TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of August 26, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present was regular member, Douglas Hill, alternates, Dave Teed and Mark Suennen, and; ex-officio Gordon Carlstrom. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were, Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, John Riendeau, Road Agent, Heidi Akerman, David Clukay, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Lou Nixon, Janet Nixon, Don Desruisseaux, Rita Young, Bob Todd, LLS, Ruth Trussell, Art Siciliano, LLS, John Ashworth, Gloria Chandler, Katherine Kachavos, Kim DiPietro, Paul and Donna Sheatler, Steve Hunt, William and Jason Lambert and Chantal Cabral.
Discussion, re: road standards with Kevin Leonard of Northpoint Engineering, Road Agent, Road Committee, Board of Selectmen and Fire Wards
Present for this discussion were Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering and John Riendeau, Road Agent.
The Chairman asked Kevin Leonard, PE, if he had come up with proposed language for the Subdivision Regulations regarding the changes discussed at the past meeting on road standards. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that he had decided to wait until after this evening's meeting but he did have the final typical details that would be submitted with the language.
The Chairman then reviewed the changes items that had been discussed at the previous meeting starting with item #1: Maximum Grade at Intersection. Kevin Leonard, PE, noted that this was -3% for 75’ measured from the centerline to PVC, therefore, there was to be no change in the measure but language clarification on the points measured to and from. The Chairman added that the Board was now just waiting for the final wording on this item.
He stated that on item #2: Increase Depth of Pavement, the Board was in agreement to increase the depth (1 1/2” wearing course of ½” or 3/8” super-pave and 3” binder of ¾” super-pave) and was now waiting for final wording.
Regarding item #3: Shoulder Cross-Slope, the Chairman stated that the Board had agreed to 4%.
For item #4: Typical Roadway Detail, Kevin Leonard, PE, submitted his updated version and recalled that Don Duhaime (not present this evening) had wished to see information regarding gravel sections. Douglas Hill asked what “…4’5” of bituminous concrete…” referred to. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that it was a reference to asphalt. He added that the submittal proposed 2’ shoulders and 4% cross slopes (1/2”/foot) and added that it was recommended that when installing guardrails the shoulder be extended in that area (showed 2’). The Road Agent stated that he agreed with this because if the shoulder was not extended where guardrails were to be installed then they would be at the edge of pavement. Douglas Hill
wondered how it could be ascertained where the guardrail was to be installed and would this mean that the 2’ extension would need to be all along a road. The Road Agent thought that it should be able to be on the plan ahead of time in most cases.
The Chairman moved to item #5: Minimum Cul-de-sac dimensions. Douglas Hill noted that in the case of the cul-de-sac for his subdivision (Christian Farm Estates) any large truck such as the ones that hauled excavators, could not successfully negotiate the cul-de-sac and would tear up the edges. Kevin Leonard, PE, noted that the cul-de-sac for Christian Farm Estates was 130’ diameter/100’ paving and the proposal going forward was for 150’ diameter/122’ paving, therefore, an increase of everything by 20’.
The Chairman stated that the next item was item #6: As-Built Guidelines. Kevin Leonard, PE, recalled that the Board had looked at his proposals for As-Built guidelines briefly at the last meeting and added that the Fire Chief had also reviewed this and believed he was ok with it.
Item #7 was Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Cisterns. The Chairman stated that this item had been tabled until the Fire Wards would be prepared to discuss it. Kevin Leonard, PE, noted that the Fire Department was had planned on hearing a presentation by Michie Corp. out of Henniker, NH, that offered pre-cast cisterns but there had been a scheduling conflict and the meeting had been rescheduled to September 8, 2008.
Item #8 dealt with Cistern Unit Price (Use Section IX-1.d). Kevin Leonard, PE, explained that the Subdivision Regulations referenced construction cost indexing which was a way to bring past pricing to current values. He noted that, to date, the bond value for a cistern was approximately $60K (proposed in 2003) and when this was applied to current day standards it fell short since future cisterns would be approximately $80K. Douglas Hill asked if this was strictly for bonding for construction, i.e., no engineering overview, etc. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that was correct.
The Chairman stated that the next item dealt with the Road Committee/Master Plan-Appendix B and whether the provided table on traffic counts agreed with the categorizations noted. Douglas Hill noted that the only difference was on the three types of roads where secondary and tertiary roads would stay at 12” sub-base while primary roads (>1000 ADT) would be 18” sub-base. He asked if the base would increase on gravel roads with their shoulder widths. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that they had not been discussing road standards based on road classifications but noted that a change he had proposed to a suggestion in the Master Plan was 22’ for tertiary roads (Master plan had 20’) and re-clarified intersection grades. He noted that in proposing 2’ shoulders he recommended a wider shoulder for primary roads and asked what the Board preferred for secondary roads (40-100 homes). Douglas Hill thought a 2’ shoulder was appropriate for that road classification as well. He asked the
width of Byam Road. The Road Agent replied that it was 22’. The Chairman asked the Road Agent if he liked the idea of 4’ shoulders on secondary roads. The Road Agent replied that he did. Douglas Hill asked for an example of a road with 40-100 homes. The Road Agent replied that Byam Road was a good example. Kevin Leonard noted that his initial thought was for 4’ shoulders before the Board had given input. The Road Agent explained that a problem with a road with 2’ shoulders was that in the spring the edges were soft posing a safety issue. Douglas Hill added that this could also be a problem on smaller roads but neighborhoods of higher density presented higher traffic volume and more probability that passing vehicles could traverse the shoulders. The Road Agent stated that this was exactly why he liked 4’ shoulders and added that even for lower volume roads they provided more support with regular
traffic volumes. The Coordinator asked what the case would be if a road was built expecting a certain (lower) number of cars, therefore, narrower shoulders and then in the future it was extended for a future subdivision that had higher traffic counts traveling on it. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that this was a problem and the foresight for future planning was not always foolproof.
Kevin Leonard, PE, stated that the next point to review dealt with the sub-base and upper-base for primary roads being 18” and 6” respectively and 12”/6” for secondary and tertiary roads and whether these numbers should be increased. The Chairman noted that information Kevin Leonard, PE, had provided from an example town (Bow, NH) stated that they used numbers of 6”/12”, 6”/12” and 6”/18” for the same road classifications. Kevin Leonard, PE, noted that these numbers were unusual for lower volume roads but in lesser traveled roads this was the case. The Road Agent noted that in speaking with Tom Miller the only place DOT did 12” crushed gravel was on roads with more than 4,000 cars per day and although
Bedford Road could be nearing that in the future it was not at that count yet. Kevin Leonard, PE, noted that in previous discussions, Don Duhaime had referenced this material measure for roads across the board. He added that the Master Plan called out specifications for primary and secondary roads. Douglas Hill asked Kevin Leonard, PE, his recommendation and if things should remain as they were in the Regulations. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that he thought 12”/6” was satisfactory for tertiary roads and subdivision roads. He added that it might not be a bad idea to increase the numbers in this section as traffic increased in terms of offsite improvements. Douglas Hill did not think that the Town would see any primary roads built in the Town for a long time. The Chairman asked the Road Agent if there were any other issues he wished to discuss regarding this matter. The Road Agent replied there were not. The Chairman
stated that this topic could then be finalized. The Coordinator clarified that she was not sure that the Board could finalize this without confirmation from the Selectmen. Douglas Hill replied that he understood and that he was only speaking in terms of making a decision on what to propose for gravel depths.
Kevin Leonard, PE, noted that the Master Plan mentioned that low volume roads could be gravel (< 40 lots), for example, small cul-de-sacs or 200’ common driveways. The Coordinator added that this was a proposal in the Road Committee’s appendix. The Road Agent noted that if this were written in the Subdivision Regulations then the recent extension constructed on Lull Road for an approved subdivision could have been gravel surfaced. Mark Suennen asked if the Master Plan referenced low traffic roads in relation to gravel surfacing as the Board’s recommendation might be that gravel surfaced roads were allowed for low traffic roads less than 50 ADT. The Road Agent wondered what the case would be for a long road with, for example, only three
houses constructed on it. Kevin Leonard, PE, added that Kettle Lane was a good example of a paved road that entered off a gravel road. The Road Agent noted that he was not a fan of gravel surfaced roads. The Board determined that low volume roads were to be paved or could be proposed gravel by waiver request.
Kevin Leonard, PE, stated that the next section of the index dealt with base/binder coats. He noted that the Board had agreed that a 3” base or binder to 1 ½” finish or wearing coat was acceptable with super-pave. Kevin Leonard moved to the next listing regarding cul-de-sacs and asked if the Board would prefer numerical values to be specified in the table of road standards or if reference to the typical details would be sufficient. The Chairman replied that he would like to see the typical details referenced as opposed to listing the measurements twice in different formats which would lead to mistakes and confusion. The Board agreed. The Road Agent thought this was a good idea especially since they now had set drawings that an applicant could
choose from.
The Chairman stated that next on the appendix list was the maximum fore slope with no change at 3:1. Kevin Leonard, PE, noted that the present wording in the Regulations was such that a maximum fore slope of 3:1 was allowed but this meant that 4:1 slopes could be proposed while the intent was for 3:1 fore slopes into the ditch. He noted that in the case of a fill situation or avoiding wetlands, you could put 2:1 slopes with a guardrail. The Chairman asked if back slopes beyond ditchlines would be 2:1. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that would be the case. The Chairman then asked if the next line item on the appendix, “Maximum Driveway Grade at 25’ at 3%” was referenced in all three columns. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that it was.
Moving on to cross slopes, Kevin Leonard, PE, explained that they would be equivalent to the minimum road crown. The Chairman asked about clear zones. Kevin Leonard, PE, explained that clear zones meant that there should be no obstructions that a vehicle could hit and cause damage such as a tree or pole within a certain distance of the traveled way. Mark Suennen noted that power poles were exceptions to clear zone requirements. Kevin Leonard, PE, explained that with new construction they placed poles in the right-of-way. Mark Suennen noted that clear zones were measured from the edge of the traveled way. The Board thought this was a common sense type of issue but agreed to note it in the regulations.
The Chairman asked about the next line item “Posted Speed”. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that this related to AASHTO standards. The Road Agent pointed out that speed limit postings were regulated by the State and in order to lower them on a road the State must approve it. From the audience, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that speeds could be lowered on roads and it was a process but had been done in Bedford, NH. The Board determined that the speed limit referenced should be 35 mph and this should be related to the design speed of the road. Stopping sight distance would be included based on this design speed also.
The Chairman asked the Board if they were satisfied with the table and items discussed. The Board was satisfied. He asked the Road Agent if he could bring his list of road classifications to the next meeting so that the Board could commence with discussion on that topic. The Road Agent replied that Brian Dorwart, Road Committee had the list and he was unsure if it was broken down by the new classification standards. He added that the Highway Department’s paving plan extended out a few years but with the increasing cost of asphalt the list would need revision. The Chairman stated that the Board could begin the next meeting with discussion on these topics.
The Chairman stated that SNHPC had noted that they were still waiting on items from the Road Agent to complete their traffic study of Bedford Road. The Road Agent replied that the last conversation he had with Tim White, SNHPC, he noted that he would meet with him on Bedford Road to view some issues but Tim had not attempted to contact him since that conversation.
The Coordinator wished to note that she did not think the Planning Board had any authority to reclassify roads in Town as this was something the Selectmen were in charge of. Gordon Carlstrom added that based on information regarding numbers of cars per day on roads in Town along with other items the Selectmen would welcome any recommendations the Planning Board forwarded on this matter. The Coordinator noted that any language the Board could come up with for the Regulations may also be helpful to forward on to the Selectmen. Kevin Leonard, PE, asked if the Town had digital maps of their roads as it may be helpful to color code them by classification for reference purposes. The Coordinator thought that one such map had been done for the Master Plan and added that she would also check with SNHPC.
Because there were absent Board members the Chairman next appointed Dave Teed and Mark Suennen as full voting members for tonight’s meeting.
CLUKAY, DAVID D. & AKERMAN, HEIDI L. Adjourned from 7/22/08
Compliance Hearing/NRSPR/Horse Boarding and Riding Stable
Location: Saunders Hill and Bunker Hill Roads
Tax Map/Lot # 1/12 Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicants Heidi Akerman and David Clukay . No abutters or interested parties were present.
The Chairman stated that a compliance site walk had been held the previous Saturday and the remaining issues from the last hearing and two other compliance site walks had been the manure pit shed re-design, check dams, three pipe drainage outlets and road sign along with stabilization of the edges graded around the barn. He added that he thought everything looked good and noted that Board member Peter Hogan had also gone out to view the site and had communicated via email that he thought all looked satisfactory.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the final plan dated 05/16/07, revised 08/13/08, as the plan of record and to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent and to approve the Non-Residential Site Plan Review for the operation of a horse boarding and riding stable on Tax Map/Lot #1/12, Bunker Hill and Saunders Hill Roads, owned by Heidi L. Akerman and David D. Clukay and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/ Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department. It is the applicant's responsibility to apply to the Building Department for a Permit to Operate/Certificate of Occupancy. David Teed seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill noted to the applicants that they should confirm with the Building Department that their business sign met the Town’s stipulations.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2008
1. Approval of minutes of July 22, 2008, with or without changes, distributed by email.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of July 22, 2008, as written.
Dave Teed seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Approval of minutes of August 12, 2008, with or without changes, distributed by email.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of August 12, 2008, as written.
Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. Application for Appointment to the Planning Board, received August 13, 2008, for the Board’s review and discussion.
In the interest of time the Board determined that they would discuss this item later in the evening.
4. Driveway bond release for Karen & James Roach, 15 Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/12-12, for the Board’s action. (Drive by prior to meeting-plan in read file)
Although no Board members viewed the site Douglas Hill reminded them that he had no problem with the grass growth from the previous inspection two weeks prior.
Douglas Hill MOVED to release the driveway bond held for James and Karen Roach, Tax Map/Lot #6/12-12, Beard Road. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
5. A copy of a letter received August 11, 2008, from Rick Martin, Right-Way Builders., re: Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 5/52, Beard Road, request for an extension on conditions subsequent, was distributed for the Board’s action.
Douglas Hill MOVED to extend the conditions precedent for Rick Martin, Right-Way Builders., re: Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 5/52, Beard Road to March 1, 2009. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
6a. Site inspection notes for 37 Inkberry Road, Tax Map/Lot #06/40-5-1, 37 Inkberry, for the Board’s review and discussion. (drive by prior to meeting)
The Board determined that they would address this item later in the evening with item #6b as the lot owner planned to be in attendance.
6b. Discussion, re: driveway Permit, Tax Map/Lot # 06/40-5-1, 37 Inkberry Road, for the Board’s review and discussion. (drive by prior to meeting)
8 A copy of a letter and amended site plan received August 11, 2008, from Claire and James Dodge, Dodge Farms, to New Boston Planning Board, re: minor site plan, ice cream and garden stand, Tax Map/Lot #5/21, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
In the interest of time the Board decided to address this item later in the evening and skip ahead to item #14.
14. A copy of a letter received August 1, 2008, from Joseph A. Foistner, Esquire of Seff Enterprises and Holding, LLC to Shailesh D. and Manisha Patel and the Patel Family Trust, re: criminal trespass and resulting damage to road pavement-Trespass Notice-Waldorf Estates, Phase III, was distributed for the Board’s information.
15. A copy of a letter dated August 15, 2008, from the New Hampshire Land Surveyors Association to the Planning Board, re: seals of professional engineers and land surveyors, was distributed for the Board’s information with the Coordinator noting that the Planning Board had never had a problem such as noted in this letter with engineers submitting boundary plans that should be prepared by licensed surveyors.
16. The Small Scale Planned Commercial District meeting minutes of August 11 & 18, 2008, were distributed for the Board’s information.
17. A copy of an article from American Planning Association magazine, titled Green Infrastructure Rising, Best Practices in Stormwater Management, by Steve Wise, was distributed for the Board’s information.
18. 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) and Twin Bridge Land Management (Paige Lane), were distributed for the Board’s information.
19. Announcement of the 33rd Municipal Law Lecture Series for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that if any Board members had interest in attending to please advise her. Gordon Carlstrom noted that this was a good meeting for new Board members to consider.
The Coordinator stated that SNHPC was looking for planning board members to be on the General John Stark Scenic Byway Council and if there was any interest to please contact her.
NIXON, LOUIS G., II & TRUDY M. Adjourned from 7/22/08
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Minor Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: 116 Lyndeborough Road
Tax Map/Lot # 7/58-1
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicant Louis Nixon, Janet Nixon and Earl Sandford, LLS, PE. An abutter present was Don Desruisseaux.
The Chairman stated that a site walk had been held the week prior. He noted that at the last meeting the Board determined that per the Subdivision Regulations the plan would need to illustrate that the proposed lot could support its own individual driveway before a shared driveway could be considered. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted on the plan areas that could be graded on the proposed lot that would accommodate an individual driveway using its 50’ frontage. He noted that to avoid this additional curb cub an easement would be required and the applicant proposed moving the existing driveway over enough to cut through a corner piece of the abutting property and use its existing curb cut. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, added that there were no major slope issues on site.
The Chairman stated that his opinion after the site walk was held was that he would not be in favor of this proposal and if the driveway entered at the property line he would have less of an issue, therefore, he preferred a second curb cut. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the precedent had been for curb cuts to occur on their respective property lines. The Chairman asked Mark Suennen his opinion. Mark Suennen felt that it was a neighbor versus neighbor/buyer beware issue and he would not be opposed to a shared driveway. Abutter Don Desruisseaux stated that he would prefer the applicant’s proposal of a shared driveway since there was also another lot being subdivided along the river on the opposite side of the road, therefore, 4 driveways in one close area. He added that avoiding another curb cut would be better for plowing and noted that if the applicant’s lot ended up with its own individual driveway the headlights of vehicles traveling
on it would shine right into the front windows of his home across the street. Douglas Hill noted that most towns preferred fewer curb cuts and New Boston seemed to want more which seemed to overrule common sense. He added that there were always extenuating circumstances and this plan proposed a decent design with no downside. Janet Nixon stated that she owned the abutting land on the flood plain and on the other side and noted that she put an easement on the flood plain versus the trail because she wanted access for fishermen and hunters to the land. In the same way she felt that adding another curb cut would inhibit parking for those who wanted to access the land for recreational purposes. The Chairman decided to poll the Board: Mark Suennen voted for a single curb cut; Gordon Carlstrom voted for two curb cuts; Dave Teed voted for a single curb cut; Douglas Hill voted for a single curb cut. The Chairman noted that there was no need for him
to vote as it was clearly in favor of a single curb cut.
The Chairman stated that another outlying issue had been the applicant’s waiver request for the requirement of an Environmental Impact Study which the Board determined they would wait to vote on until the site walk was held. He noted that based on the site walk he saw no environmental impact issues with the proposal. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the runoff calculations would increase as a result of clear cutting that might take place on site. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that because they were creating only a small new section of driveway the proposed lot would not trigger the requirement for drainage calculations because the ½ acre requirement was being met. Gordon Carlstrom wished to clarify that there were no critical areas on the proposed lot that
would require an Individual Stormwater Management Plan. The Coordinator asked if there was a potential for one if the house placement changed. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that there was not. Gordon Carlstrom asked if abutters names and addresses had been noted on the plan as this had been highlighted as a checklist item. The Coordinator replied that this could be addressed as a condition if the plan were approved.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to grant the waiver for the requirement of an Environmental Impact Study for the application of Louis G., II and Trudy M. Nixon, Minor Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: 116 Lyndeborough Road, Tax Map/Lot # 7/58-1, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill MOVED to accept the application of Louis G., II and Trudy M. Nixon, Minor Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: 116 Lyndeborough Road, Tax Map/Lot # 7/58- 1, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision, Land of Louis G. II and Trudy M. Nixon, Tax Map/Lot #7/58-1, Lyndeborough Road, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD;
3. Submission of an executed Declaration of Covenants regarding Common Driveway Easement and Maintenance Agreement for recording at the HCRD.
4. Submission of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application or recording of documents at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be February 26, 2009, confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
This will be an informational session for John Young to discuss change of use of Tax Map/Lot #16/18, 3 Valley View Road, from Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District to Commercial “Com” District.
Present for this discussion was Rita Young. She asked if the Board had any more input since their last meeting. The Chairman replied that he found the topic somewhat confusing. He asked the Coordinator if she could summarize a review for the Board. The Coordinator explained that forms had been filed at the Building Department at the time the Zoning Ordinance was changed from one district (R-A) to several (R-A, R-1, COM and IND). She noted that existing businesses at the time filed these forms which either grandfathered their use to use or to use the correct technical term, classified them as pre-existing non-conforming uses. The Coordinator added that the uses listed for the Youngs site were heating service, construction business, storage (chicken coop),
John Young Agricultural Consulting, warehouse for the apple orchard business, the residence and an office. She further added that there were no site plans filed or special exceptions granted because these were not required at the time. The Coordinator stated that tax documents showed that rental income had been coming in for the warehouse at this time also. She noted that the Youngs had said at the previous meeting that the warehouse on site was also used for storage for the hardware store and that while the proposed use would be retail the uses in the past were not retail in scope, therefore, the Board might be looking at the issue of expanding a non-conforming use and would need to consider this carefully as legalities could be involved. The Coordinator stated that the Zoning Ordinance stated that a property shall not be altered in terms of its use category. She noted that at the last meeting the option of a home business categorization had been
discussed and this could be considered if the resident of the property was operating the business but it would need to be secondary to the dwelling use and not change the character of the residence. The Coordinator went on to explain that other options could involve approaching the ZBA for mixed use, Commercial zoning (although that would mean no residence) and recommendation for a Warrant Article. She noted that now was the time for the Board to decide what the proposal was and advise on how to proceed.
Rita Young explained that there was a residence and a rental on site. Gordon Carlstrom asked if there was enough acreage on site to carve out a Commercial lot from the property and separate the residential property from it. Rita Young stated that the total acres shown on the plan were 5.073. She explained that the site was originally 2 lots and they bought the second lot and subdivided a piece off but later the Town informed them that it needed to be all one lot. The Coordinator noted that the Board needed to be careful with re-zoning proposals as if they offer their opinion it could be construed as spot zoning, giving preference to a land owner and she was unsure how such a scenario would be received if it went to a ballot. Gordon Carlstrom stated that the Board needed to figure out what
the Youngs wanted to do and how they would do it before considering any options. Douglas Hill asked Rita Young if they were working with an engineering firm currently. Rita Young replied that they wanted to wait until they had a better idea from the Board on how they should proceed. The Board determined that approaching the ZBA for a variance might be the most straightforward approach to begin with. Douglas Hill asked if there was a way to determine that a retail use was on site in the past if there would be any issue with the proposal as it stood now. The Coordinator replied that the details of the retail would need to be known and would not hold if the use had been discontinued for more than two years. She reiterated that the Board must be careful from a legal standpoint as well. The Chairman still felt that the path of least resistance would be for the Youngs to approach the ZBA and if that was unsuccessful then they were no worse off. Inversely if the ZBA granted a
variance, the Chairman concluded that the Youngs could then move forward with a site plan. Rita Young asked how they should contact the ZBA. The Coordinator stated that there were applications at the Planning Department and added that Laura Todd was the clerk for the ZBA.
LAMBERT, WILLIAM
Compliance Hearing/NRSPR/to construct a building for equipment storage and repairs
Location: Hemlock Drive & NH Route 114
Tax Map/Lot # 3/52-26
Commercial “Com” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. The applicant was not in attendance nor any abutters or interested parties. The Chairman then noted that a revised plan had been turned in with changes made based on discussion at the previous meeting. Both the Chairman and Douglas Hill stated that they had been to the site the previous weekend and previous day respectively and the rip rap had not been installed per plan.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to adjourn the compliance hearing for William Lambert,
NRSPR, to construct a building for equipment storage and repairs, Location; Hemlock Drive & NH Route 114, Tax Map/Lot # 3/52-26, Commercial “Com” District, to September 9, 2008, at 8:30 p.m. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
8. A copy of a letter and amended site plan received August 11, 2008, from Claire & James Dodge, Dodge Farms, to New Boston Planning Board, re: minor site plan, ice cream & garden stand, Tax Map/Lot #5/21, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator stated that the applicants were proposing to amend their site plan administratively and she wondered if the Board wished to have them to a meeting to discuss anything such as impact to abutters, etc. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the applicant was the sole abutter to the site but noted that the applicant could come in to explain his amendment, as this was common practice. The Chairman agreed. For the next meeting agenda ten minutes was set aside between scheduled hearings for the applicants to appear before the Board and review their proposed plan amendment (September 9, 2008, at 8:35 p.m.).
9. A copy of a letter received August 8, 2008, from Roger Stearns to New Boston Planning Board, re: home office, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that Mr. Stearns home office met the Town’s criteria for not requiring a site plan, which was no business sign, no employees, storage or customers coming to the home.
Douglas Hill MOVED to confirm that Roger Stearns home office be filed with the Town as meeting criteria to not require a site plan and have the standard letter forwarded for his information. Dave Teed seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill recused himself from the Board as he was an abutter for the hearing.
CLARK HILL TRUST By RR & 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, land consultant for the applicant John Ashworth and the applicant Ruth Trussell. Abutters present were Katherine Kachavos and Gloria Chandler. An interested parties present was and Kim DiPietro.
Art Siciliano, LLS, stated that the site was located on the north side of Clark Hill Road. He noted that deed work done by Ruth Trussell had combined both lots (#8/1 and 4/62) into the same deed/trust. Ruth Trussell clarified that Lot #4/62 had been jointly owned by herself and her son while Lot #8/1 was owned by her brother and herself. When her brother passed away she had decided to put both lots in a trust and she explained that there was now some confusion as to whether the two lots in the one trust were considered as one lot. Gordon Carlstrom asked the applicant how many tax bills she received for the lots. Ruth Trussell replied that she received two. Gordon Carlstrom clarified that this meant that they were viewed as individual lots. Art
Siciliano, LLS, asked if a voluntary merger would work in this case. The Coordinator replied that this was one piece of paper that would require the owners’ signatures and could be recorded at the registry any time, which the Planning Board was legally bound to accept. She added that the Planning Department could forward a template of the form if the applicant wished.
Art Siciliano, LLS, stated that the site totaled 74.85 acres in the “R-A” District with 12 lots proposed and had no flood hazard zones. He noted that 11 lots would front on Clark Hill Road and 1 lot with 85” of frontage totaling 12 acres would front on Dennison Road. Art Siciliano, LLS, added that all soils and wetlands had been delineated and were illustrated on the plan and that six of the lots were under 5 acres, and therefore, had obtained State Subdivision Approval. He further added that the remaining 5 lots exceeded the 5 acre minimum and that Lot #8/1-12 had applied and been approved for a wetland crossing under a driveway a little over 200’ in length. Art Siciliano, LLS, noted that test pits had been dug and data received. He
added that he had met the Road Agent and School Principal on site with two areas decided upon for a school bus stop, one in front of lot #8/1-6 with a paved apron requested for children to wait for the bus and another stop at the shared driveway between lot #’s 8/1-8 and 8/1-9. Art Siciliano, LLS, went on to note that Lot #’s 8/1-2 &3, 4&5, 6&7, 8&9 and 10&11 would share driveways and that Lot #8/1-12 would have its own individual driveway. Gordon Carlstrom asked how far off each shared driveway’s entrance it split into two driveways. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that the splits occurred at approximately 50’ to 75’. Gordon Carlstrom thought that two lots noted at the upper portion of the plan illustrated “stacking”. The Coordinator noted that there had been some discussion on stacking of lots for this plan at an informational session held previously but the lots Gordon Carlstrom referred to
had not been the issue. Art Siciliano, LLS, explained that Stormwater Management Plans had been submitted for 11 lots as some did not have the ½ acre buildable without critical area (lot #’s 1,2,3,6,7 and 8) while others did (lot #’s 4,5,10,11 and 12). Art Siciliano, LLS, stated that based on the Coordinator’s review of the plan he had added deed references, minimum area of the backlot, scales of location, abutters’ names and addresses. He added that no easements or deed restrictions currently existed on site. The Chairman asked if sprinkler systems for the homes on the lots would be part of the deed language. The Coordinator replied that in general a paragraph of how this language would be referenced in the deed was submitted and separate from the covenants and then the language was included in each deed as lots were sold.
The Chairman stated that he would rather hold off on considering waiver requests submitted for the various studies until a site walk was held. The Coordinator asked if the bus stop being considered at the shared driveway was intended as a pull off area for the school bus or just a place for the children to stand and wait. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that it was intended for children to wait and not a bus pull off area as it was considered safer for the bus to stay in the road. The Coordinator felt that there would be a question of how this area would be plowed since it was at the entrance to two driveways and such an area had never been designated in the Town before.
The Chairman inquired about granite bounds on site. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that these had not been figured out yet. The Chairman then asked why an existing stonewall that ran through lot #’s 8/1-8 and 8/1-9 was not being considered as the lot line. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that things would need to be altered since the applicant was trying to keep the larger lots in current use. John Ashworth noted that if there were “stacking” concerns for some of the lots then property lines could be shifted over. Mark Suennen noted that this could be considered assuming that the 50’ strip was maintained. The Chairman asked if stones from the stone wall could be re-used on site. The Coordinator explained that parts of the wall would
be removed to allow for driveways and it was always preferred that the stones remain onsite for re-use.
Abutter Katherine Kachavos stated that she abutted the site on the west side and it wrapped around her property at a right angle to get to Dennison Road. She noted that she had submitted a letter to the Planning Board explaining that she had a conservation easement on her property (except on the house lot) which restricted public utilities being run through and wondered if this could be noted on the applicant’s plan. She added that distance-wise it was shorter travel to run utilities from the Village area of Town than from the vicinity of her property anyway and was also concerned that utilities would be laid across Dennison Road. John Ashworth asked Katherine Kachavos if she had a power pole anywhere on her property. Katherine Kachavos replied that she did and
in order to do so a special consideration had to be executed in order for it to be serviced on her property. Art Siciliano, LLS, offered that if Katherine Kachavos could come up with some language she liked to note this desire on the plan then the applicant could consider it.
Katherine Kachavos next referred to a contiguous wetlands on her property that abutted one of the proposed lots and was a head water to the entrance of the Piscataquog River. In regard of this she preferred that the lots with these wetlands considered information regarding the hazard of using lawn fertilizers. Ruth Trussell noted that she was trying very hard to attract “green” buyers to purchase the lots and would be working with an eco-friendly broker. Gloria Chandler noted that her main concern was that the culvert that would be installed for the proposed lot across from where she lived be large enough to handle runoff from the wetlands as she already had erosion issues on her property. The Coordinator stated that there should be no runoff increases as a result of the subdivision
but this would be noted for the site walk.
Interested party Kim DiPietro stated that she was disappointed that such a nice large piece of land could not be put to better use since there was conservation land to the west and east. She added that a development located east of the site had put aside open space and this proposal with 12 lots seemed too congested given the surroundings. Kim DiPietro said she was also disappointed that the backlands of this property had not been considered for conservation since the proposal as it stood would allow for no access between conservation points on either side. She stated that she knew the Town had offered money to the applicant to have the site put into conservation and since this was not accepted maybe the Open Space Committee could be contacted. Kim DiPietro then
questioned the frontage measurement for the lot proposed on Dennison Road noting that she thought 200’ was the minimum requirement not 85’. Gordon Carlstrom explained that the proposed lot was a backlot, therefore, required less frontage. Ruth Trussell wished to note that she did have negotiations with the Open Space Committee and had never intended to develop the site, however, she now needed the profit from the proposed subdivision for the bulk of her retirement. She added that she was proposing larger lots to keep them in current use and had spoken with the Open Space Committee regarding a possible trail through the back of the site. She noted that they wanted all the property save for two lots and she could not afford to do that but stressed that she had tried to do the right thing given the circumstances. Kim DiPietro stated that she would think that land with open space would be of more value to the right buyer and added that she was
unaware that the applicant had offered to put a trail through the rear portion of the site.
The Chairman noted that a letter submitted by the PLC (Piscataquog Land Conservancy) had regarded the same issue as raised earlier by Katherine Kachavos which was to keep the wetlands on site in mind. John Ashworth requested a copy of this letter. A site walk was scheduled for Saturday, September 13, 2008, at 8:30 a.m.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Clark Hill Trust by RR & JH Trussell, Trustees, Major Subdivision, 12 Lots, Location: Clark Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/1 & 4/62, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to September 23, 2008, at 7:30 p.m. Dave Teed seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill reclaimed his seat on the Board.
SHEATLER, PAUL J. & DONNA M.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/4 Lots
Location: Bedford Road
Tax Map/lot #12/70
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Bob Todd, LLS and the applicants Paul and Donna Sheatler. An interested party was Steve Hunt.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the site was located on the west side of Bedford Road 1,500’ from Klondike Corner. Douglas Hill asked if the site was located before or after the beaver crossing on Bedford Road after you entered it from the intersection. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the site was located before it. He added that the site was in a low density area and in a matrix of larger lots and the proposal would decrease the surrounding average lot size slightly. He noted that the site was in the “R-A” District with some Steep Slopes and Wetland Conservation District Overlays, 1 mile from the New Boston Tracking Station and 3,450’ from the nearest cistern on Chestnut Hill Road. Bob Todd, LLS, added that the land was predominantly comprised
of Canton soils, a Group 2 soil considered good for development as it had no restrictive layers and was fast-percolating. He added that it was also considered Group B, a deep moderately well to well-drained soil which was good for a Stormwater Management Control Plan as it did not have a lot of runoff. Bob Todd, LLS, further added that the erosion factors were 0.24, 0.34 and 0.17 in the top soil, C layer and sub soil, respectively (with anything over 0.43 being a critical factor). He noted that one of the test pits dug had a refusal at 50” but he assumed this was likely from a random large radical and did not feel that the site was dominated by bedrock as the other test pits did not have this issue. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the seasonal high water table fell between 31” to 38” which meant that the soil was moderately well drained and the perc test yielded 4 minutes per inch (good soil conditions). He then focused on the pink shaded
areas of the plan which he explained were Steep Slopes greater than 25% and yellow shading being 15% to 25%.
Bob Todd, LLS, noted that a different tone of shading on the plan had been generated by a digital elevation model and also illustrated the remaining 15% to 25% of Steep Slopes.
In terms of affecting drainage Bob Todd, LLS, explained that a natural divide ran south to north toward a wetland and on the eastern portion of it the runoff headed toward Bedford Road while to the west it headed toward a major wetland and into Bog Brook and on its high point to the north and north east. He added that there were wetlands, open water and emergent marsh on site with the eastern side having a narrow configuration and running north into a big swamp. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the terrain contained short section of big slopes and the property was mostly forest with some clearing near the existing house and some timber harvesting done, the total acreage being 33.98.
Douglas Hill asked the proposed size of the lots. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that 4 lots were proposed: Lot #12/70 at 23.7 acres, 12/70-2 at 3.06, 12/70-3 at 4.4 and 12/70-4 at 2.27. He indicated the proposed driveway locations for each lot, noting a common driveway proposed for Lot #12/70-2 & -3. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the plan needed to show each lot’s ability to support its own individual driveway. Bob Todd, LLS, indicated that this was not the applicant't preference. Gordon Carlstrom reiterated that proving a lot's capability of having its own driveway was a Zoning Ordinance requirement. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that he had engineered plans that addressed peak runoff in excess, therefore, they proposed the use of bio-retention, infiltration
measures and so on to capture 100% of it. He added that the applicant had obtained State Subdivision Approval and no wetland impacts were proposed. Bob Todd, LS, further added that Driveway Permit Applications had been submitted.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the applicant requested waivers for the requirement of Site Specific Soils and Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. The Chairman noted that the Board’s consideration of these waivers would be tabled until after a site walk was held. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the Board could see a “clean” plan without topographies and just property lines and existing driveways for the next meeting. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this could be provided. A site walk was scheduled for September 13, 2008, at 9:45 a.m. +/-. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that lot lines, test pits and driveway entrances would be flagged for the site walk.
Interested party Steve Hunt stated that he was curious to know the proximity of the site to his boundary as it was not flagged and he was concerned about the damage that possible blasting could do to his well water. He asked if he should test his water beforehand. Douglas Hill noted that this did not fall into a Planning board requirement but he could not say what legalities might be involved in such a situation.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the application of Paul J. and Donna M. Sheatler
Major Subdivision, 4 Lots, Location: Bedford Road, Tax Map/lot #12/70, Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, to September 23, 2008 at 8:00 p.m. Gordon Carlstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
William and Jason Lambert were now present in the audience. The Chairman explained that they had missed their hearing time and were rescheduled to the next meeting. He added that the Board would drive by the site again as work was noted as not having been completed for compliance. William and Jason Lambert apologized for missing their hearing and produced pictures which they said proved that they had completed the work since the Board’s last viewing which entailed laying the rip rap in the noted area on the plan. The Coordinator explained that if the Board wished to consider these pictures in terms of confirming compliance then they would, procedurally, need to move to reopen the hearing. She added that if they wished to do a drive-by during the
week to confirm compliance they would still need to move to reopen the hearing and vote during the week but take into consideration that she and the Planning Assistant were in meetings for most of the upcoming week.
Douglas Hill noted his willingness to consider the photos as proof that the rip rap had been installed as required by the Board. The Chairman noted that the applicants had had three weeks from the site walk to complete this work and to have waited until the night of the meeting had wasted several Board members' time to keep visiting the site. The applicant apologized again but noted that he did not want to bring equipment back from a paying job for what would only be 5 minutes worth of work at this site. In the interests of agenda management, Douglas Hill stated that he would be willing to reconsider the compliance for this site plan.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to re-open the compliance hearing for William Lambert, NRSPR, to construct a building for equipment storage and repairs, Location; Hemlock Drive & NH Route 114, Tax Map/Lot # 3/52-26, Commercial “Com” District. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the Non-Residential Site Plan Review for the construction of a building for the operation of a landscape supply business and excavation company with equipment rentals & custom wiring cable assembly business on Tax Map/Lot #3/52-26, Hemlock Drive and N.H. Route 114 a/k/a North Mast Road, owned by William Lambert and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department. It is the applicant's responsibility to apply to the Building Department for a Permit to Operate/Certificate of Occupancy. Note: This compliance is contingent upon one member of the Planning Board verifying installation of the rip rap & if the rip rap is not in place this motion is
rescinded.
Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
6a. Site inspection notes for 37 Inkberry Road, Tax Map/Lot #06/40-5-1, 37 Inkberry, for the Board’s review and discussion. (drive by prior to meeting)
Addressed with item 6b.
6b. Discussion, re: driveway Permit, Tax Map/Lot # 06/40-5-1, 37 Inkberry Road, for the Board’s review and discussion. (drive by prior to meeting)
Pending Lot owner Chantelle Barton was present along with a friend. She stated that she was unsure how to proceed at this point. The Chairman explained that the Driveway Regulations stipulated that a driveway’s maximum grade be no more than 10% and it was clear to the Board at a recent site walk that although the lower end of the driveway was 10% in grade the portion beyond the stonewall that led up to the house was in excess of 10% and that an As-Built stamped by a licensed engineer was required stating that the driveway was 10% or less. He added that a second issue was the stabilization of the banks on either side of the driveway. Douglas Hill noted that upon viewing the site, grass seemed to be growing along the banks. Chantal Cabral commented
that there were several other driveways nearby that seemed even steeper in grade than her own. The Chairman clarified that the house lots she was referring to were approved with their driveway before the Town’s Driveway Regulations were in effect. The Coordinator added that the Driveway Regulations went into effect in 2002 and the steep driveways Ms. Cabral referred to were on lots approved in the late 1980’s, never built on and resurrected 10 years later. Douglas Hill asked the builder’s name for Ms. Cabral’s lot. Chantal Cabral replied that it was Steve LaBranche. The Planning Assistant asked if a Release of Liability could quell the issue. The Coordinator replied that the Planning Board was not the entity to address that. Douglas Hill asked if bonding could be considered. The Coordinator noted that if a temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued there was no guarantee that the residents would vacate the
premises if the driveway issue went unaddressed. She noted that bonding was an option as it would get the Cabrals into the house but they would need to give money to the Town to cover the cost of correcting the driveway as security. Chantal Cabral stated that they did not have the finances at this point to bond the driveway. She thanked the Board and left visibly upset.
3. Application for Appointment to the Planning Board, received August 13, 2008, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman felt that an applicant to the Planning Board should sit through at least one meeting before being considered. The Coordinator suggested that scheduling an interview might be appropriate. The Board agreed.
7. Discussion, re: driveway permitting process at Peter Hogan’s request.
Because Board member Peter Hogan was not in attendance the Board decided to wait and address it at the start of the next meeting along with item #’s 11 and 12 (below) from 7:00 p.m. after the Road Standards discussion.
11. Suggestions for Changes to Planning Board Stuff by Stu Lewin, for the Board’s review and discussion.
12. So You Have An Approved Plan…Frequently Asked Questions, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Board decided that rather than wait until the end of a meeting when everyone was tired they would like to address these items as noted above for Misc. Bus. item #7.
10a. A copy of a letter dated July 10, 2008, to Geoffrey Katz, re: 3 River Road, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Addressed with 10b.
10b. A copy of a letter received August 6, 2008, from Geoffrey Katz, re: 3 River Road, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that Masiello Real Estate had recently moved to the above noted address and there was no site plan on file for the building, therefore, the outlying question of whether it was approved for Commercial use. Gordon Carlstrom noted that there were apartments on the second floor of the building also. The Coordinator stated that hopefully the use predated Zoning as this would make it a mixed use and the last time a scenario like this was presented for this site the Fire Department was not in favor. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the mixed use topic was a good subject to revisit in the near future.
13. A copy of a memorandum to Stu Lewin, Chairman and Planning Board Members, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Housing and Conservation Planning Program, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that although the Town’s grant application had been denied there were items in the packet that the Board might be able to work on for Zoning on their own such as accessory dwelling units in detached structures. Douglas Hill asked if an existing structure was required. The Coordinator replied that she had information from other towns and in most cases a new structure could be constructed for the accessory dwelling unit as long as it was not as big as the principle dwelling. She added that she had a lot of information on this subject if it was something that the Board would like to consider. The Chairman thought that after the discussion on road standards was concluded the Board could address this topic at the meeting
following.
The Chairman and the Vice Chairman, in the Secretary’s absence, signed the Site Plan for Heidi L. Akerman and David D. Clukay.
At 10:22 p.m. Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to adjourn. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk
| 
