 |
TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of December 30, 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 Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, Willard Dodge, Brian Dorwart, Road Committee, Russ Boland, Fire Inspector, Bob Todd, LLS, Ed Hunter, Building Inspector, Ken and Keith Diaz.
Public Hearing on Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance proposed by the Planning Board.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He stated that the amendments consisted of several sections: proposed amendments to Zoning, definitions changes, update to the Commercial Use Table, adding a new section for Accessory Dwelling Units, adding a new section for Small Wind Energy Systems and changing of language for temporary uses and structures. He noted that the order would be to go through things with Board members first, an email from Jack Munn, SNHPC, and a memo from Dwight Sowerby, Esq., Town Counsel.
Beginning with the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments, the Chairman added that he had some comments of his own but asked if first there were any comments from Board members. Dave Woodbury stated that he recalled that the Board had not thought drive-through windows were appropriate for any commercial proposals that would come before Zoning but noted that the definition for “pharmacy” included a drive through window. The Chairman recalled having the discussion on the pharmacy and noted that the Small Scale Commercial had come up with many of theses definitions. He asked Don Duhaime who sat on this committee for clarification. Don Duhaime stated that the Committee had not felt drive-through windows were appropriate in the case of fast-food establishments
as they could tempt littering but that pharmacies and banks were acceptable. Dave Woodbury clarified that leaving the drive-through window as part of the definition for “pharmacy” was then not an oversight. Don Duhaime replied that it was not. The Chairman added that there was also the intent that having a drive-through window for a pharmacy would be helpful if, for example, someone had sick children in their car as this would enable them to not have to bring them into the pharmacy.
Dave Woodbury noted that there was a separate definition for “car washing” which seemed to be subsumed in “Auto Service Station”. He asked why there was a need for a separate definition for “car washing”. The Chairman replied that he thought of examples such as the towns of Goffstown and Merrimack, NH, where car washing facilities were not connected with an auto service station. Don Duhaime agreed that they had been thinking of the example of a separate entity. Dave Woodbury noted that the “Auto Service Station” definition did include these services as well so there was some overlap. Peter Hogan stated that there were two different definitions and that it was important for those who wanted a car wash or
auto detailing business that there was a separate definition and if they wanted to do both (Auto Service and Carwash) they would have to come up with some type of hybrid scenario in the Commercial District.
Dave Woodbury inquired about the definition for “Kennel” and asked if anyone who did not own a kennel but wished to breed their dog in their home would need to fall under any set of guidelines. The Coordinator replied that such questions often arose from residents who wished to breed their dog or had an unexpected litter and wished to sell the pups and they did not fall under any guidelines currently nor would they with the new Zoning amendment proposals. Dave Woodbury clarified that he asked the question in anticipation of the “disgruntled abutter” that might raise the same inquiry.
Dave Woodbury then asked about the definition for “Restaurant” which noted that food/ beverages were served primarily to customers in the building. He asked about outdoor seating options, noting that this could sometimes be an extensive option and wondered if it should somehow be part of the definition. The Chairman asked Dave Woodbury if he proposed cutting the definition at “…served food or beverages” and not noting the locale. Dave Woodbury thought that noting seating at tables might be a good idea. Dave Woodbury also wondered about an “October-Fest” scenario where all service was outside. Peter Hogan suggested adding “…on the premises…” instead of “…within the building…” Mark Suennen suggested “…consumed on the premises…” The Coordinator clarified that the definitions sought to cover sit down restaurants with waiters and also restaurants where patrons ordered at a window and returned to pick up their own food. Dave Woodbury wanted to clarify that someone with
outside seating proposed would not have an issue because of the definition lacking outside seating. Peter Hogan asked what the purpose was for paragraph #2 and what was sought to be prevented by including it. The Coordinator replied that the Committee had tried to encapsulate all types of restaurants by the inclusion of paragraph #2. Don Duhaime agreed and noted that even a MacDonalds or Burger King would fall under paragraph #2 although they wanted to discourage drive-through windows. Peter Hogan felt that paragraph #3 covered the non-preference for drive-through windows by stating: “…drive-throughs prohibited…” and thought that paragraph #2 could be eliminated as it was open for interpretation and have paragraph #1 read in such a way that the food/beverages/desserts were served "on the premises". The Board was satisfied with the changes suggested and decided to keep paragraph #1, with the amendment, delete
paragraph #2 and keep #3 with minor changes to the wording.
"Restaurant:
"1) An establishment that serves food and beverages and desserts primarily to persons located on the premises. seated within the building; or,
2) An establishment that offers frozen desserts, beverages and/or quick food service, which is accomplished through a limited menu of items already prepared and held for service, or prepared, fried, griddled or grilled quickly, or heated in a device such as a microwave oven. Orders are not generally taken at the customer's table, and food is generally served in disposable wrapping or containers.
32) In either any case curb side service is permitted for pre-ordered meals and snacks. Drive through service is prohibited."
The Chairman read a suggestion from Town Counsel’s letter re: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Changes to do with the definition for “Day Care Center”. Dwight Sowerby, Esq., suggested adopting the statutory definition for “Group Child Day Care Center”, and the Board agreed: "Group Child Day Care Center: A facility private establishment where tuition, fees, or other forms of compensation for the care of the children and as defined in RSA 170-E:2(IV)(2) is charged, and which is licensed or approved to operate as a day care center by the State of New Hampshire."
Douglas Hill asked how the Committee had come up with the 30,000 s.f. notation for a warehouse size as he did not think that was very big. The Coordinator replied that the Committee had decided to add the same size cap to such structures as was put in place for retail space so as not to concern citizens that “big box” type stores could be moved into warehouses if they were vacated. Dave Woodbury asked the size of a typical “big box” store. The Coordinator replied that 40,000 s.f. was the smallest for structures like small grocery stores that the Committee had seen, however, the Committee thought that for a town like New Boston, a 30,000 s.f. cap was more appropriate. Don Duhaime agreed and noted that he had researched plans for similar
structures. Peter Hogan asked Don Duhaime if the Committee was trying to limit any location for such structures or just specific areas such as the Village. Don Duhaime replied that the Committee talked more about topics like small grocery stores. Peter Hogan asked what the case would be for someone who applied for a 60,000-70,000 s.f. building divided into multiple smaller units of stores. Don Duhaime replied that he did not think it would meet the criteria presented and would be up to the Planning Board as it would still be all one building. Peter Hogan noted that such an applicant could make a small break in the roof line to separate the buildings to get around that. Douglas Hill offered that one Commercial lot could have 30,000 s.f. in total. Dave Woodbury noted that it was not clear if the 30,000 s.f. needed to be the entire building or part of a building and thought that there could be a case made for a 90,000 s.f. building divided
into thirds, for example. Don Duhaime noted that the Fire Inspector was present in the audience this evening and felt that he would not be in favor of such a scenario without the Town having city water or sewer. Dave Woodbury replied that this example might be a case for denying a larger square footage versus the Zoning language. Peter Hogan did not think that anyone would care if a 30,000 s.f. feed store went up in flames. Russ Boland, Fire Inspector replied that it would depend on where such a building was located, the exposure factors and that while sprinkler systems could be installed it may be cost prohibitive. He did believe that 30,000 s.f. was the trigger for area on Commercial buildings that required sprinkler systems but was not sure. The Fire Inspector noted that there were places that were better off in a pre-planning situation to let burn versus attacking with water as they could cause ground water pollution, however, these sites
were reviewed on a case by case basis. He agreed that installing fire sprinkler systems in buildings of the size mentioned could be a task without town water and sewer. Don Duhaime stated that he did not think the Town would be putting up a 90,000 s.f. building without protecting it and noted that the work done by the Small Scale Commercial Committee would likely be updated within the next 10 years, therefore, he saw it as planning for the immediate future. Dave Woodbury thought that if the intent was to prohibit buildings over 30,000 s.f. then that language should be included. Don Duhaime replied that they were not trying to prohibit anything just trying to be realistic and proposing something doable that would spark some interest for Commercial ventures like a small grocery store, office building or small retail. Douglas Hill recalled a small strip mall that was built in Weare, NH, and although that may not be something New Boston wanted, but those
stores were all attached and certainly over 30,000 s.f., i.e., 30,000 s.f. was not very big and for a warehouse he thought it would be small. Russ Boland, Fire Inspector noted that there were different code thresholds for certain buildings based on the public exposure. The Chairman was confused that “Warehouse” was the only definition without aggregate. Peter Hogan noted that “Retail Store” was the encompassing factor because it included shops, store and department store while excluding other options.
The Chairman asked the Board if they had any issue with Town Counsel’s suggestion in item #1 of his letter dated December 30, 2009, re: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Changes (Day Care Center) and they did not. He moved on to Town Counsel’s item #2: Extended Care Facility which recommended changing the title and definition to be in line with State statute. The Board had no comments and revised the definition as suggested by Town Counsel: "Extended Long Term Care Facility: A building or portion thereof used primarily used for the long term residence and care of individuals. persons who, on account of
(1) age or (2) physical infirmity, are unable to live by, or care for, themselves; included within this term are facilities which are commonly known as nursing homes, convalescent homes, This includes assisted living facilities, nursing facilities and residential care facilities, all as defined in RSA 151-E:2. and rest homes. Not included within this term are facilities which are commonly known as hospitals."
The Chairman commented that he had the same question for item #3: Hotel/Motel as did Town Counsel and noted that Town Counsel recommended combining the two definitions into one. The Board had no issue and combined the definitions: "Hotel/Motel: An establishment where guests are required to register where lodging is offered to transient guests for compensation and in which there are more than five (5) sleeping rooms."
For item #4: Research and Development Facility, the Chairman noted that Town Counsel recommended deleting the term “innovative ideas” as it was an undefined phrase. The Board had no issues with this suggestion and changed the definition: "Research & Development Facility: A business that engages in research, or research and development, of innovative ideas in technology-intensive fields. Examples include, but are not limited to, laboratories, scientific, medical, chemical, applied physics, mechanical, electronic, biological, genetic or other similar experimental research, product development or testing facilities. Development and construction of prototypes may be associated with this use but no facilities for
manufacturing or sales of products are permitted. Research and Development Facilities shall not produce significant amounts of hazardous waste. Best management practices shall be followed for the proper disposal of any hazardous materials.".
The Chairman questioned whether small engine repair should be included in the exclusions listed under “Retail Store” since “Small Engine Repair Facility” had been added as its own definition or opt to place a period at the end of “…for the sale of retail goods.” in the “Retail Store” definition and not include the things that have other definitions elsewhere. Peter Hogan questioned why the exclusions were in the definition. The Coordinator replied that part of the definition was a hold-over from the existing Retail Store definition. She noted that “drive-in service" should be deleted from the definition as the use was being deleted from the Use Table. Peter Hogan questioned what a “shop” was in the definition of “Retail Store” and thought this word should be deleted as someone could bring that over to “Small Engine Repair”. The Chairman thought of “shop” like Salzburg Square on NH Rote 101A, being smaller than a store. Don Duhaime suggested gift shop. Peter Hogan
liked “gift shop” versus “shop”. The Board agreed. Dave Woodbury stated that if the Board was proposing to end the definition at “…for the sale of retail goods” removing the exclusions of “drive-in service” and “free-standing retail stand” alluded to Sears drive-in service to get tires changed and hot-dog stands, carts like those at the mall that sold jewelry, etc. The Coordinator replied that this language was part of the definition that had come through from 1990 and “drive-in service” never had a definition, nor did the Committee understand what it meant, while “free-standing retail stand” was likely covered elsewhere as farm stands were covered elsewhere and hotdog stand would be under restaurant so to remove these from the language was not doing any harm. The Chairman noted that to leave them in would mean that a definition for them should probably be listed
somewhere else so it may be better to strike them, in his opinion. The Board agreed: "Retail Store: Includes gift shop, store, and department store not to exceed 30,000 square feet, for the sale of retail goods; and shall exclude any drive-in service, free-standing retail stand, auto service station, vehicular repair facility or vehicular sales facility."
From the audience Ed Hunter, Building Inspector commented that he would like to have “RV” listed under the definition for “Vehicular Repair Facility” and “Vehicular Sales Facility” in place of mobile homes/trailers as that was an outdated term. The Board agreed: "Vehicular Repair Facility: Enclosed establishment for the repair of new and used motor vehicles, trailers, motorcycles, mobile homes recreational vehicles and boats. No retail sale of gasoline permitted except as incidental to the repair facility."
"Vehicular Sales Facility: Enclosed establishment for the display and sale of new and used motor vehicles, trailers, motorcycles, mobile homes recreational vehicles and boats. No retail sale of gasoline permitted except as incidental to the sales facility. Outdoor display of new and used vehicles may be permitted." Peter Hogan asked if snowmobiles (engines) would be more appropriate in Vehicular Repair or Small Engine Repair. Douglas Hill asked if it was important. Peter Hogan replied that he thought possibly but noted that it could be in either and that type of repair facility fell under special exception anyway.
The Chairman asked if there were any other questions or comments from the audience or the Board. Mark Suennen noted that in the email from Jack Munn, SNHPC, specifically the last line on the first page of the email and the first line of the first paragraph on the second page, spoke to changing “hazardous waste” to “regulated substances”. Peter Hogan asked if the Town had a definition of “hazardous waste” before they opted to change it to what SNHPC suggested. The Chairman noted that the Town did have such a definition which could be found on page three of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance and Building Code Amendments for Ballot Vote handout. Peter Hogan stated that he might be more comfortable with the Town’s definition as
a “hazardous waste” probably did include ammonia, etc., whereas “regulated substance” did not. The Chairman stated given the work that the sub-committee had done he was not in favor of making changes all over the board if they were not necessary.
The Chairman noted that proposed amendment #3 was adding a new use: Accessory Dwelling Units and #4 was the definition and the rules that coincided. Peter Hogan noted that Town Counsel had pointed out that the Board did not have the ability to stop accessory dwelling units becoming condexes which had been the Board's primary concern. Douglas Hill noted that to condex one still had to meet certain Zoning requirements. Peter Hogan asked if an accessory building proposal required an applicant to go to the ZBA or Planning Board. Douglas Hill replied that they would need to go to the ZBA for a special exception. Peter Hogan continued that if, for example, he approached the ZBA to propose an accessory dwelling/apartment which needed a driveway
(200’ from the existing) he would be stopped in his tracks because he would likely be changing the character of the neighborhood. Without adding a driveway, the primary house might already have 4 parking spaces and the accessory dwelling would need two, again, the character of the neighborhood was being changed. Douglas Hill offered the example of a property owner who condexes but can’t meet Town Regulations by the lot, because of the need for a second driveway. Peter Hogan noted that condexing aside there was still the risk of changing the character of a neighborhood by the examples he noted. Douglas Hill did not see how adding two cars to parking changed the character of the neighborhood and that it was all based on interpretation. Peter Hogan agreed and felt that the specific language being used needed review because of that.
Douglas Hill asked Bob Todd, LLS, who was in the audience what his opinions were and how he thought the ZBA would react to this amendment since he was a member. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that he had not come to the meeting this evening to speak for the ZBA. He asked the Chairman if he could speak to the question. The Chairman replied that he could. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he had come to speak in favor of the amendment and did not understand the objections being made. He explained that condexing was a single building or duplex being divided into two units of ownership where the amendment regarding accessory dwelling units had to do with a secondary unit and whatever was done to the secondary unit was not allowed to change the character of the principal dwelling
unit as a single family residence. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that he could see where in certain circumstances the secondary dwelling unit might require additional parking spaces which would give the single family residence a downgraded appearance, however, that did not have to be the case. Douglas Hill noted that the parking argument did not hold for him anyway because a duplex was allowed in the R-A District now and that could mean many cars/parking spaces per lot on just about every lot in town. Peter Hogan noted that each of those “R-A” lots did not have to go before the ZBA and pass any criteria for the appearance of their parking spaces and that was his point and they may want to take the “abutter’s argument” away. He thought it important that the Planning Board give the tools necessary to the ZBA, i.e., criteria of whether or not adding an accessory dwelling unit to a lot would change the character of a neighborhood, since the
Planning Board would be the regulator. The Coordinator clarified to Peter Hogan that the Planning Board would have no jurisdiction over such proposals. She noted that all residences were required to have a minimum two parking spaces while no maximum was specified. Douglas Hill added that Building Code requirements would come into play as well. Peter Hogan still felt that the very subjective statement “…character of the neighborhood…” would still come into play and should be eliminated to solve the issue. The Coordinator noted that accessory dwelling units fell under a different level of scrutiny. Douglas Hill noted that there still needed to be a balance between allowing accessory dwelling units and dealing with the possible disgruntled abutter. The Coordinator noted that this was where Regulations came into play as they gave the footing needed to defend a proposal if necessary. Peter Hogan stated that while a
valid point, this was the exact system that did not work. The Coordinator noted that the language about changing the character of the neighborhood was in another section from that which was being discussed. Douglas Hill noted that the parking argument was also not strong because this could happen with duplex lots. He felt the Board was covered in the language presented but that the ZBA also had a lot of wiggle room to deny such proposals especially with a disgruntled abutter. The Chairman felt that the Board could revisit the language if needed once they saw how the process worked in reality.
Mark Suennen clarified that, in Amendment #3 (Establishment of Districts and District Regulations) the new use was listed as a permitted use but should really be a special exception. The Coordinator replied that was correct and noted she would change the language accordingly.
Douglas Hill returned to the subject of a maximum 850 s.f. for accessory dwelling units. The Coordinator clarified that this was the number the Board had decided upon at the last meeting. Bob Todd, LLS, questioned if 850 s.f., was enough room with mechanical space (heating, cooling, plumbing) included. In trying to visualize 850 s.f. in his own home he noted that it was not very much space for more than one person and likely would not allow for much storage and felt that 1,000 s.f. maximum would be more reasonable. He stated that a kitchen, dining room, bedroom and bathroom, along with a mechanical room and perhaps some space to store seasonal items, like grills, would be more likely to fit in 1,000 s.f. than 850 s.f. He noted that the minimum 300 s.f.
seemed like a good number for a studio apartment. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he had spoken to a couple of architects who unfortunately could not join him this evening but who agreed with the idea of 1,000 s.f. as the upper limit.
Bob Todd, LLS, move on to say that in item #11 (Section 404.3, Requirements/ Limitations, page 9) it stated that a licensed septic designer must certify a proposed septic system. He noted that such designs were allowed by “permitted” designers who were not licensed. He stated that the wording of this section read as if the second unit was being prohibited from having an individual leach field installed. Peter Hogan thought that mention of septic systems should be removed from this section since the Building Inspector would handle the details anyway. The Coordinator disagreed, noting that it was always better to include the requirements up front to try to avoid misunderstandings. She suggested that the language should be changed to a single sentence
requiring an approved septic system for the Accessory Dwelling Unit however such as system would be provided (either hooked to an existing system or a new system being installed). The Board agreed.
Doug Hill thought that the Board had already agreed on the maximum size for an Accessory Dwelling unit being 1,000 s.f. or more but if in fact the number selected was 850 s.f. he noted that he would be in favor now of upping it to 1,000 s.f. He went on to say that any unit would need mechanical space and a utility closet, etc., which would eat up space. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector, stated that typically a 30' x 28' garage with an apartment above may have 840 s.f. occupiable space, not including the garage below. Doug Hill wondered if it should be specified that it was heated space. Ed Hunter preferred the phrase 'conditioned space' since that was referred to in the Building Code. The Board, however, decided to use the term 'living space' as that denoted to
them that mechanical rooms would be excluded from the maximum size allowed. The Board also determined to increase the maximum living space to 1,000 s.f.
The Chairman noted that Dwight Sowerby, Esq., suggested adding the word 'single' before the words 'detached secondary dwelling unit' in the definition. The Board agreed.
Peter Hogan took issue with #14 of the proposed amendment that would require someone converting a single driveway to a common driveway to come in and get a common driveway permit. The Board agreed and could not recall why this provision had been included. The Coordinator pointed out that they had decided to include it at the last meeting. The Board determined that it really did not accomplish much and could be deleted.
Bob Todd, LLS, pointed out that this ordinance could allow Accessory Dwelling Units even in accessory buildings that were non-conforming, for example, too close to the road. He stated that on the whole he liked the proposal. The Chairman pointed out that all underlying zoning would have to be complied with.
The Chairman stated that in regard to Proposed Amendment #5 (new section 405, Small Wind Energy Systems) in his research, for most cases, wind energy systems could be added to a homeowner’s policy as an additional structure and because they were required to be far enough away from the property lines if they fell there would not be an issue. He noted that his research also taught him that the monopole style tower which the Board had been thinking about making the only choice available was, in fact, the most expensive option and the lattice style towers were the cheapest. The Chairman did note, however, that most tower manufacturers offered the different styles of tower so the Board's concern that if only monopoles were allowed in New Boston certain manufacturers
might be effectively prohibited from putting in a windmill was probably not a valid concern. He went on to say that the average cost of a tower would be ½ to 2/3 of the cost of the wind turbine. The turbines were approximately $25K, meaning the tower would cost between $12 - 18K. Peter Hogan thought that the site work for a monopole tower would be more expensive which the Chairman agreed with. The Chairman also noted that his research indicated that a monopole tower tended to be louder than a lattice structure due to the vibration of the turning blades resonating in the tower. He noted that he did not think it was such a big deal to allow the three types of tower listed in the model ordinance - monopole, guyed monopole or lattice - in the New Boston ordinance.
The Chairman noted that a bigger issue to him with the ordinance was that meteorological (met) towers were mentioned in the text but no details were given about the permitting process, removal process, returning the site to natural condition, timelines, etc. He noted that his research indicated that most homeowners do not bother with the expense and added time it takes to install a met tower because there are good maps available that show the wind currents. He noted as an aside that southern New Hampshire is one of the areas with the poorest potential for harnessable wind levels. The Chairman noted that the Coordinator had language from another ordinance that could be added to deal with the issues surrounding met towers and the Board agreed that this language should
be added. He noted that, in particular, he thought that a met tower should only be permitted for one year as opposed to the three years currently listed in the proposed ordinance. He thought that if you could not tell after one year whether or not it would be worth it for you to install a windmill then you should have to come back in and ask to renew the permit.
In Section 405.3,B,2, the Chairman suggested deleting the word "major" and instead requiring that all structure on the property be shown on the site plan. The Board agreed.
In Section 405.3,C, the Chairman suggested that the Planning Board should receive notice of an application for a small wind energy system from the Building Inspector at the same time that the abutters did. He noted that this did not have to be a certified notice. The Board agreed. However, the Board did not agree with the Chairman's suggestion that a public notice be made as the issue was covered by noticing the abutters to the particular site.
In Section 405.4,A,4, the Chairman suggested deleting the word "adverse" in the third sentence as the previous two sentences described how shadow flicker impact would be calculated and if the flicker met those requirements there should be no discussion as to whether or not the impact was adverse. The Board agreed.
The Chairman stated that he thought the towers as listed in Section 405.4,A,8,b, should not be allowed to be painted the stock color from the manufacturer but should be required to be painted in non-reflective, unobtrusive colors. The Board agreed.
The Chairman then noted a discussion about Section 405.4,A,11, which would require any ladders or bolts to be a minimum height of 8 feet off the ground and Rodney Towne had suggested that was not high enough. The Board determined that 8 feet showed due diligence for trying to keep the access out of reach and if anyone was determined enough to climb one of these towers they would figure out a way to do it no matter how high off the ground the ladder was.
The Chairman then noted Section 405.4,A,12, in which he thought the language should limit the amount of clearing needed for construction of the tower to the "minimum necessary" rather than "that which is necessary". The Board agreed.
In the Abandonment section, 405.5, the Chairman noted first that the title should be changed to include Discontinuance since that was also referred to throughout this section. He then noted that he had thought that 12 months was too long for a tower to be out of service before it was determined to be abandoned. However, he had since realized that the statute included the 12 month time frame so the Board could not change that number. He also added that there were two locations where the word "physically" should be added to the word "removed" for consistency throughout the section. The Board agreed.
The Coordinator noted that Dwight Sowerby, Esq., had included the recommendation that the reference to Building Inspector in the Abandonment and Discontinuance section should be changed to Planning Board to be in line with the statutory requirements. Dwight Sowerby, Esq., also suggested removing the reference to onsite consumption of the energy created in the definition of Small Wind Energy Systems since it was entirely possible that some of the energy would be sold back into the grid and not used onsite. Dwight Sowerby, Esq., had also pointed out that this phrase was not included in the statute which was another reason to delete it. The Board agreed with Dwight Sowerby, Esq.'s recommendations.
Peter Hogan stated that Jack Munn had suggested in an email that a proof of property owner's liability insurance should be a requirement of the application process. The Chairman stated that his research indicated that in most cases one of these structures would be added to the homeowner's insurance package for the property, and noted additionally that the towers are to be sited so that they cannot fall on neighboring property which would keep any damages solely on the subject property to begin with. The Board decided not to require proof of liability insurance.
The Chairman noted that there would need to be a re-hearing because of the changes made on everything up to now. Douglas Hill asked if time allowed for that. The Coordinator replied that it did and that she would be posting the legal notice the next day for the meeting of January 13, 2009.
The Chairman read the next item, Proposed Amendment #6 (Section 310, Temporary Uses and Structures): “Delete the existing section and replace with the following language: “A building permit shall be required for any temporary structure or temporary use. Such permit may be used by the Building Inspector and shall be subject to the provisions of the International Building Code and International Residential Code as it relates to temporary structures and uses”.” He noted that Town Counsel’s response to this was that the goal of the amendment was unclear to him and asked what structures/uses were being considered. He suggested the following language: “A building permit shall be required for any temporary structure or
temporary use that would otherwise require a building permit if such structure or use were permanent.” Douglas Hill asked for clarification of why this amendment was being proposed. The Coordinator explained that the old section referred to an old ordinance that was to be repealed which dealt with junk yards, signs and temporary trailers for houses. She added that instead of 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 the building code regarding temporary structures in order to have some flexibility since there were now a lot of rules to setting up a trailer and he did not want to try and write something that would conflict with the Building Code. She noted that Town Counsel was suggesting that if a permit was needed if the proposed structure was a permanent structure, then a permit
for the same temporary structure might be the way to go. The Building Inspector noted that that he wanted to firm up the Ordinance aspect in that the Building Inspector may issue permits for temporary structures. The Coordinator clarified that the language would then read as Town Counsel suggested: “A building permit shall be required for any temporary structure or temporary use that would otherwise require a building permit if such structure or use were permanent.” The Board and the Building Inspector were satisfied.
Public Hearing on Amendments to the Building Code proposed by the Planning Board.
The Chairman read the proposed amendments: Proposed Amendment #1, Section NB-2.13, Temporary Permits and Uses) “A building permit shall be required for any temporary structure or temporary use. Such permit may be issued by the Building Inspector and shall be subject to the provisions of the International Building Code and International Residential Code as it relates to temporary structures and uses.” It was noted that the language here would be changed to reflect the same language as just read for the Temporary Uses and Structures section of the Zoning Ordinance above: “A building permit shall be required for any temporary structure or temporary use that would otherwise require a building permit if such structure or use were permanent.” The Planning Board agreed.
The Chairman next read Proposed Amendment #2 (Chapter NB-5.4 Design) “Add a new section to read as follows: “8. In addition to #7 above, all sprinkler systems installed in the Town of New Boston shall upon activation sound an alarm within the structure that will alert the occupants. This can be accomplished by connecting the sprinkler system to the household smoke detectors.” Russ Boland, Fire Inspector, stated that this amendment had been proposed to require what most sprinkler companies installing systems in Town were already doing anyway but which had never been codified. He noted that as well as offering an alarm should a sprinkler system be activated due to a fire, it was also a very good feature in the event of an accidental discharge of a
sprinkler head where if no alarm sounded the sprinkler head could discharge for 20 minutes without anyone noticing. The Board agreed with this proposed amendment.
Public Hearing on Amendments to the Floodplain Development Ordinance proposed by the Planning Board.
The Chairman stated that this amendment to Item VII of the ordinance was to do with an administrative correction that was missed previously and involved changing the term “Wetland Board” to “Wetland Bureau” in order to keep the rest of the language consistent.
Douglas Hill MOVED to hold a second public hearing on January 13, 2009, to present the changes made at this hearing to the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code and to propose the amendment(s) to the Floodplain Development Ordinance as presented at this public hearing for a ballot vote in March 2009. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 30, 2008
1. Approval of minutes of November 25, 2008, distributed by email.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the minutes of 11/25/08 as written. Don Duhaime seconded the motion.
Don Duhaime noted that his name was not included in those present at the meeting but he was listed later as having contributed at the meeting so he was obviously there. The Coordinator replied that this correction would be made. She noted that she had a question about the minutes and the preparation thereof as discussed at the previous meeting with the Board. She noted that the minutes prepared by herself and the Recording Clerk were notes later approved as “the minutes of the meeting”, therefore, she felt that the Board was able to propose changes to the notes at the next meeting and that the Board’s charge was to look at the notes and approve them as minutes, otherwise anything could be in the notes and approved as minutes before changes were proposed
which did not seem right. Don Duhaime felt that this was what had been done in the past before all the issues had arisen about the RSA. The Chairman felt that the issue was that once minutes were approved a Board member could not go back, for example three weeks later and ask for a modification. The Coordinator agreed but noted that an amendment could be requested and included in the minutes of a subsequent meeting. She added that when the Board first reviewed the draft they were not really “minutes”. Peter Hogan stated that a Board member could never change their mind as the minutes were a reflection of what was said even if a statement was incorrect. The Coordinator replied that this was not what she was alluding to. She clarified that that the first set of notes should not be viewed as the minutes and that if Board members felt there were errors written in the notes, they could be checked against the tape, clarified and then
approved as an amendment. The Chairman explained that amendments to the minutes had to do with a Board member realizing an error between what was written versus what was factually stated. Douglas Hill noted that he understood Peter Hogan’s comment in that any statement made by a member that the member may wish he had not said should still be in the record because it was stated in actuality. The Chairman added that if minutes were approved and a Board member’s comment was later found to be factually wrong or, for example, someone else made the statement then an amendment could be entertained. Dave Woodbury noted that there would be a paper trail to the original set of notes anyway. The Coordinator reiterated that the first draft was a set of notes and until the Board looked at them and approved them as “minutes” they were still notes. Peter Hogan stated that the minutes had to be reflected as accurate even if a Board member
stated something that they did not mean. The Coordinator stated that she did not mean for her question to turn into a big discussion but wanted to clarify that the notes the Board read were not the “minutes” until approved as such. Douglas Hill asked why there had been a change in interpretation. The Coordinator replied that there had been confusion over a statement made by lawyers at a planning conference over there being no such thing as a “draft”. She added that, in her opinion, minutes were not minutes until the notes were approved as such by the Planning Board. Douglas Hill stated that he did not care enough to argue one way or the other and would go with what was preferred. Dave Woodbury felt that other areas of minute taking could be discussed but he did not think that was what the Coordinator was referring to when she brought up her initial point. Douglas Hill clarified that the minutes “notes”
were basically “open door” until approved by the Board as “minutes”. Dave Woodbury noted that any changes presented by a Board member would still need to be approved by the Board as a whole. The Board agreed.
The motion to approve the minutes of 11/25/08 as written PASSED unanimously.
6. A copy of a letter dated December 22, 2008, from Keith F. Diaz, to New Boston Planning Board, re: posting of CUP Bond #12/35-10, was distributed for the Board’s action.
Keith Diaz and his father Ken Diaz were present for this item. Keith Diaz stated that he had made a request in the above noted letter having to do with a small issue regarding the CUP security for a conditionally approved subdivision at 23 Arrowwood Road and that he had been before the Board about a year prior to discuss the conditions precedent and subsequent. He wanted to clarify the date that the CUP security was to be posted and noted that when the conditional approval was given the conditions precedent (which included the CUP security) was set for 1/30/07, was later bumped up to 1/30/09, and last year he and his father came before the Board as they had realized that the conditions precedent postdated the conditions subsequent, therefore they were all consolidated to one
date going forward to 6/26/11 to mirror the 4 year vesting statute. He noted that in subsequent correspondence with the Planning Assistant he got the impression that the Town expected the CUP security to be posted 1/30/09, however, he felt that the consolidation that was done should also include the CUP security. Douglas Hill thought that this security could be paid at the time the Building Permit was issued. The Coordinator replied that she needed to get the file to verify the date and to clarify the question presented in the letter. She left the room to get the file. Douglas Hill asked Keith Diaz what he was requesting. Keith Diaz replied that he would either like the bonding requirement date for the CUP to be consistent with the date for the vesting (6/26/11) or make it a requirement that he post the bond at the Building Permit stage, whichever was easier.
The Coordinator returned with the file. Douglas Hill asked if there was any legal definition that with one condition when a Building Permit was pulled that a new estimate be brought forward. The Coordinator noted that there was such a provision for Stormwater Management Plan securities but this had never been granted before for a CUP. She noted that the Plantier application’s CUP for a wetland crossing postponement on a subdivision, on which he had no intention of selling lots for any time soon, had been denied by the Board as the Zoning Ordinance required the posting of a bond as a condition. Keith Diaz felt that his own case differed since his conditions precedent and subsequent were consolidated to one date. Peter Hogan stated that because there was a
Zoning requirement involved there was nothing the Board could do. Keith Diaz felt that the posting of the bond for the CUP would coincide with the 6/26/11 date and felt that there had been some confusion on the part of the administrator. The Chairman noted that the minutes from the meeting at which the consolidation of the conditions allegedly took place did not agree with Keith Diaz’ explanation and because he had not been on the Board at that point in time he was unsure how helpful he himself could be in this matter. Douglas Hill recalled and clarified by the minutes that he had made the motion to extend the conditions subsequent deadline only. He noted that the Board had waived the ISWMP at that time also. The Coordinator stated that there was no reason that the Board, if they chose to, could not extend the conditions precedent on the plan (currently 1/30/09). Douglas Hill asked if this had been requested by Plantier as well. The
Coordinator replied that it had not. She noted that they had asked not to have to submit the bond until the time of the Building Permit. Douglas Hill asked if the conditions precedent were extended if this would push the CUP bond out. The Coordinator relied that it would and that the Board could make it a condition that the bond estimate would need to be revised at the time the conditions were fulfilled if they wished to do it that way. Peter Hogan told Keith Diaz that he would need to submit a letter to the Board requesting an extension to 6/26/11 and the Board could then make a motion based on the letter at their next meeting (for which Keith Diaz did not have to be present) before the current deadline expired. Keith Diaz stated that he would do so and thanked the Board for their time.
8. A copy of a letter received December 19, 2008, from Kevin P. Leonard, PE, of Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, New Boston Planning Coordinator, re: Shaky Pond Development, LLC-Technical Review Escrow, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Board agreed with the request for additional escrow funds to be deposited for the plan review and determined that the above noted letter could be forwarded to the applicant.
9. A copy of a letter received December 19, 2008, from Kevin M. Leonard, PE, of Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, New Boston Planning Coordinator, re: Shaky Pond Development, LLC-Technical Review Escrow, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Board agreed with the request for additional escrow funds and determined that the above noted letter could be forwarded to the applicant.
10. Information, re: Landscape Architects was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she could look into whether there were any other towns in New Hampshire that required these new details about landscape architects anywhere in their ordinances or regulations. The Coordinator replied that she would check.
11. A copy of a letter dated December 19, 2208, from Plan NH to NH Planning Boards, Assistance for New Hampshire Projects, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that if the Board could think of a project that they felt was worthy for consideration by this program they could make a request. She noted that in years past the Town had applied three times to no avail for Plan NH to look at the footbridge proposal over the river (between Parker Mill and the New Boston Tavern). The Chairman asked if the Small Scale Commercial Committee would be meeting before the deadline for this application. The Coordinator did not think that Committee would have anything applicable and noted that the types of design examples that this organization was interested in helping with might be things like a redesign of a main street, downtown parking, elderly housing and so on. Mark Suennen noted that he had participated on a
volunteer basis in one of these charettes in Franconia, NH, recently and concurred with the Coordinator in that the purpose was for a specific design-related project which could be for a road design, urban area or parcel of land quandary, for example, therefore, it was really for a design specific project, i.e. not master planning or development of regulations or architectural design. He further noted that in 24 applications submitted last year Plan NH had accepted three. Douglas Hill thought the redesign at Klondike Corner might be worthy. Mark Suennen noted that it was 16 hours worth of engineering only and that they would not go any further than NHDOT, i.e., pretty pictures and conceptual design. He added as an aside that Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, had also participated in the Franconia, NH, charette.
12. 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.
13. The Chairman reminded the Board that for the next meeting it would be helpful if they had some ideas regarding a list of Planning Board Goals for 2009.
14. The Coordinator noted that the minutes of December 9, 2009, were distributed via email to the Board earlier in the day for approval with or without changes at the meeting of January 13, 2009.
Peter Hogan wished to note that in the cistern discussion in the minutes of December 9, 2008, he recalled that audience member Jay Marden had raised some questions regarding the requirements for fire fighting protection systems, however, he did not see any mention of this in the minutes. Douglas Hill noted that he remembered that discussion. The Coordinator thought that this discussion was later in the hearing, possibly during the McCurdy Development or Shaky Pond hearings and asked that Peter Hogan check later in the minutes.
7. A copy of a letter received December 19, 2008, from Raymond P. Shea, Sandford Survey and Engineering, Inc., to New Boston Planning Board, re: Conditions Subsequent extension request for Tax Map/Lot #12/93-38, One Chestnut Hill Development, LLC, was distributed for the Board’s action.
Douglas Hill MOVED to extend the conditions precedent for One Chestnut Hill, LLC, in their letter of request dated 12/17/08, from November 8, 2009 and by the same letter request, the conditions subsequent to November 8, 2010, as requested in Ray Shea, Sandford Surveying and Engineering's letter of December 17, 2008. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
5. Discussion, re: Planning Board terms.
The Chairman explained that all Board member terms would be expiring this year and that it would be beneficial to stagger the terms going forward which would affect Peter Hogan, Don Duhaime and Douglas Hill since he himself was 1 year into three terms. Don Duhaime took one year, Douglas Hill, two years and Peter Hogan three years.
2. Driveway Permit for Kevin D’Amelio Jr., Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-2, for the Board’s approval. (Site Inspection Notes Copied Only)
The Chairman noted that a site walk had been held on December 13, 2008, and no one was present for the applicant. Peter Hogan stated that there was a 1:1 slope on the right side of the driveway as one looked up even though the applicant guaranteed 3:1. The Coordinator noted that the minutes of the site walk for approval of the driveway permit reflected that applicant, Steve LaBranche had stated that the slopes would be 3:1. Peter Hogan noted that the retaining wall was less steep than the fill banks. The Chairman noted that if guardrails were installed on the sides of the driveway cars would not be able to make it down because of the resulting width. Mark Suennen noted that the guardrails could be put wherever needed with the proper length of pole to get the
proper embedment, therefore, the guardrail should not necessarily limit the width of the driveway. Peter Hogan stated that, theoretically, Mark Suennen was correct. The Chairman noted that in looking at a normal guardrail pole length scenario it would be difficult. Douglas Hill asked if the driveway met 10%. Peter Hogan replied that the grade was ok but it would not accept one of the Town’s rigs. He added that if the driveway was sloped to 3:1 it would need closed drainage because there would be fill issues into any open culverts.
The Chairman noted that the plan stated 3:1 slopes and Steve LaBranche needed to address his plan. Peter Hogan stated that this was one reason that the Board needed to be able to hold Building Permits until a lot’s driveway was done, not paved, but approved. Douglas Hill noted that most driveways' grades were done at the point of the foundation being poured but a Building Permit was needed to do that. He noted that a driveway was needed but the Town was being very specific about erosion control, vegetation growth, etc., before driveways could be approved which was why he, as a builder, planned on bonding. Don Duhaime noted that they had been arguing about the driveways being discussed for three years. Peter Hogan reiterated that 3:1 was assured and
it did not happen, the plan was not met. Don Duhaime did not think that bonding should even come into play. Douglas Hill noted that the bonding had to do with stabilization not the grade. Peter Hogan noted that the plan stated 3:1 and no guardrails mentioned. The Coordinator noted that note #2 on the plan stated that driveways whose slopes exceeded 3:1 would have guardrails. Douglas Hill still thought that stabilization should be able to be bonded. He agreed with the stipulation of 3:1 or guardrails.
The Chairman noted other issues, such as the culvert at the top of the driveway needing a headwall to be finished as there was an issue with the volume of water coming through threatening to wash out the driveway. He added that guardrail was either needed all the way to the top or stone barriers would be needed on the 'parking pad' at the top and the rip rap on the downflow side needed to be addressed. Peter Hogan reiterated that he did not meet his plan. The Board determined that the applicant needed to be informed that he did not have 3:1 slopes on either side of the driveway, therefore, needed guardrail and this was not a bondable item. Peter Hogan added that if the applicant chose to do 3:1 slopes to meet his plan then he would still need to bond the
stabilization. The Board agreed.
Peter Hogan MOVED to deny compliance for Kevin D’Amelio Jr., Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-2, for the following reasons: culvert/headwall missing; guardrail at the top of the driveway for a parking area needed or elimination of the parking area; rip rap on the outlet of the pipe; no 3:1 slopes per plan, therefore, a new plan is needed to include the guardrails or 3:1 slopes; and, proper stabilization. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
4. Secondary driveway for Joann Albertini, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-34, Byam Road, for the Board’s approval. (Site Inspection Notes Copied Only)
The Chairman stated that some Board members were at the site walk briefly, however, the applicants were not, although this was during an ice storm event. He asked for clarification on the property location. The Coordinator believed that the uphill house from the proposed secondary driveway location was the house in question and this was determined to be correct from a review of the driveway permit application with attached sketch. Peter Hogan asked what trailers were involved as the request for the secondary driveway pertained to them. He did not think these were all horse trailers and that some looked like construction trailers. Douglas Hill noted that the applicants’ issue for requesting the secondary driveway was that they could not park the trailers
and plow their existing driveway effectively during the winter months. Peter Hogan stated that there were so many things wrong with the driveway that it was unbelievable. The Chairman felt that the applicant needed to review a copy of the Driveway Regulations. The Coordinator stated that two copies had been mailed but they could do so again. The Chairman stated that he could go see the applicant if she wished since he lived nearby.
Peter Hogan MOVED to deny the driveway application for Joann Albertini, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-34, Byam Road, as it did not meet a great number of the stipulations of the Driveway Regulations. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. Driveway Permit for Joseph Cabral, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5-1, Inkberry Road, for the Board’s approval. (Site Inspection Notes Copied Only)
The Chairman felt that the Board should focus on the area of the driveway where the slope changed midway down and there were erosion issues that could affect the Town road. Peter Hogan stated that the driveway did not have a chance, needed guardrails in several areas, was impassable due to deep ruts and an emergency vehicle should not attempt it. He noted that the side slopes were now 1:1 where the fill was placed to achieve the 10% grade and noted that the applicant was likely correct when he previously stated that the corrections made ruined his driveway. Peter Hogan added that the erosion control was not working and if there was no house there he would never get a permit to build one given the status of the driveway. He added that there was nowhere to back into
safely to turn around and exit down and he could not imagine what a bond amount would be. Peter Hogan recalled the Melanson driveway, although he had gotten some leeway due to the USGS maps being off when the land was surveyed. He reiterated that the bond amount was an unknown number but that Mr. Cabral should be made aware that he was responsible for runoff damage to the Town road, therefore, he was responsible to put hay bales or some form of stabilization to slow the water down and that, in his opinion, even $10,000.00 was unacceptable because it would imply that the driveway could be fixed for such an amount. The Chairman asked the other Board members their opinion on the issue. Don Duhaime asked how long a bond could even be held. Peter Hogan stated that it was an empty well and that the driveway fix made the issue even worse. Don Duhaime thought that two site walks prior he was very close to approval and asked how it went so wrong. Peter Hogan replied that it was the
fix to 10% that affected the side slope issue. Don Duhaime wondered if the Board was overstepping themselves as to how they required property owners to construct their driveways. Douglas Hill added that from a legal standpoint the Town could take all the bond money they wanted but there was no way a town was going to do work on private property. Mark Suennen asked what was being bonded, the lot driveway or the Town infrastructure as bond money could be put toward building, for example, a dam to keep the water back. The Chairman noted that if the left hand side of the driveway was stabilized it would protect Town infrastructure. Peter Hogan noted that the applicant was relying on asphalt to fix his issues. The Chairman noted that if he paved all the way to the grass it might address his issue.
The Chairman felt that the issues at the top of the driveway should be left alone. Peter Hogan noted that there were expectations from the Town that new driveways meet certain criteria and this one did not, therefore, a system needed to be put in place where the applicant acknowledged his driveway was not safe and he knew that emergency vehicles should not use his driveway. He asked how the Melanson property dealt with the emergency vehicle issue. The Coordinator replied that Melanson ended up with a plan that showed the steep slope driveway and turn outs but was unsure if he signed a release of liability. She noted that his driveway, even though the Planning Board did not like it, had been built to his plan. She noted that the issue now was that the
applicants were in the house on a Temporary CO and wanted a permanent CO and she was not sure about their financing issues as a result. Douglas Hill thought that they could take the $500 bond offered by the applicant at a previous meeting and be done with it. Peter Hogan stated that he would not take any money as the applicant would argue that if damage to the Town road occurred as a result of his driveway he would state that he already paid a bond. The Coordinator recalled that a previous Road Agent had billed a lot owner for clean up fees when their driveway had washed into the Town road. Peter Hogan wondered if the question could be referred to Town Counsel. Mark Suennen clarified that the question would be in regard to a release of liability and what recourse the Town would have regarding future damage to Town infrastructure due to the impact from the property’s failure to meet the Subdivision Regulations. Peter Hogan noted that Town
Counsel should also be informed that the lot owner was already living in the home. He added that daily fines were pointless. Dave Woodbury noted that by withholding the CO the applicant’s bank would likely foreclose on his property.
Douglas Hill wondered if for a driveway at 10% grade one could sign off for liability due to side slopes. Peter Hogan replied that the safety aspect was the slopes over 1:1 and drop off areas when traveling up the driveway. The Chairman added that in building the driveway to 10% grade there were 10’ to 12’ drop offs along certain areas of the driveway with stump grindings along the sides. Peter Hogan noted that the applicant had done nothing for the first 40 or so days of his 60 day Temporary CO and placed himself against the ropes so to speak. He noted that Mr. Cabral should have come up with some alternative designs at least and that the Subdivision Regulations have always been clear and in writing.
The Chairman stated that they would table the discussion until the next meeting when they would have Town Counsel’s opinion. Dave Woodbury noted that the Town needed a plan to end the issue. Peter Hogan noted that the Board needed to recognize, confidentially, that the applicant could not afford to put anymore money into the issue. The Board wondered about the applicant’s financing situation. Mark Suennen noted that it was not the Board’s job to care and they had given the applicant a Temporary CO to allow him to live in the house while addressing his issue and that anyone injured on his property as a result of his unsafe driveway was his liability. Peter Hogan noted that the applicant needed to be aware that emergency services may not
be able to respond to his property. Mark Suennen noted that the Board could not tell the Town’s emergency services that they could not go to the property because the applicant was paying taxes like every other resident. He added that maybe the rig would need to park at the bottom of the hill and do a bucket brigade. The question then arose as to whether Mr. Cabral’s house had a fire sprinkler system or if the neighborhood had a cistern. The Coordinator noted that there were two cisterns in the vicinity of Inkberry Road. The Chairman concluded by stating that the Board would take up the discussion at the next meeting once they had received legal advice from Town Counsel.
Dave Woodbury asked if a comprehensive list of the driveway’s faults and the solutions that needed to occur should exist. Mark Suennen thought this was an excellent idea to protect the Town in case such work needed to be done. Dave Woodbury thought the applicant was entitled to such a list according to the Town. Peter Hogan stated that the number one problem was siltated water running into the Town’s drainage, and number two was no 3:1 slopes or guardrails (appropriate to a 25 m.p.h. speed limit per Mark Suennen), number three long term stabilization needed with stump grindings considered as a temporary solution and replaced every three months (per the Chairman’s research). Mark Suennen stated that New Hampshire information was not included
in that research and that New Hampshire’s regulations per DES stated that stump grindings as of November, 2008, stated that they were appropriate for 3:1 or less for winter stabilization and were not intended to be used permanently. The Chairman asked Mark Suennen if he could send him this information as that was the information he had been searching for. Mark Suennen stated that he would do so. He noted that the information he had found did not differentiate substantially between stump grindings and wood chips although it was defined elsewhere that stump grindings were 6” to 8” pieces while wood chips were 2” to 3” pieces. The Chairman felt that, given that information, wood chips were being used along Byam Road lots and Mr. Cabral’s. Mark Suennen stated that wood chips were also noted by NHDES as temporary, not permanent, stabilization.
Dave Woodbury felt that it was important to note that in the steps the Board was taking they were not singling out Mr. Cabral or treating him any differently than any other driveway owner.
At 9:30 p.m. Dave Woodbury MOVED to adjourn. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk
| |
