encountered. Don Duhaime asked the cost of Douglas Hill’s subdivision cistern. Douglas Hill replied that with site work it had been approximately $75K but the Town Engineer’s monitoring cost was $10K and possibly more which he took issue with but would discuss another time. He thought that the warranty needed to be clarified regarding plumbing/connections because if settling occurred the tanks themselves would need to be dug up so as long as the whole system was properly warrantied that would be
satisfactory.
The Chairman asked if the Regulations would then refer to the Michie Corporation stipulations if the Town went with that type of cistern or if the Regulations would reproduce the specs. Douglas Hill thought it was a good idea to simply refer to the company’s specs. Douglas Hill questioned whether Michie Corporation really dug the hole for the cistern themselves versus using the on site developer and offered the example of the cost increase that they would have if they hit ledge. Dan MacDonald thought they likely had their own contractor for the digging as they were a manufacturing company. Peter Hogan stated that real engineers knew where the ledge was before they started digging and that general land planners were not real engineers. Douglas Hill stated
that it was common knowledge that ledge was out there and if it was hit they would blast. Don Duhaime noted that borings could be done to detect ledge ahead of time. Peter Hogan stated that there was a science to this process noting that the Planning Board did not deal with this but felt certain that when a road or bridge was constructed it was known where areas of ledge were before construction began which was why highways did not suddenly stop in their tracks. Douglas Hill felt that Michie, Corporation likely had a ledge clause in their documentation where if they hit ledge during construction their cost would increase. Peter Hogan added that with a 50 year warranty offered it was likely that Michie, Corporation knew what they were doing. Dan MacDonald noted that cistern installation was a more focused process than building a highway. He added that he would have a representative from Michie Corporation present for the next discussion.
Peter Hogan stated that a representative or example contract would be helpful to explain the degree of engineering work done on site by the company. The Chairman clarified that for the next meeting Dan MacDonald would have a quote from Michie Corporation to compare to historical costs of other cistern installations and, secondly, a breakout of the site preparation work. Dan MacDonald clarified that he would obtain information regarding the quote, warranty, whether plumbing was included, inter-tank connections, who would be doing the work, engineering (i.e., a sub-contractor), an example contract and exhibit of a typical job. The Chairman thought it would be productive to have Dan MacDonald discuss possible revisions to the Cistern Regulations with the Town Engineer should they be warranted. Douglas Hill noted that if the Town Engineer were going to be involved on the monitoring of this type of cistern installation that a cost estimate from them would
be helpful also. Dan MacDonald noted that the footprint to this type of cistern was not dissimilar to that of a concrete/fiberglass cistern. He added that he would get back to the Planning Department in a week, as an update, with the information he needed to gather.
Discussion with Jack Munn, AICP, Chief Planner, SNHPC, re: Fiscal Impact Analysis & Impact Fee Feasibility Study.
Jack Munn stated that for the $8K cost of the Feasibility Study done for the Town it contained a wealth of information and noted that it had taken 1 ½ years to complete. The Chairman asked the cost of the Bedford Road Traffic Study in comparison. The Coordinator replied that the Bedford Road Traffic Study had cost $6K. Jack Munn noted that when work on the feasibility study began the economy was in moderately good shape, however, had taken a down turn half way through the project, therefore, SNHPC had adopted a conservative approach that set the level of service standards provided by the Town as the basis for fiscal impact fee assessment, explaining that based on expenditures, the number of employees per department were figured in order to carry out municipal services
going forward. Douglas Hill asked if the fiscal impacts were assumed for new construction going forward. Jack Munn replied that they assumed partial and recently approved subdivisions as well as future construction in their analysis which came out to 146 new dwelling units over the next 14 years of approximately 10 new dwelling units per year, which the Assessor had thought was a reasonable figure. He explained that they felt the best approach was to ascertain the cumulative analysis over a 10 year time period of the impact that Town departments would see but noted that they took a conservative stance assuming 10 new dwelling units per year and were unsure of the typical absorption rate. Jack Munn added that from the year 2000 to 2006 the numbers of new dwelling units per year were higher at 20 to 30, a significant increase at 3% which was higher than other communities. He noted that the value of the Fiscal Impact Study was that it looked at the
cumulative impact of new subdivisions over time and assessed potential revenues and expenses and although it did not present a typical per capita multiplier it looked at the cumulative impact and what would be required to maintain the same level of services 20 years into the future. Jack Munn stated that there were spreadsheets included in the report that could be used in the future (page 6), to predict the number of employees needed to maintain the same level of current services for the Town. He noted that the study offered the recommendation that nine new employees would be needed by the year 2020 based on its analysis of the cost to run each department. He noted that the Fire Department was an outlier in this analysis since it would be a big future issue given that it was assumed that it would transition from all volunteer to some full time staff in the future. Jack Munn added that the nine new employees assumed for the Town by 2020 equaled approximately
$500K total cost over the period in new salaries. He clarified that the net result of the Fiscal Impact Analysis & Impact Fee Feasibility Study was that new development would not pay for all of this cost and there needed to be more balanced growth in New Boston with commercial and industrial proposals for the Town. Jack Munn stated that the spreadsheets provided in the Study would be helpful to use as comparison models when new subdivisions were proposed.
Douglas Hill asked if a town could ask for impact fees and offsite improvement fees. Jack Munn replied that they could and noted that the only viable impact fee they could assume at this time based on a thorough examination of each department’s facilities and their potential to expand was a traffic related impact fee which could be put toward road improvements. Douglas Hill asked if such fees would need to be slated to specific improvements. Jack Munn replied that they could be specific or not under the State statute but in fairness thought that a credit approach should be enacted so that someone who was assessed an offsite road improvement fee would not also be charged an impact fee for traffic related improvements. Dave Woodbury noted that when applicants
submitted Fiscal Impact Studies for their subdivisions they almost always reported a positive economic impact for the Town and he wondered if this outcome was in conjunction with the results of the SNHPC report also. Douglas Hill wished to note that several recent subdivision proposals had reported negative impacts from their Fiscal Impact Studies. Jack Munn replied that the Fiscal Impact Studies submitted by applicants were often static reports that did not consider cumulative effects over time to maintain Town services, just expenditures based on per lot analysis and were not realistic reports. Dave Woodbury asked if, given that information, such reports were valuable to require. Jack Munn replied that if the Planning Board faced a complex development proposal and wanted a Fiscal Impact Study it would be worth doing but based on the approach of such reports in general and the per capita multipliers used they were not always realistic. He added that
there were no real rubic scientific set of standards and noted that most of the Fiscal Impact Studies cited a well known handbook from Rutgers University. Jack Munn noted that the Town had a leg up on things with the Fiscal Impact Analysis & Impact Fee Feasibility Study but cautioned that in some cases, as Douglas Hill had mentioned, the Fiscal Impact Studies submitted by applicants would show a negative impact. Douglas Hill noted that he had been surprised to see an $800 loss per lot (on average) for three recent subdivisions that had been recently proposed. Jack Munn reiterated that the Town needed to consider whether or not they wanted to remain purely residential going forward or if they wanted to pursue a more balanced tax base. He noted that the impact fee analysis was a pretty good one and if pursued would set a foundation for future calculations. Jack Munn added that the Town may want to look into a Warrant Article for 2010 or 2011 that
would support an Impact Fee Facility Report for the future (a cost of approximately $3K to $5K per facility), especially if they started to see growth. He explained that the support of such an Article would give the Town and Planning Board the authority to assess impact fees and calculate such fees based on, for example, the maintained services of the Fire Department or Library and could be kept on file in the Planning Department for future use. Jack Munn felt that the upcoming year would be a tough year economically but hoped in the year following that an upturn in growth might be seen.
Douglas Hill asked if impact fees were imposed if they would be collected at the
Building Permit stage or before a Certificate of Occupancy was issued, how the collected money was used and what time frame the Town had to use it, i.e., would it be a measure that fueled spending instead of helping the Town. Jack Munn replied that he thought it would help the cost to taxpayers as construction expanded and could possibly be put toward, for example, paying down bonds, however, the Town would need to collect the money in separate accounts depending on what it would be put toward. From the audience Willard Dodge commented that when the Town had talked about doing this in years prior there had been concern that the timeline for appropriating the funds collected would expire before they could be used. Jack Munn noted that now such funds could readily be put toward bond payments incurred by the Town for
construction projects. Douglas Hill offered the example of new bonds in the CIP budget. Jack Munn stated that, over time, impact fees had proven themselves to be an aid to Town economies and that while it would not be appropriate to charge impact fees when a town was not experiencing growth it would be helpful to do so when growth was occurring. He noted that SNHPC had just formulated an impact fee for Candia, NH, based on traffic study zones with a cost per square foot fee for non-residential structures and a fee for residential structures that was based on the average length of trips within a certain area. Jack Munn added that while complicated it was a model that was now available for reference. He noted that Bruce Mayberry was considered an impact fee “guru” in New Hampshire and the engineering firm VHB had also undertaken several impact fee studies. He noted that many planners understood calculating the fees and that it was
important to have a fee formulated that met proportionality tests.
From the audience, Jay Marden noted that he thought certain towns/cities such as Manchester, NH, charged $10K per lot right away as an impact fee before subdivision could even begin. Jack Munn replied that such fees were typically assessed when an applicant came before a Planning Board and the fee was noted at the time of the plan’s approval, then as each lot was developed and the CO issued, the fees were paid. Douglas Hill agreed with the chronology of the process described by Jack Munn and noted that he had built in Manchester, NH, before. Jack Munn stated that the impact fee issue was something the Town could keep on the back burner in the event that growth began again but noted that he would be interested to know the Selectmen’s thoughts on the Fiscal
Impact Analysis & Impact Fee Feasibility Study. Dave Woodbury noted that the Selectmen had been given a copy and had read the material. He asked Jack Munn if SNHPC wanted to know the Selectmen’s official position on it. Jack Munn replied that this was not necessary but wanted the Selectmen to be aware of the document and its content. Dave Woodbury asked if the Study should be considered a legal base for future steps on impact fees. Jack Munn replied that it could be considered a foundation.
Mark Suennen asked if 10 homes per year were assumed if there were linear or geometrically different outcomes based on more or less. Jack Munn replied that if fewer homes were built the impact fees would be less and the cumulative time would be stretched out also while if more were built then the Town would feel the fiscal impact sooner as based on the number of employees and standards of service to the Town. Mark Suennen asked how the number of employees needed in the future had been derived. Jack Munn replied that this had been worked out individually with each Town department in 10 to 15 meetings including some All Board meetings and interviews with department heads while reviewing approved budgets. He added that the resulting numbers included ratios based on the
current number of employees and going forward based on absorption rates. Jack Munn referenced a spread sheet included in the report (Table E). Mark Suennen stated that this was the gist of his question, i.e., would road miles, for example, be the consideration for the traffic impact calculation just as the number of classrooms in a school would be the consideration for a school impact. Jack Munn replied that this had been discussed and they had ultimately felt that services to the Town were the best basis to use and although they had come up with a cost calculation per linear mile they had decided this was not the best approach and that the staff and expenditures per department were more realistic and universal for each department. He noted that the Fire Department would be a looming issue in the future since it was currently all volunteer.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to accept the Fiscal Impact Analysis & Impact Fee Feasibility Study as prepared by SNHPC. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
McCURDY DEVELOPMENT, LLC Adjourned from 11/11/08
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/42 Lots
Location: McCurdy Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/19 & 96
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Brian Roy, PE, of Cuoco and Cormier, and the applicants Dean Glow and Dana Lorden. Also present was Neil Smith of the Dupuis Family Trust, an abutter. Interested parties present were Brian Dorwart, Road Committee and John Riendeau, Road Agent.
The Chairman noted that abutters or interested parties would have an opportunity to speak later in the proceedings and asked that they state their name and address for the record. He noted that the applicant had consented to an extension to the deadline for action on this application and had asked that this be done on a meeting by meeting basis. He went on to say that a major issue was the intersection of Lorden Road with McCurdy and Susan Roads and he would begin with this topic.
Brian Dorwart stated that the Road Committee had reviewed the plans forwarded by the Board with Roch Larochelle doing the main part of the review. He noted that the Road Committee recommended/suggested in their email to the Board was that the suggested alternatives were better than the original design and that more cover be placed on the culvert proposed at the intersection of Lorden Road and McCurdy Road. The Chairman asked that the plan be put up the easel. Once this was done Brian Roy, PE, noted that on the alternate revised plan based on the Town Engineer’s recommendation to hold the -3% grade at the entrance to the intersections with a low point at least 75’ away the Road Committee had come to the conclusion, and indicated in their email, that -1½ %
may be acceptable. He noted that although the alternative may be better it would not be much flatter and explained that having a -1½ % grade at the Susan Road side of “Lorden Road” would almost match his original proposal of -1.15%. Brian Dorwart stated that the Road Committee’s recommendation was that at -1½ % the steepness on the impending curve on the road was lessened as you traveled up and provided for negative drainage 75’ from the landing zone. He added that at the other intersection a broken back curve resulted when using -3% but at the alternate 1½% a single sweep curve was possible instead which was more desirable and allowed water to shed away from the main road. John Riendeau, Road Agent, noted that he had been involved in these discussions with the Road Committee and his overall input was that the Highway Department tried to maintain what was the safest scenario for water runoff. He added that even
though he favored -3%, the -1½% grade onto McCurdy Road would give the desired platform and cut the steepness of the hill in consideration of slippery conditions and felt that, overall, this was the safest alternative. Peter Hogan asked if John Riendeau felt this was safer than the Subdivision Regulations requirement for a -3% grade. Brian Dorwart stated that the main issue was to have enough well drained landing area. He explained that in this case the 75’ landing zone was still provided and in assessing the -1 ½% versus -3% grade it was a matter of how much water they would be dealing with. Brian Dorwart noted that with side drainage measures the runoff could be 4” to 2’ regardless and in a gully washer event having -1 ½% grade would provide for a shedding area and flat area with 75’ usable. Brian Dorwart stated that without the benefit of a full hydraulic analysis the Road Committee did not feel there would be
a material difference. Peter Hogan stated that his point was: did the Subdivision Regulations not require that the intersection grade be -3% or was it to be as close to -3% as the site allowed. Brian Dorwart replied that he was not sure. Peter Hogan stated that his objection to the discussion was that the -3% requirement was adopted per the Highway Department’s recommendation during recent discussion regarding the Regulations. He noted that the Town made a contractor fix his intersection as it was not at -3% and the Board had wasted a lot of time on the issue of the grade. John Riendeau noted that the issue with this plan was that in using a -3% grade the grade of the road then went to 9½%. Brian Dorwart agreed and noted that he thought the grade would fall at approximately 7%. Peter Hogan reiterated that the Board had spent hours adopting the Regulation with much input and safety built into it which was in contrast to what he
was hearing this evening. Brian Dorwart stated that he did not necessarily agree and noted that the Road Committee’s consideration had been based on best management practices and State standards. He explained that the issue faced when development of different properties occurred was that following regulations to the letter may not result in a palatable combination of factors and could introduce a nuisance factor. Brian Dorwart added that the Road Committee felt what was proposed was a compromise solution to be workable but would not necessarily meet the Regulations. He noted that in order to meet the -3% grade the uphill section of the road would be around 7% or 8% and more tree cutting on site would be needed, therefore, the intersection compromise seemed a more workable solution. Peter Hogan asked if the road was designed for speeds of 35m.p.h. as vehicles approached the intersection or 25 m.p.h. Brian Roy, PE, replied that the K Factor
at the Susan Road intersection was close to the AASHTO standard minimum requirement for a 35 m.p.h. road but it was understood that there would be slower speeds through the transition of the curve on the road. He wished to note that the difference betweens laws and ordinances versus rules and regulations was that the Planning Board could waive certain items whereas this was not allowed through the ZBA. Peter Hogan stated that he did not need to have his job explained to him. He asked if the applicant’s plan reviewed by the Road Committee was the version they wished to sign off on. Brian Dorwart replied that it was. Peter Hogan asked if the K factor would require a waiver. Brian Roy, PE, replied that it would. Peter Hogan recalled that it was the K Factor on Carriage Road that had given a previous applicant an issue and which the Board would not waive. From the audience, Neil Smith, representing Harvey Dupuis Family Trust and a
party involved in the application Peter Hogan referenced, recalled that it was not the K Factor but rather a situation of the road meeting the Regulations but not having enough sight distance at the Susan Road intersection, therefore, given the option of rebuilding the intersection they were then at risk for not meeting appropriate K values. He noted that it was impossible to meet a -3% grade in every direction on an intersection and asked which direction was most critical for this requirement. John Riendeau relied that in the case of the intersection of “Lorden Road” and McCurdy Road it would be the stopping platform on “Lorden Road” since McCurdy Road was a through road. Douglas Hill added that the grade of McCurdy Road at that intersection was 8% which was another part of the issue.
The Chairman summarized that of the two sets of plans sent to the Road Committee for their review at the request of the Planning Board (as both were not conforming with the Subdivision Regulations required -3% grade at an intersection) one was determined to be acceptable at a -1½% grade versus -3%. Peter Hogan stated that option C was to hold to the -3% regulation. The Chairman stated that he disagreed with Peter Hogan and noted that the Shaky Pond Development, LLC, application had their cul-de-sac design reviewed and the maximum length subsequently waived as the proposal over 1,000’ seemed a better option. He noted that Peter Hogan had pointed out in the past that the Board often asked their “experts” their
opinions on certain plan designs and what they thought would be the best solution to an issue, therefore, the Town did not live and die by its regulations. Peter Hogan remarked that the K value was not considered something that could be sacrificed to modify the sight distance at the intersection of Carriage and Susan Roads for a previous application and yet this did not seem to be the case for this plan. Neil Smith wished to clarify that not adjusting the K values on Carriage Road and instead paving the shoulders had been determined to be the best solution for that issue, i.e., not a choice, but the best option. Peter Hogan stated that the Board had been told that by blasting ledge along the road to correct the sight distance issue it would affect the K value and that was an unsafe scenario, therefore, as he interpreted it, the K value problem had been unacceptable for that road but not an issue for the present plan. Brian Roy, PE, asked if the vertical
curve on Susan Road had been a crest or a sag. He was told it was a crest. He noted that the curve on Lorden Road was a sag curve which meant that a tighter K value would result in more room to see across the curve. Peter Hogan said that given this clarification he was satisfied.
The Chairman asked if there were any other questions now the main issues had been clarified and there were none. He stated that the applicant should now be able to prepare a complete revised plan set based on tonight’s discussions. Peter Hogan stated that the plan that the applicant would be going forward with was the one with a -1 ½% grade at the intersection of McCurdy and “Lorden” and “Susan” Roads, 75’ back from the platform. The Chairman added that a letter from the applicant dated 7/21/08 requesting waivers would need updating given the revised grade and that at the next meeting the Board could then view a revised set of plans that they could act upon. He asked if the applicant had received a copy of the Fire
Wards’ letter dated 9/15/08 regarding their request for a cistern in the subdivision. Brian Roy, PE, replied he did not have this copy. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she could provide this copy and she stated that she would do so. He then asked if fire sprinkler systems were proposed for the house lots. Dana Lorden replied that they were. The Chairman stated that the Fire Wards were also asking for a 10K gallon cistern. Dean Glow commented that by his understanding either fire sprinkler systems or cistern(s) were required but not both. From the audience Jay Marden agreed that he also had thought this requirement was an either/or situation yet he continued to see cases where the Fire Wards requested both and felt this was unreasonable. The Coordinator explained that the Fire Wards could request additional fire fighting water supply even when one type was proposed and it was in the Subdivision Regulations that the Planning
Board then considered such recommendations. She noted that the either/or situation was sprinklers or a 30K gallon cistern, however, in this case the recommendation was a 10K gallon cistern in addition to the proposed fire sprinklers which the Board could discuss. Peter Hogan asked if there had ever been a case where both fire fighting water supply systems were required by the Board. The Coordinator replied that there had been cases where the Fire Wards recommended this but the Board had not required it (Tris Construction/Francestown Road). Douglas Hill returned to the subject of Shaky Pond Development, LLC, and noted that the reason the Board had waived the cul-de-sac length for that plan was because they had offered a more palatable design with less lots than originally proposed. The Chairman asked the Planning Board their thoughts on requiring a cistern as well as sprinklers. Don Duhaime stated that he agreed with the Fire Wards' request and
Dave Woodbury stated that he was in favor of both. Peter Hogan noted that until he understood how the road loop would be constructed and if a cul-de-sac over 1,000’ was proposed, he could not comment.
The Chairman asked about build out plans for the subdivision. Brian Roy, PE, replied that at this point in time they had no formal proposals for phasing and sought a general discussion on that topic. He added that they assumed they would have a temporary cul-de-sac during construction with the other option being to blast the road all the way through at once. Brian Roy, PE, offered that another alternative would be to have a portion of the road left gravel but with access maintained for winter use. The Chairman stated that the Board needed to consider the issue of the road extension/connection. Dave Woodbury wondered if it made sense to say that no CO’s would be issued beyond the first 1,000’ of road until a connection was established. Peter
Hogan thought that a better condition was not to issue the Building Permits. The Coordinator clarified that, legally, if a project was bonded the Building Permits could not be held up. Dean Glow offered that some towns based their phasing on the distance needs required for the town plowing and fire trucks. Dana Lorden added that they had assumed some type of temporary hammer head turn around during the road construction. The Chairman stated that the Board would check with the Fire Wards and the Road Agent to get their opinions on the matter. John Riendeau, Road Agent, stated that one consideration for temporary turnarounds was to take a bond to guarantee that if a project became delayed in construction the town would have funds to construct a permanent turnaround to Town specifications. Peter Hogan suggested that a turnaround could be constructed at the 1,000’ point in the road with any additional phasing beyond that point requiring a
cistern installation and an additional turnaround if the road was not connected properly end to end.
The Chairman stated that the applicants could now come back to the next meeting with their revisions based on tonight’s discussion. Brian Roy, PE, asked if there were any other technical issues the Board felt the applicant should be aware of such as lot grading and erosion control. The Coordinator suggested that the applicant reference the checklist and noted that she had met with Erik Swanson of Cuoco and Cormier so Brian Roy, PE, should check with him. She added that an issue she questioned the lot on Susan Road that needed subdivision in order to get the road through. Brian Roy, PE, replied that the lot had been transferred over to McCurdy Development, LLC, therefore, that application would be submitted forthwith given that the issues related to the
road entrance grades had been addressed. He added that the applicant had all State permits and that going forward they would like to now modify the plans, get them to the Town Engineer, minimize the Town Engineer’s review list of outstanding items and have talking points. Douglas Hill added that phasing proposals should be included also as it was likely that there would be issues going past 1,000’. Brian Roy, PE, did not think that if they reconvened in a month’s time that they could have all the engineering addressed. The Chairman stated that if the applicant at least had some items addressed and plans for phasing then this would be a discussion point before the final revisions were prepared. Peter Hogan hoped that one set of plans would be ready for the next meeting that accurately reflected the discussion had up to this point. Brian Roy, PE, replied that he was not sure if he could have a full set done given the approaching
holidays but would see that as much was prepared as possible. The Chairman thought that the Board’s primary focus now was the phasing issue and offered that even hand sketches would be helpful in that regard. He added that the meeting after the next one scheduled would hopefully be the final and asked if the applicant agreed to an extension to the deadline for action. Brian Roy, PE, replied that this was acceptable.
The Chairman wished to mention a concern expressed via email by the applicant over a negative Board comment in response to an example of another application getting a design waiver that had similar issues. He explained that the application referenced had been of a development that had not gone well and had many post approval issues which was why the Board had responded that this was not the best example to use to argue the applicant’s case. Dean Glow replied that he had written the email and had stated originally that he felt snubbed by the Board’s comment at the time but now understood the point they were trying to make.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the application of McCurdy Development, LLC, Major Subdivision, 42 Lots, Location: McCurdy Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/19 & 96, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, and to extend the deadline for Board action on the application to January 13, 2008, at 7:30 p.m.. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 8:25 p.m. the Planning Board took a 5 minute break.
SHAKY POND DEVELOPMENT, LLC Adjourned from 11/11/08
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/17 Lots
and one open space lot
Location: Susan Road
Tax Map/Lot #15/15
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering who represented the applicant, Jim Bath, who was also present.
The Chairman stated that an extension to the Board’s deadline for action would be required to proceed and asked if the applicant was amenable to this. Ray Shea replied that they were. Ray Shea stated that he would like to discuss the Town Engineer’s comments to the plans in a letter dated December 8, 2008, and added that although there were a number of items they were all relatively minor technical issues that would be easy to address with 4 or 5 main issues to cover. He stated that the first item was the Town Engineer’s concern regarding the timing of the connection of the subdivision road through to Susan Road. Ray Shea noted that building of the lots would not occur until the through road was connected and he could add a note to this effect to
the plans. He stated that another comment was monumenting the conservation easement and he explained that the lots would be monumented and the Conservation Commission planned to oversee this. The Coordinator noted that the Conservation Commission had square placards that they placed on trees in the appropriate locations. Don Duhaime recalled the same method used on a Salisbury Road subdivision. The Chairman asked if this should be noted on the plan. The Coordinator replied that it could be noted in the covenants or easements. Ray Shea stated that another item (#6 on the Town Engineer’s letter) was the fact that One Chestnut Hill, LLC, had left a 50’ strip on their plans to allow for the design of “Shaky Pond Lane” and in review it was determined that the road would require easements in addition to the 50’. He stated that they could put these easement lines on the One Chestnut Hill, LLC, plans which had not been
finalized yet. The Board agreed. Ray Shea noted that item #’s 10, 25 and a third item on the Town Engineer’s letter were similar in comment regarding two detention ponds and the Town’s access to them. He stated that he had spoken with the Road Agent and it was determined that the grade would be slightly modified off a nearby slope to accommodate an acceptable gravel pad for the Town’s maintenance access. Ray Shea noted that these changes would be revised on the plan and resubmitted to the Town Engineer. Ray Shea stated that another item was #15 on the Town Engineer’s letter which referenced the cistern design. He noted that since the proposal he had learned that there had been some discussion by the Town on a different type of cistern that might be entertained. The Chairman replied that the Town was considering a company by the name of Michie Corporation. Peter Hogan explained that this company offered
pre-cast units, however, the Board was not yet sure of the cost differential for installation versus a fiberglass cistern. Douglas Hill added that the units came with separate tanks that could be connected. From the audience, Vincent Iacozzi of Thibeault Corporation (present for an upcoming hearing) stated that he was familiar with Michie Corporation and had put a couple of their units in on projects, finding them less expensive. He explained that they had prepared the hole and provided the crane and that Michie Corporation had done the rest of the installation in one day, sealed the system and done the initial testing. Vincent Iacozzi stated that they had found the process very quick and cost effective. Peter Hogan asked what capacity cistern Thibeault Corporation had purchased from Michie Corporation. Vincent Iacozzi replied that it had been a 20K gallon single tank cistern. Ray Shea continued with the Town Engineer’s item #23 which
asked for a formal waiver request to be submitted for the length of the road being greater than 1,000 feet. He submitted such a letter. He stated that item #28 regarded vernal pools located between lots #’s 15/15-5 & -6 and at the southerly end of lot #15/15-5 into the proposed open space. He explained that they had received DES approval but had been asked to eliminate the 18th lot proposed as it had encompassed two vernal pools. Ray Shea added that the plan also showed a 50’ no cut buffer around the pools and the Town Engineer had commented as to whether this no cut buffer should be shown somewhere else besides the topography plan. Dave Woodbury thought this information should also be included in the homeowner’s deed.
Ray Shea stated the rest of the Town Engineer’s comments were minor drafting and technical items which he should have addressed by the next meeting. The Chairman asked if the slope and drainage easements would also be included based on the legal review by Town Counsel. Ray Shea replied that they would and that he would confer with the Coordinator on this. He noted that the only waiver requested had been for the increase in offsite runoff for one storm type which had been denied, therefore the second detention pond had been added to the plan. The Chairman asked if the applicant was agreeable to an extension on the deadline for action to January 13, 2009. Ray Shea replied that would be acceptable.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the application of Shaky Pond Development, LLC, Major Subdivision, 17 Lots and one open space lot, Location: Susan Road, Tax Map/Lot #15/15, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, and to extend the deadline for Board action on the application to January 13, 2009, at 8:00 p.m. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
VISTA ROAD, LLC
Compliance Hearing/Major Subdivision/14 Lots
Location: Wilson Hill Road (Hutchinson Lane)
Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Vincent Iacozzi of Thibeault Corporation. The Chairman stated that a compliance site walk had been held on Saturday, November 15, 2008. He added that outstanding fees were due for certified letters. Vincent Iacozzi then submitted a check for these fees in the amount due of $203.00 The Chairman stated that his main issue had been the foundation full of water viewed on site but added that it had no bearing on this hearing since the lots were no longer owned by Thibeault Corp.
Douglas Hill MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the Major Subdivision/14 Lots of Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5, Wilson Hill Road (Hutchinson Lane), and to release the financial security being held for road construction.
Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
As there was 10 minutes before the start time of the next hearing the Chairman asked that the Board read through a copy of historical minutes that would pertain to discussion to be had for the Dodge hearing this evening.
Douglas Hill recused himself from the Board as he was an abutter to the next hearing.
CLARK HILL TRUST By RR Adjourned from 11/25/08
& JH TRUSSELL, TRUSTEES
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/12 Lots
Location: Clark Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #8/1 & 4/62
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Art Siciliano, LLS, John Ashworth, Environmental Consultant and the applicant Ruth Trussell. Abutters and interested parties present were Katherine Kachavos, Gloria Chandler, Betsy Whitman, Brandy Mitroff and Gordon Russell.
The Chairman asked if the Environmental Impact Study was now completed. Ruth
Trussell replied that it was still not done. The Chairman explained that there was a certain statutory time frame allowed an applicant to submit the necessary items by which an application could be accepted as complete. He noted that since the applicant had gone beyond this time frame they now had two options: withdraw the application with the knowledge that when the applicant was ready to re-submit all prior discussion on the plan, etc., could be carried forward and would not be disregarded. The Chairman stated that the second option was that the Board vote to deny the application without prejudice. Ruth Trussell asked the Chairman if one option was better than the other. The Chairman replied that technically there was no difference between the two other than how the applicant wished to have the record
reflected. He added that no matter which method was preferred one issue would be that when the applicant started up again she would need to have the hearing re-noticed which involved a fee. Ruth Trussell asked if when she was ready to start up her application again one meeting would be required to accept the application as complete and then another would need to be rescheduled to have any further discussion/approval on the plan. The Chairman replied that it was possible to accept an application as complete and go onto formal approval in one meeting although he could not say if that would be the case with this application. Dave Woodbury asked for clarification on the timeline as he understood that there was a 65 day clock that began after an application was complete but was unclear on the time frame beforehand. The Coordinator explained that the issue at hand referenced the 30 day clock within which an applicant had to have an application accepted as
complete. Dave Woodbury asked if the application was voted on this evening as incomplete if that would solve the problem. The Coordinator replied that it would not as that route would result in a denial, which would mean that the Board could not take any further action. The Chairman stated that the applicant could think about which option they preferred and could advise the Board at the end of the hearing. He added that they could still have discussion on the plan until that time.
Art Siciliano, LLS, submitted revised plans and wished to review some drainage items. He noted that the revised plan showed lot line changes (dashed lines) discussed at a prior meeting. Art Siciliano, LLS, stated that the access point for lot #11 was moved next to lot #9, a major change that eliminated a long underground culvert previously proposed. He added that extended a portion of the property line for lot #8/1-5 straight up on the plan effectively swapping triangular sections of the lots to alleviate the issue of implied stacking behind three other lots. The Chairman asked which lots had proposed shared driveways. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that only lot #’s 8/1-1 & -12 had individual driveway, the rest were shared.
Art Siciliano, LLS, stated that the school bus stop/waiting area previously proposed had been removed from the plan and asked if there had been discussion on the Town end to it. The Coordinator replied that her recollection was that the School Principal and the Road Agent could not recall why a separate waiting area had been suggested when there was a driveway available and a second waiting area had been designated at a shared driveway. Peter Hogan stated that he was not in favor of appointing one of the shared driveways as a bus stop. The Chairman agreed that if the bus was not going to be stopping at every driveway that had a school aged child in residence that there would be sets of children at a specific driveway and he wondered about the liability issue that
presented. There was some confusion as to what was preferred by the Principal and Road Agent. The Board liked the idea of the bus stopping at driveways where children lived, i.e., having the process evolve as it would, however, they determined that the question should go back to the Road Agent and Principal for clarification.
The Chairman asked if the Dredge and Fill cost estimates were available. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that they were not ready yet.
John Ashworth, land consultant for the applicant, wished to give a brief overview of the plan in terms of further clarifying its concept. He noted that the plan included wetlands, setbacks, animal trails mapped by Gordon Russell (Town resident and naturalist), building locations for the houses on the proposed lots and lines representing the entire area held in current use (4 lots in current use: #’s 8/1-8, 11, 9 & 12). He stated that each current use lot required 10 acres of current use land remain mostly undisturbed but that certain things were still permitted such as forestry, agriculture, paddocks, etc. The Chairman asked John Ashworth if anything would be done to enforce the current use proposal for the land. John Ashworth replied that the applicant
felt that it would enforce itself by the nature of the terrain. Peter Hogan clarified that John Ashworth operated out of Massachusetts and questioned whether the terminology conflicted as, in New Hampshire, the only benefit to land in current use was that it saved the landowner on property taxes. John Ashworth stated that he felt the applicant’s site was a good opportunity for a middle class income couple to purchase a piece of land to steward. Peter Hogan added that there was nothing legally that would prevent someone from also buying the land and turning it into a motorcross track. John Ashworth replied that that was speculation.
Peter Hogan stated that the only thing that would protect the land from the example he offered was to have a protective covenant in the deed. John Ashworth still felt that current use qualification was a powerful incentive to keep an owner’s property taxes low. The Chairman agreed with the points raised by Peter Hogan in that there was nothing that legally enforced the land to stay in current use. He added that he would like to see what type of legal wording could accomplish what the applicant sought for keeping the land in current use. From the audience Brandy Mitroff clarified that current use could not be legally bound to a piece of land. Peter Hogan offered that building envelopes could be proposed in which case nothing outside of it could be disturbed on the lot. Ruth Trussell replied that
she had thought of this but was hesitant to be too prohibitive. Peter Hogan thought the simplest wording would be a “no build zone”.
Dave Woodbury noted that on proposed lot #8/1-12, the only access to Dennison Road was over 200’ of wetlands. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that for this lot a CUP still needed to be addressed. The Chairman concurred and pointed out that the application was not yet at that point in the process. Peter Hogan commented that the wetland issue on that lot seemed like it would pose a problem. The Coordinator noted that the applicant had a Dredge and Fill Permit, had submitted a CUP and the Board was waiting for a bond estimate, at which point it would be determined under Zoning if it was permissible.
John Ashworth noted various locations on the plan, namely, wildlife trails, an abutter’s property (Kachavos), existing stonewalls and wetlands. He added that the wildlife trails stayed pretty much in the wetland setbacks and pointed out an additional trail that went across Clark Hill Road to a ravine, steep slope and bog and a third trail that also crossed Clark Hill Road to a bog and then to two circular areas that held water most of the year with a stream in between that the trail crossed and cut over again. He noted that he did not think that the animal trails would be disturbed by the subdivision proposal.
Interested party Jay Marden asked for clarification on the common driveways. Peter Hogan and the Chairman explained that the driveways went for a certain length off the roadway then split into two distinct driveways at the property line. Jay Marden stated that he thought this type of driveway was not allowed in the Town. Peter Hogan replied that it was as long as it conformed to Town specifications.
Brandy Mitroff commented that she believed that the applicant whole heartedly wished to attract “green” buyers but felt they were skirting the legal things they needed to do in order to secure that. She hoped that the applicant would consider no build zones via legal options or no further subdivision restrictions and felt that many of the present neighborhood residents would appreciate that effort.
The Chairman asked the applicant which option she preferred given the status of the application’s incompleteness. Ruth Trussell replied that she would withdraw the application. The Chairman reiterated that the applicant would be responsible for the cost of the re-noticing aspects when the application was resubmitted, however, the discussion had thus far would stand as a point from which to move forward. Ruth Trussell stated that she had submitted a letter to the Planning Department earlier in the day regarding questions about other fees. The Coordinator explained that normally only an application fee could be reapplied if an application was withdrawn and resubmitted as there was a certain amount of secretarial work required in the refilling process and no way
to prorate that. Mark Suennen suggested that the fee status not be acted upon until the applicant resubmitted their application and at that time reimbursements if available could be discussed. Ruth Trussell wished to clarify that it was the missing Environmental Impact Study that had delayed her application as being accepted as complete. The Chairman replied that was correct and that once the application was accepted as complete the Board could move forward on the issues of approving the plan. Abutter Katherine Kachavos noted that at the last meeting there had been discussion on the applicant showing the drainage system proposed. She asked if this was part of the Environmental Impact Study or if it was another item required for completeness. The Chairman replied that the drainage overview would be addressed after the application was accepted as complete. Interested party Betsy Whitman stated that she owned 62 acres on Cochran Hill Road on
which there was a beaver pond that more resembled a swamp. She noted that this pond was a habitat for many types of wildlife and feared that it would be impacted by the subdivision proposal. The Chairman suggested that when the re-noticing letters were sent out for the application that she return to state her case on the subject. Betsy Whitman replied that she would not be in Town when this was likely to occur and wanted to go on record with her concern. The Chairman suggested that Betsy Whitman write a letter to that affect so that it could be attached to the applicant’s file.
Douglas Hill reclaimed his seat on the Board. Don Duhaime needed to leave the
meeting, therefore, Mark Suennen remained seated as a full voting member.
DODGE, JIM (OWNER)
DODGE, WILLARD (APPLICANT)
Board to act on an application for a non-foundation structure to be placed in the Wetland & Stream Corridor District setback, per Zoning Ordinance Section 204.6, C, 4, b, Tax Map/Lot #2/123, Tucker Mill Road.
**note: word for word transcription**
The Chairman stated the office did some research about some of the minutes from the things but, anyway, we’re back. Willard Dodge stated…and if you recall the key to this whole, I believe to that situation was for you folks to review the minutes of past meetings which I have done and also I have cause to have you get a letter from Burr Tupper, Conservation department and the thing that brought to mind as I reviewed all these minutes and if you haven’t had time to do it the critical one for our discussion is probably December 12, ’06, but what is really critical about it as you read Burr’s letter when you had that large discussion two weeks ago after I had my hearing and it had to do with minutes and as you read Burr’s letter that’s very
critical to this discussion and it was not part of the minutes. It changes the whole scope of I think what you folks were considering was the right thing to do. Once I saw that which I didn’t see it until yesterday it made it pretty clear to me at least at the time it was considered what we wanted to do was within your parameters. Whether it’s the right thing down the road, if you want to change it another day, that’s another day. Right now that’s what the intent was at that time and it’s on the books right now as a permitted thing. The December 12th one if you have them in front of you, if you go to the bottom of page 1, the beginning of the last sentence, it starts off as “The Chairman suggested that a structure…” and you follow that over to the next page “…foundations for instance a wood shed on sona tubes should be able to encroach in the setback and the Planning Board should have the
ability to allow it…” Then you go over to the last page, page 6, again, still December 12th meeting and it says here I think it’s one, two, second line down towards the end, it says “He noted that the Committee could also consider the idea of allowing a structure with no foundation to be within the setback. The Chairman thought that this was possible but noted that even a barn on sona tubes might have an impact on the wetlands and should still, therefore, be subject to the Ordinance”. However when you add in all those discussions the critical part that Burr Tupper, who was very much involved in this Wetland Ordinance and you can remember there was kind of an agreement between the Planning Board and the Wetland Committee to drop back from 100’ to 50’ and I’ll ask you now if you haven’t read Burr’s letter to read that and if it brings it all into perspective that exactly what we’re trying to do is
exactly what was intended at that time. An even more critical thing here is we all are concerned and should be concerned about impacting the wetlands. In this particular situation there is absolutely zero impact on the wetlands with what is being proposed by putting in this pad. Now I also realize that there was a great deal of discussion about what was a foundation. I haven’t found anything or anybody I’ve talked to yet that can tell me that they consider a slab as a foundation and I talked to a lot of people in this regard who are in the business and nobody considers a slab to be a foundation, even building the modular home if you want to call it that or mobile trailer. On the application form for that, even they distinguish in terms of where this mobile home is going to set the first they determine is, is it gravel, is it a slab, is it a foundation or is it other and they put these in by the hundreds all over the place. Even they
distinguish it. They don’t consider a slab a foundation and I have not found any legal term that says what it is. We can speculate on some things. We can speculate on some things out of Webster. If there’s something out there I haven’t found it. The Chairman stated: Just so I make sure that I’m clear the sentence is “At the discretion of the Planning Board a non-foundation structure may be constructed within the designated setbacks specified herein”. Willard Dodge agreed. He stated that with any of these situations you had to go back with what was the intent at the time it was enacted and as Peter brought out to you two weeks ago, I believe he was Chairman at the time, what he thought the intentions were at that time and we all questioned…well…did he remember right or did he not so, therefore, you were all going to review the minutes. Well Burr Tupper who was on if you will somewhat the
other side of the fence made it very clear to what he thought the intent of it was at that time because he was involved in those discussions and if you through the minutes you’ll find that his name does show up several times but nowhere does it say the words that he’s put on that paper. Peter Hogan stated: I think what we did is we decided that to see exactly what it was we were looking to do by providing a buffer and by having no buffer what exactly was the concern that could happen and the concern is when you put a home or a building within the buffer you create significant ground disturbance. You disrupt the root base and most importantly if you’re going to put a foundation in as in a cellar hole, you’re going to put that somewhere and you’re in the middle of the woods and you have a 20’ X 20’ hole that you need to dig. The disturbance is not 20’ X 20’. It’s 20’ all around it and you have
your tracks sliding breaking up the root base. You have to take your trees down so you can dig and you end up creating a gigantic space in the woods where you dig because you have your fill and you’re digging and you have to have the trucks that go around and all that stuff. You create a huge disturbance. So then I rationed further that if you were to go in and you were to bore holes in the ground with a drill and set the sona tubes in there and set the building on top of that you could then have trees that are within 3’ of that building should you so desire so the disturbance is minimal so based on that there is no ground soil disturbance. There is no erosion control required because there is no disturbance and that would not dramatically affect certain wetlands depending on what they are. In this case the wetland buffer is a field that’s being hayed and run over with tractors. In this case it’s a concrete slab
that’s being poured which once again doesn’t require a 20’ perimeter clearing around the foundation and this is the type of thing that was anticipated that would be allowable because you’re not making such a huge disturbance and you’re not disturbing the ground and when the first one that was tried against it which was the Barss property…when Burr Tupper looked at that on the site walk…his opinion was ‘Yeah that’s exactly what we had in mind for waiving..’ because once again you didn’t have the massive disturbance required, you didn’t have the digging into the groundwater, so on and so on so although Dusty’s happened to be procedurally different I believe the same standards were applied to it which is: What amount of disturbance next to that stream and, therefore, in the setback is actually being done and we determined it to be little to none. The Chairman stated that ignoring the procedural
differences at this point is that the only other instance where we’ve done this. Peter Hogan replied “yes”. The Chairman stated that it turns out I was here but only in the audience. I think that was the first Planning Board meeting I ever attended. He asked Dave Woodbury if he was on the Board at that point for that discussion (November 28th to December 12, 2006). Dave Woodbury replied that the minutes would show if he was but he did not have a clear recollection and would have to rely on the minutes. The Chairman noted that Mark Suennen was not on the Board at that time. Mark Suennen replied that he was not even a resident of the town. The Chairman asked Douglas Hill if he remembered anything different, specific or otherwise. Douglas Hill replied that he remembered discussing specifically, barns, obviously we are a farming community and didn’t want to take away the option of, I think, temporary
structures. Now what I think of as either a temporary structure or an agricultural structure-woodshed, barn, that nature or one that could be moved in, moved out. He asked if what was being proposed was a temporary structure that could be yanked out of there at any time. Willard Dodge replied that all you would do would be to put three axles back on it, and drive it off. Douglas Hill stated that he wouldn’t consider that not being allowable in the wetland. If it was locked down on that structure all the other considerations aside I would say it’s not allowable but if it’s not permanent then because on the same side you could have someone who wants to put a travel trailer down next to a brook in the summer I think that’s completely allowable. I think that would be a shame if we were not going to allow travel trailers. They’re not going to be doing any major damage to the area. Peter Hogan stated that
Douglas Hill’s last sentence was the most critical part of his argument and that is damage to the area and that was how…before this thing went to Town vote, basically, it was said ‘We’re not accepting it as it is and the Planning Board’s not going to recommend it’ and they got a petition going on the Town at the store that people were signing on for and Burr Tupper and I had several conversations about what exactly we could do to make the document acceptable to the Planning Board and my feeling was we need to be able to waive things and I don’t believe in the fixed number of 50’ or 100’ or any feet because it’s a bogus made up number which, I could re-quote Jed Callen here where he agrees with the made up number part but it has to start somewhere and I wanted it to be variable so we that could look at this area. The Chairman stated: that is not the issue here and the issue here is this issue with the foundation and I
remember the whole discussion about the variables but it’s not, it’s 50’ so go back to the question about the foundation. Peter Hogan stated: …and so it was determined that it order to have what we needed, we needed to have the ability to look at the situation and determine that this wetlands in this project as long as it doesn’t disturb the earth through excavation, should be able to be put into the wetland. Douglas Hill stated that a slab was like putting a driveway in. It was like an impervious soil and those are allowed. Peter Hogan stated that was exactly the point. Willard Dodge stated: If I might remind the Board, you just listened to somebody talk about doing a 200’ driveway, (which he hoped would never pass), through a wetland and we are not even touching the wetland nor are we going to impact it because it’s a level flat spot well grassed over which will not be disturbed other than that exact pad. Douglas Hill stated that it actually was less impact than a driveway
because you were hitting virgin ground 4” and you’re stopping. A driveway, you’re actually taking that soil out and you’re putting new soil in. Peter Hogan stated that that was exactly the point. Willard Dodge stated: Not that it means a thing to this Board, I fully understand, but I can tell you right now, God willing my sister lives a long time but once she leaves this area we have both agreed that trailer is out of there. Again that’s nothing that means anything to you but just so you know that. Mark Suennen added that if you wanted to consider it non-permanent then when you take the trailer out so goes the foundation, so goes the slab. Dave Woodbury stated that he was a little confused now as he thought they were talking a modular home two weeks ago and now it seems we’re talking about a mobile home. Willard Dodge stated that obviously it was a play on words but it is in fact what they call it now a
mobile home, they look like a little mini ranch house, if you remember I showed you the example picture two weeks ago but when it’s plonked down there and you put skirts around it that’s exactly what it looks like. It comes in on wheels and it will be 13’4” wide, 56’ long, they actually take the pole off slide it under the trailer, put the skirt around it… Douglas Hill stated that Willard Dodge could actually yank it out on wheels. Willard Dodge stated that he could back it up to his truck and drive it out of there. Douglas Hill stated that it was then a mobile home. Willard Dodge replied: Exactly. He added that they even talked about that at the dealership where when they do what you said a modular home they require it to go on a foundation. This they do not. They even provide me with a diagram of the pad and how it has to be done in terms of the widths and the depths and those kind of things.
Dave Woodbury stated that we probably don’t get many mobile homes per se. We get petitions for temporary mobile homes but I don’t know that I’ve ever seen one for more or less a permanent mobile home on a slab. He asked the Coordinator if we had seen this before coming in. The Chairman stated that the Coordinator should ignore the issue of the wetlands for the moment when responding. The Coordinator replied that they were all over the place. They’re permitted as any other building and you could put a mobile home on any lot in Town with a Building Permit. Willard Dodge stated: You’re talking about affordable housing David, I think you’re going to see more of this because it is very much affordable as long as you have a piece of land. It’s on wheels. They back it in on the truck, take the axles off, take it back with them. If you want to move it the axles come back in and down the
road it goes. Dave Woodbury stated that this cleared up something that wasn’t clear to him last time. The Chairman asked, procedurally, just for a second, is this an application? The Coordinator replied: yes. The Chairman stated that we don’t have an application, we don’t have a form…The Coordinator replied that we don’t have a form for it, we haven’t received a written request for anything but by virtue of having it listed on the agenda and having it verbally requested it’s a request for action on their application. The Chairman stated that if we crafted a motion with whatever caveats….can you put something in it that says when the trailer goes away the pad has to be picked up? The Coordinator replied: yes. The Chairman stated that if we do our motion with whatever things we agreed and it’s voted on then that’s an outcome of what we’re doing here. The Coordinator
replied yes. Dave Woodbury stated that one question he would have is, are we limiting this to a particular unit. Mobile homes have a life span. When this one is through are we going to have a continuous series of mobile homes on this property. Willard Dodge replied: Mr. Chairman, if this helps your thoughts at all David, I have looked at the structure of how these things are made now. They’re made as well as any other house believe it or not, 2” X 6” framing. This trailer will certainly outlast our lifetime which means my sister who’s older than I am. I have no idea how old she’ll live to be. They’re very extremely well built today by code. They have to be. Things have changed from what you and I were brought up with. Dave Woodbury stated: Then I guess a suggestion that when the trailer goes the pad goes with it makes sense since the trailer has a long life. Certainly
the pad would have a long life. Willard Dodge replied: Yes, I think that’s fair to say. The Chairman asked what the Board was motioning. The Coordinator explained that they were motioning to allow this structure to be placed within, as your phrasing it, non-foundation structure, to be placed within the setback per the Zoning Ordinance Section 204.6,C,4,b. The Chairman clarified that it was a 4” pad. Willard Dodge replied that it was 4” in the middle but he thought they wanted as much as 6” on the outer perimeters-shallow depth pad. Douglas Hill offered: “monolithic”. Willard Dodge replied that was the word the guy from MIT told him this morning. He’s a contractor at MIT as is the one who’s going to put it in. He added that they had a hurricane thing they had to anchor down-they had to strap it down. The Chairman clarified that without excessive amounts of effort you could get
it out of there. Willard Dodge replied that in less than an hour you could get it out of there. The Chairman clarified that it remains portable, when the trailer goes the pad goes. Willard Dodge assumed his brother was OK with that and Jim Dodge nodded in agreement. The Chairman asked if there was anything else in terms of how the construction gets done, protection of the surrounding area…Peter Hogan stated that its portability was irrelevant to him because we’re not talking about the structure, we’re talking about the pad. That’s the whole point here. The next thing is this approval is very specific to this piece of property because there are not less than 1,000 other properties that are in a wetland setback that would never get this consideration. This is a field. This setback happens to be a field. There’s no clearing of any buffer taking place. This is a field. It so happens that the
50’ setback is the field. The Chairman stated that because the sentence in the Zoning is so open I want to make sure the approval is done in such a way that it doesn’t open up lots of other interpretations if and until we do something to tighten it up. Peter Hogan stated the interpretation importance is the type of buffer that this foundation is being put in. What’s on top of the footing or the slab is irrelevant. The relevant part is the disturbance of the wetland and that’s what our Ordinance was crafted to protect, was to protect the environment, what’s on top is irrelevant. The Chairman stated that to you (Peter Hogan) it’s irrelevant, to me I think it’s important so if it doesn’t matter to you it does matter to me. Peter Hogan stated that while the portability matters a lot that’s irrelevant. We’re protecting the land. The only impact on the land is the soil disturbance. That’s what we’re seeking to protect, is the soil. The Chairman stated that if next week someone
comes in, same situation they want to put down a slab and then they want to build a permanent structure on top of it you wouldn’t have an issue with it. Peter Hogan replied: None, and that’s exactly what our Ordinance says and that’s exactly what Doug (Douglas Hill) said. It has to do with the disturbance of the soil. That’s what wetland science and that’s what a wetland setback is designed to protect. The Chairman asked Peter Hogan what the wording of his motion was to approve this. Peter Hogan replied: Exactly what you said, just no reference to the portability of the building and should the building be removed I agree that the foundation needs to be removed as well but I have no issue with a permanent…I don’t think you can get a Building Permit to build on top of a slab for one thing so I think that takes care of itself. Douglas Hill noted that you could. Peter Hogan stated: You can?
Douglas Hill explained that you could do a garage. Peter Hogan stated that it would be a garage and that was one of the things that we were not looking to prohibit, was a garage within the setback. Again, certain wetlands, not all of them. There’s a lot of 50’ buffers that plain old don’t qualify for anything. This one just happens to. The Chairman asked if there was a way to work that into the acceptance, something like a little CUP where you sort of have to answer these 4 questions, because again, the thing I want to be careful of is that we don’t establish a precedent that says you can put a slab down within 50’ because you’re not disturbing. You’re saying there’s this other aspect of it so I think that should somehow be captured in what it is we’re approving so that we’re not setting a precedent that we don’t want to be. Peter Hogan clarified that there was no tree
disturbance, correct? Willard Dodge replied that trees, bushes, stones, everything will be still a minimum of 25’ away from this pad and in between there is solid grass. Peter Hogan stated that there were not many wetland setbacks that could do that. Douglas Hill stated that basically that we’re not saying a slab is a foundation. Peter Hogan replied: Right, and this is only being accepted because of its unique case really in the fact that it’s a field. The Chairman replied: Yes, I know but the thing is someone comes in tomorrow with their unique case and then someone comes in tomorrow with their unique case and that’s the thing I’m trying to avoid. Peter Hogan asked how you would put a slab in a bunch of trees or wetland setback you know what I mean. The Chairman clarified that there would be no disturbance of the surrounding area. Willard Dodge replied that not other than what’s immediately where
the slab is. Anything that is disturbed in that immediate proximity will be grassed in again. Peter Hogan stated: Because, for the record, this is in the middle of a field and that’s important because as I said there’s a lot of wetlands, there’s a lot of setbacks that this can’t happen in and I’m going to venture to say that the majority of them cannot.
The Chairman stated that at the risk of regretting this was there anyone in the audience that has something they want to add to this discussion before we do something as a Board. There were no comments. Dave Woodbury stated that for himself the essence of the situation we have here tonight is the easy portability and essentially temporary nature of this structure and I think that’s what the Ordinance is intending to work toward, is allowing discretion when you have an essentially temporary as well as non-invasive structure. So I think had this been for example, a garage with a stick building bolted right down to it, that it would be a distinguishing feature to me that this project doesn’t have. It’s the easy quick removability of not only the
structure but of the slab underneath it. The Chairman agreed. He noted that if this was put into the approval (being a non-permanent structure) he assumed Willard Dodge would have no issue. Willard
Dodge replied that he would not as long as his sister could live there as long as her life lasted he would not. Mark Suennen offered language for the approval:
Whereas the proposed manufactured home is to be placed on a cleared field which coincides with a 50' wetland setback, and whereas the proposed manufactured home is portable and when removed the slab on which the structure is to be placed shall be removed and returned to its previous condition, Mark Suennen MOVED that the proposed non-foundation structure may be installed as described by the site plan submission of November 25, 2008.
Peter Hogan stated that we are going to subject ourselves to the interpretation of the Building Inspector when the wheels come off that it is no longer portable and, therefore, not allowable. Mark Suennen replied that in the same way that we allowed the Dodge farm stand to be considered portable. Peter Hogan replied that it still has wheels. Jim Dodge stated that in his opinion the Building Inspector has no jurisdiction here because this is Federally controlled. Peter Hogan stated that in our motion we are say that it’s portable and movable. Dave Woodbury stated that he would say our motion and positive vote would trump the Building Inspector under these circumstances. Douglas Hill stated that if they could get that thing in and out of there within an hour that was portable enough for him.
The Chairman recalled that that was the same thing they had said for the farm stand that in an hour they could pick it up and move it around. Willard Dodge stated that in this instance as you are well aware we still have to go to the Building Inspector to meet his criteria. Douglas Hill stated that you could call a tent portable but
you don’t have wheels on it. The Chairman stated that this worked for him. Peter Hogan stated that he would second such a motion as offered by Mark Suennen. He added: You guys are wrong on the portable part. I know that because I wrote it. So you guys are telling me what I dreamt, I mean, you guys are wrong. The Chairman replied: No, no, I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m not saying that the sense in the Zoning is saying what we’re approving, I’m saying this is what we’re approving and it prevents a broader interpretation of that sentence in the Zoning because someone can’t come in next week and say you authorized this permanent thing that’s bolted down…because that’s not what we did…and then we can deal with it but not have precedent
that makes it different. I’m not saying that’s what you originally thought back in November.
Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2008
1. Approval of minutes of November 11, 2008, with or without changes, distributed by email.
Mark Suennen stated that regarding the discussion on the proposed Zoning amendments for 2009, there was a lot of discussion about an Inkberry Drive driveway as a related example issue and he felt that this should be highlighted for future reference. The Coordinator replied that the Planning Department did currently have an indexing project underway and would make sure this was a reference item.
Mark Suennen stated that on page 22 of the above noted minutes there was a vote taken for an extension request by an applicant and after the vote the minutes included statements made by him as to why he voted “no”. He noted that he would like this reasoning eliminated from the text. Peter Hogan asked why. Mark Suennen replied that procedurally there should be no discussion on a vote after the vote. Peter Hogan noted that discussion did occur. Mark Suennen stated that this was a change he would like to see. Dave Woodbury noted that the original draft would still have the discussion so it was not as though it would be wiped from all record.
The Chairman clarified that the indexing request was a non-issue and the Board would now vote on acceptance of Mark Suennen’s amendments and the current copy of the minutes would be attached to the amended version.
Mark Suennen MOVED to amend the minutes of November 11, 2008 with the changes proposed: to link the section of discussion on proposed Zoning amendments of 2009 to “Inkberry Road” and to strike the discussion following the vote to an extension of conditions subsequent on page 22. Douglas Hill seconded the motion.
Dave Woodbury thought it was acceptable to explain a vote after the fact. Peter Hogan thought that once something was in the record it should stay there. The Coordinator noted that was a moot point because the original version of the minutes would still have the discussion and this evening’s minutes would contain the discussion about how Mark Suennen would have preferred the language not be included.
The Chairman called for a vote:
Mark Suennen and Douglas Hill: AYE; Peter Hogan and Dave Woodbury: NAY. The Chairman voted to break the tie: AYE; and the motion CARRIED.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of November 11, 2008, as amended with the changes proposed. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion. Mark Suennen, Douglas Hill, Dave Woodbury: AYE; Peter Hogan: NAY. The motion CARRIED.
2. Driveway Permit for Kevin D’ Amelio Jr., Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot # 6/41-2, for the Board’s approval. (drive-by prior to meeting for compliance)
Steve LaBranche, contractor for the above driveway, was present for this discussion. Peter Hogan stated that the side slope on the right side of the driveway as one walked downward did not seem to be built to plan. The Coordinator produced the As-Builts for the Board’s review.
The Chairman stated that there was a question regarding the side slopes but they were noted on the plan to be 3:1. Mark Suennen noted that this meant a 30 degree angle. Dave Woodbury felt that certification of the slope ratio was needed.
The Chairman next questioned whether the culvert size was adequate for the driveway. Steve LaBranche replied that the 15” culvert size was recommended by the Road Agent for all the driveways that had been constructed on Byam Road. The Chairman noted that the upstream side needed better finishing as it could wash out an area around the culvert. Steve LaBranche noted that there had been substantial rain since the installation of the driveway (July 2008) and added that it had not caused any erosion but if the area the Chairman referred to needed attention he could address it. The Chairman noted that the driveway had not weathered a spring rain season yet and maintained that the finished area around the culvert was not adequate. He added that if it weathered a spring season and had not washed out after
that it may be less of an issue but he viewed a 5’ gap between culverts at the driveway location and the neighboring one that he felt was created by water running down from Byam Road because the culverts were not connected. Peter Hogan felt a site walk was warranted. Douglas Hill asked if there was a CO issue for the lot. Steve LaBranche replied that there soon would be as they were dealing with a GMAC banking situation. He added that the guardrail needed to be addressed in the spring of 2009 but that he could bond for it in the meantime. The Chairman stated that the downstream side of the culvert needed better stabilization. Steve LaBranche stated that on the downstream side of the culvert there were rocks in place into an existing swale. The Chairman added that he thought there were no wet areas on the plan, however, thought he saw a pond at the compliance site walk. Steve LaBranche stated that there was always a wet area in the
front of the lot. He added that the Road Agent had signed off on the apron at the culvert.
The Chairman stated that his last point was that he did not feel the stump grindings used were adequate for permanent stabilization. Steve LaBranche stated that his engineer recommended their usage. Douglas Hill asked what was underneath the stump grindings. Steve LaBranche replied that it was loam. Douglas Hill asked if the loam would be seeded. Steve LaBranche replied that it would not be as no seed would grow through the amount of stump grindings being placed over it at 4” to 6” thick. Peter Hogan asked what percentage of nitrogen was in the stump grindings. Steve LaBranche thought it was 35% but depended on the tree material. The Chairman stated that he had researched municipalities with information on mulch/stump grindings and
in almost every case it should not be used on steep slopes, was a temporary stabilizer and needed upkeep. He felt that in the case of the driveways along Byam Road he did not think it was a good long term solution but could be considered until seeding established itself. Douglas Hill did not think that stump grindings as stabilization would work on steep slopes 3:1 or more and that the same opinion was offered by engineers through the online research the Chairman had done. Steve LaBranche replied that his engineer, Tom True, had informed him by letter that he recommended stump grindings for steep slopes and he was taking his word. The Chairman added that all the research into regulations and EPA information supported the opposite view. Steve LaBranche noted that mulching was different than stump grindings as they were thick and heavy. Douglas Hill still thought that this type of material could wash out during a rain storm. Steve LaBranche
added that the Road Agent had been skeptical of using stump grindings on other driveway slopes on Byam Road when he first viewed them but saw that they had not budged which was a letter in the file. He noted that there was some area of washout on a small portion of the driveway slope where they had run out of stump grindings, however, the remaining 3:1 portion of the slope was fine. Douglas Hill noted that on a new road mulching and stump grindings were not accepted, only growing vegetation for erosion control.
The Chairman asked if an area at the top of the driveway was meant to be a turn around. Steve LaBranche replied that it was not and was a staging area. He noted that the proposed guard rail would go all the way up the driveway when constructed and that he had discussed this with the Road Agent. The Chairman was not convinced regarding the stump grindings and felt a site walk was warranted. Douglas Hill stated that he would like to view the site and if he saw no erosion he would sign off on it but if he did he would not.
The Chairman returned to the note on the plan that stated any slopes over 3:1 would have a guard rail. Peter Hogan recalled that in the original discussion on the driveway he remembered that the Board was told the slopes would be 3:1. Steve LaBranche replied that the actual conversation Peter Hogan referred to regarded the driveway grade not making the 10% maximum grade and he had assured the Board that it would be less. The Chairman clarified that the guard rail would run from top to bottom including the top even though it was a flat area. Steve LaBranche replied that he had discussed this with the Road Agent and the guard rails were to run the entire length of the driveway including the flat surface at the top for safety. The Chairman clarified that driveways
needed to be 20’ from the property line. The Coordinator replied that 10’ was recommended. Peter Hogan noted that he did not think the 20’ specification was in place at the time this driveway was approved. Steve Labranche asked what bonding would involve if the driveway presented issues. Douglas Hill replied that an official legitimate estimate would be needed. A site walk was scheduled for Saturday, December 13, 2008, at 8:30 a.m.
Steve LaBranche stated that in regard to the culvert gap previously discussed he would connect the two if the Board preferred but noted that he had not built the other lot. He noted that he would like the Board to view driveways he had done a year ago to see that the stabilization with stump grindings was working (2 to 3 houses over from the one being discussed). He added that he had used stump grindings on his own property.
3. Discussion, re: driveway, Tax Map/Lot#6/40-5-1, Inkberry Road.
The Chairman stated that outstanding issues were the stabilization of the bank, piles of material on site, and the erosion on the left hand side of the driveway due to an incorrect runoff design on the right hand side as one looked up the driveway.
Joseph Cabral stated that there was nothing left to do on the driveway and that his house had been attached because of the Planning Board which led to the fact that he could not put on his deck and put in his driveway. He addressed Peter Hogan and recalled that he had asked him as they stood in his driveway at a previous site walk what he should do about the issues he faced. He noted that Peter Hogan told him: “It’s easy Joe, bring me a stamped As-Built and we’ll give you a CO.” He stated that he would in hindsight categorize that statement as a lie. He then addressed Douglas Hill and noted that he had stated the same to his fiancée and their friend who had also met with the Board on a previous occasion. He stated that he had done
everything that was asked of him thus far to no avail and that he had nothing left. Joseph Cabral added that when Brian McKenna stood in front of the Board at a previous meeting he had stated that the driveway would be “up in the air and ridiculous” if they were forced to alter the grade of the driveway and added that it had been a beautiful driveway before this issue arose. He stated that he had added the requested hay bales and silt fences requested by the Planning Board and in a letter from the Board had suggested that he check with an erosion specialist. Joseph Cabral noted that he had not only checked with an erosion specialist but an engineering specialist and a landscaping firm who told them stump grindings were the premier way to go because loam and grass would wash away. He did not think it fair that the Board tell him how to landscape his land. The Chairman noted that his research indicated that stump grindings were not suitable
on steep slopes and suggested that Mr. Cabral go online to research this further. Joseph Cabral stated that NHDOT and NHDES recommended stump grindings. He further stated that he was willing to borrow $500.00 from his father to offer the Town a bond for the driveway in the hopes of obtaining a CO to put an end to the situation. He felt that the matter had gone from political to personal and had to end. Joseph Cabral stated that he was just about broke and was originally told that a stamped As-Built would take care of the matter. The Chairman stated that one specific issue was that Thibeault’s plan for how the water was supposed to run down the driveway was not happening and was evident when viewed as it was washing dirt and sand down, collecting at the bottom of the driveway and would eventually become a drainage maintenance issue for the Town. Joseph Cabral reiterated that he had nothing left and his house was attached because of the Board
and if he had been able to pave his driveway the runoff issue the Chairman spoke of would not be occurring. He asked what they would do in his situation and added that he wanted to apologize to the Coordinator for losing his temper with her at the Planning Department on another occasion. Joseph Cabral stated that it had taken 49 truck loads of riverbank, 4 truckloads of sifted gravel and two dump loads of stump grindings to meet the Board’s 10% grade stipulation. The Chairman stated that the Driveway Regulations were clear in that the maximum grade was 10% for driveways and the issues that resulted related to fixing it. Joseph Cabral asked how he should proceed. The Chairman recalled that the last issue discussed was the amount of the bond. Peter Hogan stated that the Board was looking for the driveway grade being no greater than 10% and the slopes created due to that be stable. Joseph Cabral replied that they were stable. The
Chairman clarified that Joseph Cabral had stated that if the driveway were paved the runoff issue would be eliminated. Joseph Cabral stated that he saw no runoff issue anymore and that he would not let his driveway run into the street. He added that his neighbors supported him. Joseph Cabral added that he liked the stump grindings and all the specialists noted that material as the preferred method except for the Chairman. The Chairman stated that admittedly, he had not gone to NHDES or NHDOT when he did his research. Joseph Cabral noted that the Road Agent had walked his driveway last week and had a letter that noted he did not see anything wrong with the driveway. He stated that there was no runoff other than some silt but he put hay bales out to protect the culvert and noted that the Board had also said his apron was not paved, however, it had been paved for quite some time. Joseph Cabral added that he had taken Peter Hogan at his word
and gotten nowhere. Peter Hogan stated that he assumed there was a system when a driveway was adjusted to 10% they would stabilize the slopes at the same time and they did not do this. Joseph Cabral stated that half the roads in New Boston, Goffstown and Pinardville were greater than 10% and he understood the main issue to be emergency access but noted that he felt his old driveway would have been easier for a fire truck to navigate than the new one. He added that if a bond would fix the problem then he would get one somehow but he wanted the problem to end. Douglas Hill stated that he would be agreeable to taking the $500 bond for future erosion control, the As-Built, and a site walk on their agenda to see that the banks with the grindings were substantially solid. Joseph Cabral noted that if the Board looked at other examples of driveways along Byam Road that his contractor had laid stump grindings on then they would see how well they worked.
Dave Woodbury asked if $500.00 was an appropriate bond amount. Joseph Cabral replied that $500.00 was what it would cost to hydroseed the driveway. Douglas Hill noted that there was maintenance involved past hydroseeding on slopes until growth began. He stated that, speaking for himself, if he saw that the stump grindings were holding up the banks along the driveway he would be satisfied. Douglas Hill clarified that he had told Chantelle Barton if the driveway was at 10% bring us an As-Built and I’d be satisfied but the issue was that it was not at 10% and needed to be worked on which resulted in the issue with the side slopes. Joseph Cabral noted that 5 months prior Brian McKenna had come before the Board and stated that fixing the driveway to the grade the Board wanted would look ridiculous and at that point the driveway was beautiful. Douglas Hill noted that it was only the top portion of the driveway that had been the issue.
He stated that he would not be present at the site walk and that if the Board would accept his bond he would bring it down as soon as possible. He apologized to the Coordinator once again and the Board confirmed the site walk time and date for December 13, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. +/-.
4. Copies of construction services reports from Northpoint Engineering, LLC for Albert Lachance (Lull Road), Christian Farm Estates (Christian Farm Road), Vista Road, LLC (Hutchinson Lane), Locus Field, LLC (Kettle Lane), Indian Falls, LLC (Indian Falls Road) and Twin Bridge Land Management (Page Lane), were distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman noted that the reports were 3 and 4 months late and thought that unusual.
5. Memo dated November 25, 2008, from the New Boston Board of Fire Wards to the Board, re: Christian Farm Drive cistern, was distributed for the Board’s information.
6. Letter received December 2, 2008, from Kevin Leonard of Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Stuart Lewin, Chairman and to the Board, re: professional engineering services, for the Board’s review and discussion.
Addressed with item #7.
7. A copy of a letter received December 2, 2008, from Kevin Leonard of Northpoint Engineering, LLC to Gordon Carlstrom, Board of Selectmen, re: professional engineering services, was distributed for the Board’s action.
The Chairman asked if it was typical that, per the contract copy for renewal consideration as the Town Engineer, the client agreed to the fact that additional sums may be required for escrow to complete a project. The Coordinator replied that it was and that they initially came up with a plan review amount and construction monitoring amount and if they went over on their estimate they would come back and advise. Mark Suennen noted that essentially an engineer proposed how much cost per person per hour and however the Town paid them whether it was through the developer or Town funds that money got set aside and they drew their invoices from that. The Chairman recalled that when Northpoint came on as the Town Engineer there had been a question of whether their estimates were
coming in too high. Peter Hogan asked where the Town was based on their original estimate that he thought was too high. Douglas Hill replied
that they were at it and there was still work to go. The Planning Assistant noted that she kept track of all the accounts and Douglas Hills' was the only one that had gone over so far.
The Chairman asked if in regard to item #6 on the contract (Documents of Service) if the performing company maintained copyright even though they were being paid by a town to do the work. Mark Suennen replied that was correct because it was their stamp although it was sometimes a negotiable item. The Chairman questioned a clause in the contract that noted it would be the client’s expense for copies of said documents. Mark Suennen clarified that this implied a certified/stamped copy as it was signed in a different color ink. The Chairman stated that having nothing to compare since Northpoint had been the Town Engineer since he was on the Board, he would be in favor of recommending them for another year as he felt Kevin Leonard, PE, had done a good job.
Peter Hogan stated that he liked Dufresne-Henry, Inc., about six years ago but not what they evolved into. He thought Northpoint did not seem too bad but noted the Planning Department worked with them more than the Board. Dave Woodbury stated that he had not heard any complaints about Northpoint. Mark Suennen stated that it would be professionally unethical for him to offer an opinion about another engineering company since this was his line of work. Douglas Hill stated that he had originally pushed for them because they were a smaller firm and seemed very attentive and on the ball with the Planning Department. He added that his personal opinion in working with them as a builder was that the Town was their first municipality and he was the first project to go before them, hence their learning curve, which he paid for and did make a formal complaint to the Planning Board about.
The Planning Assistant had no complaints nor did the Coordinator. The Coordinator added that Kevin was always available for questions, came to many meetings at no charge to the Town and seemed eager to help make the Regulations work, offering suggestions for changes, etc. The Chairman asked if the rates for the upcoming year had increased. The Coordinator replied that she was unsure.
Peter Hogan MOVED to accept Northpoint, LLC, as the Town Engineer for the Planning Board for 2009. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion. Mark Suennen ABSTAINED. The motion CARRIED.
8. A copy of an article from the fall issue of Flood Lines titled, Low Impact Development, was distributed for the Board’s information.
9. The minutes of November 25, 2008, were noted as having been distributed by email for approval on December 30, 2008.
10. Discussion and clarification re: waivers for runoff increases per Planning Board discussion with Kevin Leonard, PE at the November 25th meeting.
The Coordinator stated that it was not clear at the end of the discussion at the last meeting how the Board was proposing to handle waiver requests for runoff increases and whether they would be handled on a case by case basis and forwarded for the Town Engineer’s review. The Chairman could not recall the discussion. Douglas Hill thought that the Board would seek the Town Engineer’s opinion if the runoff was close. Dave Woodbury thought that if the applicant wanted to bear the cost of having the Town Engineer’s opinion then that would be OK. Mark Suennen clarified that anything 0.01 he would call a rounding error and 0.02 should be looked at. The Chairman concluded that the Board would continue to call for zero runoff increase and if the
applicant wished to bear the cost to have the Town Engineer review their calculations to possibly gain support then they could do so.
11. Discussion, re: Planning Board goals for 2009.
The Coordinator asked that the Board please read the materials she had distributed on this in case there was time for discussion at the December 30, 2008, meeting and if there was not to please bring them with them for the January 13, 2008, meeting.
12a. Google research on stabilization from Planning Board Chairman, for the Board’s review and discussion. (distributed by email)
The Chairman asked that the Board please review this material before their site walks of Saturday, December, 13, 2008. Peter Hogan asked how the Board would prove that long term stabilization was intact with stump grindings as everything that he had read on it stated that it was the growth that was doing the stabilization and the grindings were merely helping to encourage that. He added that this was why grindings were treated with nitrogen, as the intent was growth and if there was not nitrogen in the grindings it would not happen. Peter Hogan noted that the Chairman’s research had enforced that grindings were not suitable for long term stabilization. The Chairman stated that he was surprised that the NHDOT and NHDES had not shown up on Google when he was
doing his research. From the audience, Willard Dodge noted that stump grindings were being used more and more now and were laid thickly where eventually something grew out of it anyway, however, if seed were under it it would never grow. The Chairman thought that grindings may be confused with wood chips. Willard Dodge noted that something would even grow out of wood chips over time. The Chairman noted that he had read in his research that a thin layer of grindings was spread until growth underneath took effect but would go back and clarify this. Peter Hogan stated that the issue was how grindings stabilized a slope and if something were to grow over time, fine, however, when first put down he did not think it would serve the purpose any better than grass seed. Willard Dodge noted that D&S Excavating had seeded and hayed along the back road of the 4H Fairgrounds last summer and although it had started to green in, heavy rains had then left
streaks in the loam. He added that later that summer they had put bark mulch down and it was still there even through heavy rains and eventually they felt the grass would break through so in their opinion seeding had been a waste of time. Willard Dodge stated that Tom Miller, resident and former DOT employee had commented that they should have used jute matting on the steepest slopes initially and they would not have had the streaking issue. He explained that the key would have been to pin it properly at the top of the slope so that it would not slide down. Mark Suennen noted that the State required that material on 3:1 or 4:1 slopes, however, it did need tacking over, for example, hydroseed. The Chairman asked that the Board read through the materials provided along with additional information provided by the Town Engineer (#12b).
12b. A copy of additional information re: mulching for stabilization from the Planning Coordinator and Kevin Leonard, PE, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
13. A copy of a memo dated December 5, 2008, from Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, to Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Mixed Use Village District Warrant Article, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that the above noted memo included the Town Administrator, Board of Selectmen and Finance Committee’s suggestion that the $5K not be requested as a Warrant Article this year.
15. A copy of a letter dated December 8, 2008, from Joann Albertini, 117 Byam Road, to the Board, re: secondary driveway on Byam Road, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Board determined that they would add the above to their site walk agenda for Saturday, December 13, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. +/-.
16. Discussion, re: 2009 Interactive Town Meeting Map.
The Chairman stated a letter from SNHPC asked that the Chairman enter in information about the Warrant Articles. Douglas Hill thought this was a good idea.
14. Distribution of revised Zoning Amendments for 2009 for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator stated that the Building Inspector had come up with the section to do with Temporary Uses and Structures, but noted that it should be reviewed by Town Counsel. She added that earlier in the day Russ Boland, Fire Inspector, had come up with suggestions for the Building Code changes to the Sprinkler Ordinance to require that a fire alarm should sound inside a building not just outside as was the current stipulation and that since that modification suggestion he had also included an example: “…this can be accomplished by attaching the sprinkler to the household smoke detector…”
The Coordinator stated that there was one amendment to the Flood Plain Development Ordinance because last year when the State sent down the list of things they needed accomplished they required a section to have reference to the Wetlands Board (changed to the Wetlands Bureau) and she had missed the last occurrence of it in that section and because of the way the Warrant Article was written she could not simply make the correction, i.e., it needed to go back on the ballot in order to have that correction made.
The Coordinator stated that the Small Wind Energy Systems Ordinance was the same as the Office of Energy and Planning model since Town Counsel had noted that trying to get a CUP process in place with Planning Board hearings would conflict with the Building Inspector’s procedures as he was designated by the statute to be the one who had to do certain things and also there was a strong possibly that the Board could not hold such a CUP hearing within his 30 day comment period. She summarized that Town Counsel suggested that they let the statute work the way it was intended and if anyone wanted to appeal the Building Inspector’s decision they could approach the ZBA. The Coordinator added that the tower types were listed as monopole, guyed monopole or lattice (truss)
structure but the Town’s Cell Tower Ordinance only allowed monopoles. She asked the Board what they preferred for the Windmill Ordinance. Mark Suennen noted that if the Town only allowed monopoles they would exclude certain manufacturers. The Coordinator distributed pictures of some examples of windmills she had seen on a recent trip to northern Maine.
The Chairman noted that the Board needed to agree on the wording of the Amendments tonight in order for Town Counsel to then review the documents in time for the next Planning Board meeting. He asked Peter Hogan if he was satisfied with the changes that had been made to the definitions for Automobile Service and Vehicular Sales and Repair. Peter Hogan replied that he would adjust a cross-definition: “…service station is not a vehicular sales and (should be or) repair…” The Chairman also suggested that the word “major” be struck. Peter Hogan asked if there had been any input (by the Small Scale Commercial Committee) on what a Small Engine Repair Shop should be. The Coordinator replied there was not. The Chairman asked if
Small Engine Repair would not work under General Service and Repair Establishment. Peter Hogan replied that it would not because it did not fit because of space and outside storage for things like watches, clocks, bicycles, radios, televisions, home appliances, not one of which was outside a garage. Mark Suennen disagreed as home appliances included things like washer, dryers, refrigerators and not many of those items could be stored in a garage. Peter Hogan stated that he would think that the Town would not want that to be in permitted uses along with its definition if they were concerned about the character of these uses and what overlays they could be in. Dave Woodbury felt that any use had the potential to be hideous. Peter Hogan felt that Small Engine Repair would fit with Vehicular Repair, Mobile Homes and Boats, for example, because the fact that they were allowed by special exception spoke volumes. He felt that Mark Suennen’s
comment was a valid point. The Chairman clarified that if Small Engine Repair was to be added to Vehicular Repair Facility if that sentence could be extended to read: “…motor vehicle, trailers, motorcycles, mobile homes, boats and small engine repair…” Peter Hogan felt that a new definition should be added for small engine repair facility and allowed by special exception. The Board decided that they would have the phrasing read “…small engines such as…” The Coordinator clarified that the wording could read “…Small Engine Repair Facility: enclosed establishment for the repair of new and used small engines, such as, but not limited to, snow blowers, chainsaws and lawnmowers…” The Board was satisfied with this wording.
The Chairman stated that proposed Amendment #2 was for Temporary Uses and Structures. The Coordinator explained that the old section referred to an old ordinance that was to be repealed that dealt with junk yards, signs and temporary trailers for houses. She added that in contrast to adding a long section regarding how temporary trailers could be used for construction or when one was building a house, the Building Inspector wanted to use language from code regarding temporary structures in order to have some flexibility since there were now a lot of rules to setting up of a trailer, therefore, he did not want to try and write something that would conflict with the Building Code.
The next item was Accessory Dwelling Units. The Board determined that the “R-A” District was allowable, an accessory dwelling unit should have: “…an independent address designation from the principal dwelling…”, and be 300 s.f. to 850 s.f. with no number of bedrooms specified. Peter Hogan noted that the portion of the ordinance that discussed not allowing any exterior alterations to the building and requiring additional entrances to be located to the side or rear of the building would not apply in New Boston as its structures would be largely located on rural lots with limited visibility anyway.
The Coordinator stated that she had tweaked #16 regarding secondary driveways to say that they were allowed if the 200’ separation was in place and asked if a shared driveway was proposed rather than using a secondary driveway would the Board require that the property owner file a new driveway permit for a common driveway? The Board thought that this should be the case.
The Coordinator stated that #17 had to do with meeting all other underlying Zoning District requirements. Mark Suennen suggested that the wording “…must be met…” be changed to “…shall be met…”. The Board agreed.
For item #18 the Coordinator asked if the Board would wish to allow accessory dwelling units (detached) in Open Space “R-A” District subdivisions, noting that acreage size was limited on these lots and density bonuses were already offered to developers for various reasons including providing affordable housing. The Board thought detached accessory dwelling units should not be allowed in Open Space subdivisions.
The Board returned to discussion of the Small Wind Energy Systems Ordinance and stated their preference for monopole type for the Windmill Ordinance specification. Peter Hogan stated that he would not want to exclude a lattice manufacturer who may, for example, put all their engineering into the generator that ran the system. From the audience Rodney Towne stated that he had some experience in this field and felt that open lattice towers tempted unauthorized recreational use and open truss (lattice) towers would need a method to secure the area around the pole possibly by fencing the area. From the audience, Willard Dodge also thought that there needed to be options for choices of poles. The Chairman stated that he would do some research before the end of the year to
see what manufacturers made what types of poles as there may not be an issue of choice. The Board determined that unless there was an excessive number of lattice manufacturers uncovered by the Chairman’s research the Town would likely stick with the monopole type.
The Coordinator stated that the model ordinance permitted small wind energy systems in all Zoning Districts where structures of any sort are allowed. She asked the Board if they were in agreement with this language. The Board decided to leave the language as it was.
At 12:05 a.m. Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk
| |
