TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of June 24, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members, Douglas Hill, Don Duhaime, Peter Hogan, and; ex-officio Christine Quirk. 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, Gordon Carlstrom, Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, John Riendeau, Road Agent, Tom Miller, Dick Moody, Fire Ward, Mark Suennen, Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, Ken Barss, Heidi Akerman, David Clukay and Matthew Reed.
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, John Riendeau, Road Agent, Tom Miller, Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, Dick Moody, Fire Ward, Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator and Selectman Gordon Carlstrom.
The Chairman stated that this was a continuing discussion of the Subdivision Regulations regarding road standards and that he had compiled a list of topics to have this discussion tonight proceed along more specific lines and also in consideration of a memo by Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, on the same subject.
The Chairman began with item #4 of Kevin Leonard, PE’s, memo which dealt with the maximum grade of a road at an intersection. He asked Kevin Leonard, PE, for a synopsis of this topic. Kevin Leonard, PE, stated that the regulation dealing with this subject could be interpreted different ways based on the way it was written. He offered that it seemed the intent was that at an intersection the Town wanted the grade of a road relatively flat so that during the winter season vehicles would not be sliding into it. He added that they would also not want runoff from the street creating an icing situation because the grade was too steep. The Chairman clarified that he knew the current regulation stated the grade 75’ from the centerline of the intersection
was a maximum -3%. Kevin Leonard, PE, agreed, but noted that the term “maximum” is what could be argued as, for example, -4% was less than -3% although he did not think this was the intent. He explained that the language should be specific from the point of the intersecting street or existing traveled way in what percentage grade was desired from what distance. Kevin Leonard, PE, suggested referencing from the centerline of the street or traveled way. Douglas Hill asked if a major “bad factor” existed if a grade went over -3%. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that he would be more concerned about the case of a road that met a road having a negative grade for drainage and added that more stacking might be desired for large subdivisions. He added that he could see going from -3% to -4% when land was developed down slope of an existing street but not, for example, -8%. Douglas Hill stated that he asked the question as he did
not want to create a hardship for no reason. John Riendeau, Road Agent added that he would not want to see more than a -5% grade so as not to create more of an incline. Peter Hogan noted that the increased acceleration rate on an icy road was what came to his mind with greater than -3% grades. Douglas Hill agreed and added that there should also be an ample platform provided at intersections. Kevin Leonard, PE, stated that either way a platform was the preference, however, an answer might be that the grade could be less if it was downslope anyway. Douglas Hill agreed and added that if it was an upgrade it should then be -3%.
Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, stated that the main consideration should be what was good for the Town versus considering any hardship for a developer. Douglas Hill replied that he did not disagree but his point was that writing in a set figure with no flexibility could tempt waiver requests from developers. Peter Hogan felt that developers should have the option of requesting a waiver from a set figure rather than being offered a range as they would likely opt for the higher number and then request a waiver anyway. The Chairman clarified that the crux of the issue was more a wording change to clean up the regulation. John Riendeau, Road Agent, felt that in certain places such as intersections a set rule should apply. He felt that in a storm an 8% platform to a 3%
grade would provide ample stopping footage. The Chairman offered that a grade 75’ from the centerline of the intersection at -3% seemed satisfactory without mentioning “maximum”. The Board agreed. Kevin Leonard, PE, asked if, on the same topic, he might discuss vertical curve designs and PVI (Point of Vertical Inflection). He noted that based on the 75’ distance the Town may see some design engineers asking where they wished to assume the 75’ measure regarding smoothing a vertical curve’s angle. Don Duhaime thought that the point of the vertical curve should be at 75’ before transitioning. Tom Miller agreed. Kevin Leonard, PE, stated that if this was the Board’s preference then it should be stated that way in the regulations. The Board agreed.
The Chairman stated that the second point to discuss regarded increasing the depth of pavement on roads. Tom Miller noted that not all pavements were the same and felt that super-pave should be used and the regulation should spell out the type of asphalt to be used in both courses, therefore, 1 1/2” wearing course of ½” or 3/8” super-pave and 3” binder of ¾” super-pave. He noted that ½” had slightly coarser stone while 3/8” was a little smoother and that these types were used interchangeably. Don Duhaime inquired about the 1.1/2” topcoat. Tom Miller explained that the State had changed the mix designs and come up with super-pave but this changed the stone gradations, therefore, a good ride could not be
had from 1” and the State felt that a stronger mix design came from 1 1/2”. These changes had been made nationwide, and Tom Miller clarified that towns were now following suit.
The Chairman stated that a third point of discussion was shoulder cross slopes (Item #6 in Kevin Leonard’s memo). Kevin Leonard, PE, stated that the Town’s current regulations called for 2% cross slopes. He noted that many towns required 4-5% on shoulders to accommodate runoff. Tom Miller agreed that most roads were constructed with 2% cross slopes and 5% on the shoulders. The Board agreed also.
The Chairman stated that the fourth topic of discussion he had listed for this discussion (#7 on Kevin Leonard’s memo) dealt with creating a typical roadway detail. Kevin Leonard, PE, explained that in making his point in the memo he had used examples from other towns where they took dimensional road standards and put these into typical plan details. The Board agreed with this suggestion.
The Chairman stated that the fifth topic he had listed for discussion (item #8 on Kevin Leonard’s memo) was cul-de-sac dimensions which he felt may require ongoing discussion. Kevin Leonard, PE, suggested that the regulations be revised to better accommodate vehicles and possibly offer different shapes such as tear drop, traditional, and offset key, for example. Peter Hogan asked John Riendeau, Road Agent, his preference. John Riendeau replied that he recalled having a discussion with Kevin Leonard, PE, but did not recall the sizings. He asked that Kevin Leonard, PE, put something together for discussion at the next meeting. Peter Hogan stated that he preferred offering one design choice. John Riendeau noted that one example of an unsatisfactory
cul-de-sac design was on Orchard Road which had an egg-shaped cul-de-sac that made for difficult plowing. Kevin Leonard, PE, added that the Board may want to consider offering different design shapes in consideration of Steep Slopes. In consideration of moving along, the Chairman clarified that there would be more input for this topic at the next meeting.
The Chairman proceeded to item #9 of Kevin Leonard, PE’s memo which proposed Town As-Built guidlelines. Kevin Leonard, PE, stated that he had developed a sample idea of what these might be and noted that As-Builts he had viewed recently for the Town varied greatly from one another. He noted that some communities had rules on what As-Builts should encompass and had included examples from the towns of Meredith, Merrimack and Bow, New Hampshire. Kevin Leonard, PE, added that while an As-Built he had reviewed from SHB Properties, prepared by Meridian Land Surveyors was quite solid, another one for Hutchinson Lane done by Thibeault Corporation was less sophisticated and was missing some information. Don Duhaime felt that it should be clarified in the regulations
that As-Built plans were to be generated by a design engineer and not the contractor.
The Chairman stated that item #10 on Kevin Leonard, PE’s memo dealt with the ongoing issue of cisterns. Kevin Leonard, PE, agreed that this was likely to be an ongoing issue but that some items could be clarified in the regulations. Dan MacDonald noted that the second vendor they contacted was able to provide the warranty the Fire Department wanted and that the Fire Wards had issued a letter authorizing that vendor. The Chairman asked if a developer purchased a cistern according to specifications provided by the Town. Dan MacDonald replied that they did along with a drawing. The Chairman asked if this was part of the Subdivision Regulations. Dan MacDonald replied that it was and added that more recently, fiberglass cisterns had been allowed as they
were installed more quickly and were more durable. Don Duhaime asked if these cisterns were double or single lined. Dan MacDonald replied that they were single lined. He further noted that Northpoint Engineering, LLC, had recently noticed in the fine print of a 30 year cistern warranty with the Xerxes manufacturer that anything other that potable water would negate it. Peter Hogan felt that in theory there was never a true warranty on a cistern as there was likely to be finger pointing for its failure such as incorrect back filling. Dan MacDonald stated that they had not had any issues thus far with the fiberglass cisterns. Peter Hogan thought that a performance bond may be more effective than an insurance policy in the case of warrantying cisterns. Dan MacDonald asked who the performance bond would be against in such a case. Peter Hogan replied that he had no idea. Gordon Carlstrom thought that a five year performance bond
would be a start. Kevin Leonard, PE, noted that cisterns were already bonded under a current maintenance bond at 10% of a total project. He added that fiberglass vessels (also used for drinking water) were unlikely to leak. Kevin Leonard, PE, noted that there was a company in Henniker, New Hampshire that built pre-cast multi-chamber (7,500 gallons each) cisterns with costs equivalent to fiberglass and that this company not only designed the product but installed it. He added that the pipe work was on the bottom of the structure and boot work on the inside which stayed sealed with the help of the water pressure. Dan MacDonald stated that the Fire Department preferred fiberglass construction over concrete which had more leaking issues. He noted that the Fire Wards might like to revisit the topic of multiple chambers and would get back to the Board on that at the next meeting. Dan MacDonald stressed that fire sprinklers were their number on
choice in fire safety.
The Chairman stated that the last item (#11) dealt with the performance guarantee worksheet change, re: cistern costs. Kevin Leonard, PE, explained that the current sheet represented specific numbers which were likely viable at the time the worksheet was created. He noted that in the Subdivision Regulations there was an explanation on how to use unit cost indexing and when that was applied to the current day it equaled $80K for a cistern. Kevin Leonard, PE, recommended that the component of the regulation be used on the bond estimate. The Chairman asked Kevin Leonard, PE, if he could review the Subdivision Regulations for the next meeting to make sure that everything had been considered that needed to be. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that he would do
so.
The Chairman stated that the last set of changes had to do with specifications for roads and that three topics were considered within this topic: the current regulations, the Master Plan recommendations based on trips per day and low impact/low volume development information provided by SNHPC. He noted that he had taken the three topics and their information and lined them up on a worksheet for cross-comparison, the main question in general being should the Town stay with the current regulations versus the Master Plan’s recommendations. Dan MacDonald stated that what the Town had in place today worked well and questioned why road widths should be reduced when vehicles were getting bigger and also in consideration of winter plowing. The Chairman explained that in the
case of small developments with huge roads there were other impacts to consider like runoff and basic traffic patterns. He added that he lived in the Popple Road/Swanson Road area of town and never passed another car going in the opposite direction when he traveled his road, therefore, the question was did the Town need that much overkill for smaller subdivisions. Dan MacDonald replied that in his perspective it did not matter if there was 1 house or 100 on the road, subdivisions should be built around the worst case scenario. He added that in the case of an emergency one of their vehicles would be coming down a road when another was coming out and he did not see the need to narrow roads. Douglas Hill stated that there were also 4’ wide shoulders on either side of Town roads, therefore, a 30’ traveled way. Dan MacDonald noted that a shoulder in a snow storm did not exist. Douglas Hill clarified that the road narrowing idea was an
alternative suggested from SNHPC not the Planning Board. He added that while part of the Board’s job was to take into account character of the Town but also to consider safety and Town services. He noted that this discussion was important but he had not really expected the Fire Chief’s response to be any different. Gordon Carlstrom thought that during their last discussion on this subject the Board had come to a consensus that 22’ paved roads were ok but their shoulder widths and side slopes could vary. He noted that lessening a road width to 20’ could result in more wear and tear on the road’s edges so this was a good reason to stay with 22’, however, you could decrease shoulder widths to 2’ as it would be like gaining 8’. Tom Miller added that another consideration was paving where companies like Pike and Continental normally did 10’3” with their paver and the only way to narrow the paving
was with a cut off shoe which was a more expensive process. He added that the outside gate would also not be filled all the way. The Chairman clarified that 20’6” would be the minimum that would be desired and asked Tom Miller his opinion since he was in the business. Tom Miller thought that 22’ with 2’ shoulders would be acceptable. Peter Hogan explained that the discussion regarding narrower road widths had originally come about as an option for better aesthetics on certain Town roads. He noted that the examples of Indian Falls Road and Daylily Lane had given rise to discussion on ways to avoid “super highway” type roads for small subdivisions. John Riendeau stated that the members of the Board did not have experience behind a plow truck with an 8’ wing, 11’ plow blade and cars coming at them on a 22’ wide road. Douglas Hill noted that on Pheasant Lane where he resided the road was
still only a car width wide when the winter season brought heavy snows. Peter Hogan added that his curvy paved road (Scobie Road) became straight in the winter months because of the way the plows operated. John Riendeau stated that they could argue all night but he would never agree to a road width less than 22’ being a better option.
The Chairman clarified that the Road Agent and Fire Department agreed that 22’ should be the minimum road width in town and that the only question remaining was the shoulder widths which could possibly go narrower and be 5% on less traveled roads. Peter Hogan added that this would allow for quicker drop offs for snow being plowed. Douglas Hill clarified that they were considering new roads that would be built in the town which would have good ditchlines. John Riendeau stated that he had been dealing with road issues for 35 years and had seen towns fight to widen roads due to maintenance issues only to see the opposite argument now. He added that he strongly disagreed because narrower roads introduced new issues such as breakage along the edges when flooding and
drainage problems occurred. John Riendeau further added that with a 22’ road there was at least some leeway. The Chairman asked that those present for the discussion review his cross comparison worksheet for the next meeting.
BARSS, KENNETH, R. JR. & LORI A. Adjourned from 4/08/08
Compliance Hearing/CUP/To Erect a Structure within the Wetlands and Stream
Corridor Conservation District
Location: 501 Mont Vernon Road
Tax Map/Lot #14/90
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. No abutters or interested parties were present. He noted that the only outstanding item had been the lawn seeding and whether grass was growing. Peter Hogan and Douglas Hill stated that they had driven by the site and were satisfied with the progress of growth.
Peter Hogan MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a structure in the Wetlands Conservation and Stream Corridor Conservation District, on Tax Map/Lot #14/90 by Kenneth Jr., and Lori Barss, and to release the hold on the Permit to Operate/Certificate of Occupancy to be issued by the Building Department. It is the applicant's responsibility to apply to the Building Department for a Permit to Operate/Certificate of Occupancy.
Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 7:40 p.m. the Planning Board took a 5 minute break.
CLUKAY, DAVID D. & AKERMAN, HEIDI L.
Compliance Hearing/NRSPR/Horse Boarding and Riding Stable
Location: Saunders Hill & Bunker Hill Roads
Tax Map/Lot # 1/12
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public 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 the recent site walk had uncovered work that still needed to be done. He added that a fax had come in to the Planning Department prior to tonight’s meeting from the applicants that noted some changes already made to the site since the site walk. Heidi Akerman explained that noted on the original site plan there was an opening on the southwest side of the site close to an existing brook and wood line. She added that they had moved this opening toward the middle of the site at a stone wall break for safety and aesthetic reasons. The Chairman asked what end of the building was visible relative to what was shown on the plan when driving onto the site and seeing a narrow end of that structure. Heidi Akerman showed the plan to the Board
highlighting where the opening had been moved closer to the parking area.
Heidi Akerman stated that instead of railroad ties to designate parking they opted for oak beams as they seemed a safer option and would not splinter. She added that a traditional arrow on a sign had been changed to a “finger shaped” arrow to point towards the parking area. Heidi Akerman explained that her roof contractors had been against installing gutters due to the size of the roof, however, had installed French drains with proper erosion control. Douglas Hill asked if the plan specified where drainage went from the point at the stone wall. Heidi Akerman replied that it went to a French drain. Douglas Hill asked if this was marked on the plan. Heidi Akerman replied that paragraph #10 on the plan noted a perforated pipe that drained to a
swale at the north end of the building. Douglas Hill stated that the plan should indicate how water runoff from the roof ran properly to the brook with low impact. Don Duhaime also thought that the swale and its direction of flow should be noted on the plan.
Peter Hogan asked about water that had filled the manure pit. Heidi Akerman replied that this was not from the roof but had been a buildup of snow and ice in the area that had melted. David Clukay added that this water was now evaporating. Douglas Hill asked if the applicants were installing a drain at the front of the manure pit for runoff. Heidi Akerman replied that they were. Douglas Hill noted that this should also be noted on the plan. David Clukay explained that the roof had been installed on the stable in December of 2007 and they had had problems with the trusses which were completed in January of 2008 allowing for the roof to be shingled in February. Douglas Hill stated that his big issue was the manure pit drainage. Peter Hogan added
that this was the biggest factor and the Board needed to see a functioning manure pit with drainage and have it shown on the plan.
The Chairman asked if the location of the well had changed and if it had, noted that the new location should be shown on the plan. Douglas Hill noted that the applicants should make the necessary changes to the plan and resubmit. The Chairman stated that the biggest issue was the manure pit and the water in it. He added that the Board needed assurance that the site was done according to its plan and that the plan represented what was done for compliance. Peter Hogan stated that first the applicants should finish the site, then update their plan accordingly. The Chairman added that the engineered drawing would need to be updated. Douglas Hill further added that an embankment stabilization noted on the plan needed to be showing grass growth for compliance. Peter Hogan noted that this growth needed to be established to a point where the loam would not wash away. Douglas Hill added that if there was growth established he would be willing to accept a bond until the bank
proved to be stabilized.
The Chairman suggested to the applicants that when they felt they were done with their work to the site they should update their plan. Heidi Akerman did not think that there was even a full week of work left to be done on site as the French drains were in and the parking area had been graveled, signs hung (placement of parking beams still needed). Peter Hogan stated that he had no issue with whether railroad ties or oak beams were used. He felt that oak was an unnecessary expense and that railroad ties were unlikely to cause someone a splinter.
A site walk was scheduled for Tuesday, July 15, 2008, at 6:30 p.m. The Chairman noted that the updated plans should be turned into the Planning Department one week prior. David Clukay replied that this would be done.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the Compliance Hearing, NRSPR, Horse Boarding and Riding Stable, Saunders Hill & Bunker Hill Roads, Tax Map/Lot # 1/12, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to July 22, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JUNE 24, 2008
5. A copy of a letter received from Albert and Carol LaChance, to members of the Planning Board, re: Houghton Woods, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Albert LaChance was present in the audience. Douglas Hill asked Albert LaChance if he had submitted a cash bond for $100K. Albert LaChance replied that it was actually $120K and his hope was to zip up his plan until the market improved. He asked if he could settle the bond by complying with infrastructure needs or if he could only get the money back once all the work noted on the plan had been completed. Douglas Hill replied that the latter was the case. He suggested that Mr. LaChance could opt for a letter of credit for the bond versus cash. Albert LaChance clarified that if he fulfilled his obligation to the Town which required him to upgrade the portion of Lull Road and NH Route 77 noted on the plan he should then be in compliance and grandfathered as
well so that when the market rebounded he could move forward. He added that he hoped in the future to showcase the site as a green development with a near zero carbon footprint and had begun to explore this option with two builders as a future project. Albert LaChance asked if he was correct in thinking that he would be grandfathered if he completed the aforementioned compliance items of the plan. The Coordinator replied that there was a statute that gave a 4 year exception on the regulations to applicants if proof of active and substantial development was offered. She noted that this plan, however, required improvements to Lull Road and installation of a box culvert for a driveway off Route 77 and that the Board would need to determine what improvements were needed in order to trigger that exemption which she surmised might be the Lull Road and driveway culvert installation. Albert LaChance replied that he just wanted this plan zipped up for now so
that he had no pressure on him other than how to explore development of the site in the future. Douglas Hill asked if a maintenance bond would be required. The Coordinator replied that she did not recall that one was required for Lull Road. Albert LaChance asked if tonight’s discussion could be communicated in letter form to his attorney, Jack Bielagus. The Board replied that this could be done. Douglas Hill returned to the matter of the cash bond versus a letter of credit option which he thought might work better for Mr. LaChance. Albert LaChance replied that he was told by his bank that letters of credit were generally issued for those in the development business. He noted that D&S Contractors were working on an estimate and that he would try to have the compliance issues addressed by the fall of 2008.
The Board confirmed that completion of the Lull Road improvements to the satisfaction of the Board and installation of the box culvert for the driveway would fulfill the requirement for releasing the bond and would also “grandfather” the subdivision for regulation changes per RSA 674:39.
1. Approval of the minutes of May 13, and May 27, 2008, with or without changes, distributed by email.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the minutes of May 13, and May 27, 2008, as written.
Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Endorsement of a Lot Line Adjustment to the Planning Board, for Douglas Hill Construction, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #5/16-21 & 22, Christian Farm Drive, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
Due to multiple signature sheets the Board determined that they would address this item at the end of the meeting.
3. Applications for Appointment to the Planning Board, received May 22, and May 28, 2008, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Board determined that they would address this item later on in the meeting.
4. Discussion, re: possible Planning Board meeting on July 8, 2008.
Due to the lightness of upcoming agendas the Board determined that one meeting in July would suffice on July 22, 2008, per the Rules of Procedure that require only one meeting a month on the fourth Tuesday.
6a. A copy of a letter dated June 5, 2008, from Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant to Matthew and Colleen Reed, re: Driveway Permit Application, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Addressed with item #6b.
6b. A copy of a letter received June 11, 2008, from Matthew Reed, to Michele Brown, re: Driveway, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Matthew Reed was present for this item. He explained that he did not think there was an issue on his site with a secondary driveway that existed before he purchased the lot and extended 30’ into the property. He explained that he had applied for a permit in case he wanted to use this driveway someday or construct a garage at the end but that presently he would just like it to park a boat and/or trailer. The Chairman stated that he thought the issue was that there was not proper sight distance. The Coordinator clarified that a Driveway Permit was applied for and denied because the Road Agent did not think that it had proper sight distance. She added that she could not find a prior driveway permit on file. Douglas Hill explained to Matthew Reed that
he was free to park anything in the area of question as long as he was not using it as a driveway. Matthew Reed clarified that there would only be an issue if a garage was constructed there. Douglas Hill agreed and reiterated that there should be no issue with Mr. Reed parking anything
on this part of his property. Don Duhaime noted that he had driven by the site and did not think that there was a sight distance issue anyway. Mr. Reed noted that he was thinking of placing split rail fence across the end of this opening and the Board thought this was further evidence of the temporary use of this entrance to access backland.
3. Applications for Appointment to the Planning Board, received May 22, and May 28, 2008, for the Board’s review and discussion.
Planning Board applicant Mark Suennen was present for this item. The Chairman explained that the Board’s recommendation got forwarded to the Selectmen for their vote. Christine Quirk stated that the Selectmen’s next meeting was Monday, June 30, 2008. Mark Suennen stated that in the interest of disclosure he wished to note that his company, Hoyle, Tanner, was putting in a proposal for the New Boston footbridge project. The Chairman replied that a Board member always had the option of stepping down from a discussion if they felt their discretion was compromised.
Peter Hogan MOVED to recommend the appointment of Mark Suennen to the Selectmen. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Coordinator noted that a second applicant was not present nor had he shown up to observe any Planning Board meetings in anticipation of appointment. The Chairman thought that an applicant should attend at least one Planning Board meeting as an observer before being considered for appointment. This application will be filed.
7. A copy of an email dated June 19, 2008, from Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to New Boston Planning Department, re: Roadway width information for Planning Board Discussion.
The Board noted that this item was discussed during this evening’s road standards discussion at the start of the meeting.
8. A copy of a letter dated June 18, 2008, from Kevin Leoanrd, PE, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Town of New Boston Planning Coordinator, re: Hutchinson Lane Subdivision, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that the stabilization which was done did not have even a 50% growth rate on the detention area and the plan had stated 75%. The Chairman asked about other lots on the site. The Coordinator replied that these had been viewed at the site walk and she had since contacted the Building Inspector informing him that he should check on the lot with a cellar hole as it needed some work done to it and a barrier erected since it was filled with water and presented a safety issue.
9. Conference report dated June 12, 2008, from Stu Lewin was distributed for the Board’s information.
Douglas Hill asked what from this conference supported reasoning for narrower road widths. The Chairman replied that in addition to aesthetics, roads that were too wide for smaller subdivisions presented issues with impervious surfaces and runoff. He noted that narrower roads were introduced by designs done for the southern and western parts of the country but interestingly, New England did not think that the narrow widths were workable. He added that the University of New Hampshire had a facility that tested products like porous surfaces and concrete. The Coordinator added that from an environmental standpoint it has been found that wider roads tend to have a greater heat effect warming its runoff and affecting wildlife. She noted that she had copies of the
conference handouts if anyone was interested.
10a. A copy of an article from New Hampshire Town and City magazine, June, 2008, titled Off-Site Road Improvement Fees Upheld as a Condition of Subdivision Approval under 2004 Amendment to RSA 674:21, V., was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator clarified that the above noted article confirmed what the Board knew of offsite road improvements being legal.
11. A copy of an article from American Planning Association titled A Home, Not a Hospital, By Jane Adler, was distributed for the Board’s information.
12. A copy of Technical Bulletin #13, from New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning, titled Tax Increment Financing, was distributed for the board’s information.
13. 2007 Office of Energy and Planning Population Estimates, was distriuted for the Board’s information.
14. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing from the Town of Windham received June 13, 2008, re: an installation of a telecommunication tower.
The Chairman noted that two sets of minutes from June 9th and 23rd had been distributed to the Board from the Small Scale Commercial Committee. Don Duhaime who sat on this Committee stated that they were making progress and with one more section to address, hoped to present something concrete to the Board by August of 2008.
The Coordinator stated that the Town Administrator had put out a memo stating that the footbridge project was underway and that the Town was requesting engineering proposals. She noted that the Town Administrator was inquiring if anyone on the Planning Board would like to sit on the committee to select the engineering company that would draw the plan. Peter Hogan expressed interest in doing so.
Douglas Hill MOVED to nominate Peter Hogan as Planning Board Representative to the Footbridge Committee. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 9:00 p.m. Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk
| 
