TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of September 23, 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 and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Stephanie Strauss, Angela Fitzpatrick, Bob Todd, LLS, Ruth Trussell, John Ashworth, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Brandy Mitroff, Katherine Kachavos, Paul and Donna Sheatler, Richard and Chris Perreault, Albert LaChance, Gloria Chandler, Art Siciliano, LLS, Sandi van Scoyoc, Brandy Mitroff and Steve Hunt.
Meeting with Small Scale Planned Commercial District Committee
Stephanie Strauss, Chair of the Small Scale Planned Commercial District Committee (committee) stated that the committee had started out by looking at the recently updated Master Plan but had tripped over the Zoning Ordinance in their work on updating the commercial district for New Boston. She noted that the first part of their 14-month project had, therefore, switched focus to the commercial uses in the Zoning Ordinance and their definitions. She went on to say that once that was completed the committee moved on to working on the design guidelines for the district. Stephanie Strauss stated that the last remaining task for the committee was reviewing the current and potential locations for commercial development in New Boston. She noted that the committee
thought it better to get the use and definition changes and the design guidelines approved first before approaching the voters with any proposals for redistricting the town. She also asked that the Board consider sending the guidelines and the definitions to Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission (SNHPC) for their review and comment. Stephanie Strauss stated that the committee was hoping that the Planning Board would have some input to the documents distributed this evening to give the committee direction. She also noted that there were some sections of the Zoning Ordinance beyond the purview of the commercial committee that could really use some revision to make things clearer or to be more consistent with the Master Plan's suggestions. The Coordinator also pointed out a document that explained the intent and reason behind the suggested new definitions that the committee hoped would be of assistance to anyone in the future attempting the same kind of
project.
Stephanie Strauss noted that the design guidelines were missing just a couple of sketches or pictures but were ready for review of the text and she thought that SNHPC should take a look at them and then their input plus that of the Planning Board could be combined into the final version from the committee.
Peter Hogan stated that he had one problem with the definitions because the Vehicular Sales and Repair Facility seemed to envision the two functions as always having to take place at the same facility whereas in his opinion it was possible to have either one use or the other take place. Stephanie Strauss noted that the definition actually was for Vehicular Sales and/or Repair Facility, which allowed one or the other or both uses to take place. Peter Hogan thought that the two uses were polar opposites in that sales required high visibility and lots of lights and storage of vehicles for sale which repairs could be carried out without much fanfare. Stephanie Strauss stated that the two uses most often occurred together. Peter Hogan thought that it would make it easier
to have a repair facility if the two uses were separated into two definitions. He mentioned the idea of auto repair as a home business but Stephanie Strauss pointed out that the committee's work had only been related to the commercial district and it was up to the Board to decide whether or not the definitions would be used in different districts and, if so, would they be appropriate as written. The Coordinator pointed out that the example mentioned by Peter Hogan should be reviewed under the home business definition and the Vehicular Sales and/or Repair Facility would not be part of the discussion.
Don Duhaime stated that the design guidelines were clear with regard to requiring parking to the side or rear of the lot, which would require sales or service to take place at the back of the building out of view of the general public. He stated also that lighting had been addressed in the guidelines. Peter Hogan stood by his point that the definitions should be separated. The Coordinator thought that the words "and/or" could be added into the definition itself to add that separation. Peter Hogan thought this could loosen the definition too much and reiterated that repair was a completely different thing from sales and that there should be two separate definitions. Don Duhaime stated that most places had to offer both sales and service and he did not
really understand Peter Hogan's point. The Chairman asked Peter Hogan how his definition for repair facility would read. Peter Hogan stated that it would say: "Enclosed establishment for the repair of new and used motor vehicles, trailers, motorcycles, mobile homes and boats. No retail sale of gasoline permitted except as incidental to the repair facility." The Chairman stated that this should be noted as an issue requiring resolution.
The Chairman asked if the committee was still working. Stephanie Strauss stated that once the items presented this evening had been finished to include comments from the Board and SNHPC, the committee still had to work on the locations for commercial development and hoped to have that completed by January 2009. The Chairman noted that the Board would take that request under advisement and would also consider whether or not to add a separate definition for auto repair. Peter Hogan thought that discussion would also be warranted on whether or not a repair facility on its own could be a permitted use rather than requiring special exception. Don Duhaime did not think this would be appropriate. David Woodbury noted that a repair facility usually could be relied upon
to have a few vehicles in various states of repair outside the building waiting to be completed.
Doug Hill stated that he appreciated the time and effort that had gone into the work presented by the committee but was concerned that the small size of commercial lots in town might be too small and the topography too difficult to allow the parking to always be in the back of the building. He noted that New Boston did not currently have an abundance of commercial land and he wanted to be sure the requirements were fair for a developer to be able to do something financially viable with the land available. Stephanie Strauss stated that the committee believed that New Boston needed more commercial land to be available and thought that having the revised list of uses and the design guidelines would be a way to make residents happy at the thought of more land being zoned commercial. Angela Fitzpatrick stated that the guidelines were an effort to announce that the town was happy to have commercial development but that the development should fit in with the town and not stick
out like a sore thumb. Don Duhaime pointed out that a lot of buildings in the town were already close to the road and this was encouraged so that the buildings would be noticeable rather than acres of parking.
Stephanie Strauss suggested that the Board take the documents and read them before making any kind of judgment about them because it was the intent of the committee to encourage well-designed commercial development not to make it too difficult to develop in New Boston. Doug Hill asked if the parking were in back, where would the main entrance to the building be. It was noted that the façade of the building could have a false entrance for aesthetics or that there could be entrances from the street and from the parking in back. It was also noted that blank facades would be discouraged. Doug Hill stated that he was trying to figure out if there could be unintended consequences from these guidelines. Stephanie Strauss reminded the Board that this document was
a guideline that included things that were suggested and encouraged in New Boston and not things that were set in stone. Doug Hill agreed that this was needed but he wanted to make sure that the suggestions were not going to make life too difficult for anyone wishing to develop a commercial property in New Boston.
Stephanie Strauss reiterated the committee's idea that if the new list of permitted uses and the design guidelines were put into effect and the townspeople could become familiar with the ideas and concepts included and understand that future commercial development would have some guidelines to follow they might be more inclined to vote favorably on rezoning land to commercial in the future.
The Chairman asked about the zoning amendments proposed by the committee. Stephanie Strauss explained that the committee identified issues they had run into during preparation of the definitions and guidelines so that the Planning Board could figure out how to clarify them. The Coordinator asked if it would be all right to send the documents to SNHPC for their review at the same time as the Board reviewed them. The Board agreed that this would be a good idea.
Discussion, re: Accessory Dwelling Units
The Coordinator stated that while there was nothing currently in the Town’s Zoning regarding accessory dwelling units, the Master Plan did allude to why this would be a good idea for the Town and offered some basic information. She noted that if the Board thought this was a good idea then they could get into further details on the topic such as square footage and other criteria. She further noted that an accessory dwelling unit may allow home owners rental income that could, for example, better allow them to afford to stay in their homes/pay property taxes, etc. The Coordinator added that a round table discussion at the Planning Commission earlier in the day had results that meant changes to State statutes would require that all towns had to provide
opportunities for workforce housing by July, 2009. She noted that if the Town had been awarded the recent grant money they had applied for this would be doable, however, there was no money in the budget to address it, therefore, she wished to know if the Board would want to consider a Warrant Article for next year to work with SNHPC to get the work done on their own. The Coordinator added that even in this case they still would not make the 7/01/09 deadline but would at least be working on the task. She explained that she brought up this subject because there was always the chance where a developer with a Work Force Housing proposal could go to court to get their plan approved based on the fact that the Town did not have any Regulations for its requirements. Douglas Hill asked what the Town’s chances were of getting another grant. The Coordinator replied that they could apply again, however, the grant applications were not going to be considered
again until the following year. Douglas Hill asked what the cost would be to do the work. The Coordinator replied that it would be approximately $15K. She added that the general vibe regarding additional Warrants/requests for funding for the upcoming year was a cautious one. The Coordinator noted that going forward the Town needed to assure that there was residential land area available for Work Force housing. Douglas Hill did not think that this would be an issue the Town would need to deal with in the near future.
Don Duhaime stated that while he had no issue with an in-law apartment scenario he did have reservations about the possibility that a landowner with, for example, 10-12 acres could scatter multiple units about their property. The Coordinator noted that most towns had limitations on size and number of accessory dwelling units per lot. Don Duhaime noted that when they built his parents’ in-law apartment they were restricted to 700 s.f. Douglas Hill stated that he was also in favor of allowing just one accessory unit per property but felt that in that respect it might need to be slightly larger than 700 s.f. The Chairman wished to clarify with Don Duhaime that he was not in favor of having a separate accessory dwelling unit unless it was limited to one per
property. Don Duhaime replied that he would be in favor of limiting the number to one with a restriction on square footage. Douglas Hill agreed but added that he would favor the square footage being slightly more than 700 s.f. The Coordinator stated that she could pull some examples of other town ordinances if the Board felt that it would be beneficial.
Peter Hogan asked what issue the Board was attempting to solve by considering accessory dwelling units. Douglas Hill replied that as the Coordinator had mentioned previously accessory dwelling units might be one option that would enable homeowners to afford to stay in their own homes longer from a financial perspective. Peter Hogan stated that he looked at it in another way where accessory dwelling units would enable middle-income families, teachers, for example, to afford to live in the Town where they worked. He added that another example could be a barn made into apartments. Douglas Hill agreed and noted that the need for apartments in the Town was becoming a reality with duplexes renting for $1,800/month and 4 bedroom homes renting for $2,500/month.
Peter Hogan cautioned that this proposal could allow homeowners to not only rent accessory dwelling units on their property but even their own homes and not live on site themselves. The Coordinator clarified that some towns’ ordinances specified that the homeowner needed to live on the property. Peter Hogan felt that an owner living on the property offered the same regulatory process that governed a home business in that it better assured that the property would be maintained as long as the property owner had those qualities.
Don Duhaime stated that he would be in favor of one accessory dwelling with the homeowner residing on the property. The other Board members were in agreement. The Chairman noted that while this scenario would not address every situation it would increase the likelihood that the property would be maintained. Peter Hogan felt that this proposal would increase the likelihood of condexes. Douglas Hill noted that this could be restricted within the Regulations if accessory dwelling units were further considered. Peter Hogan wondered then what the incentives would be for owners to rent such units. Don Duhaime replied that literature provided to the Board by the Coordinator had suggested things like supplementary income where once people were empty nesters they
might like to opt for renting out an accessory unit to help them stay with their property and maintain it. Peter Hogan thought that an in-law apartment would be too small for some renters. Don Duhaime replied that it would be dependent on how it was set up and that 1,000 s.f. might be more workable. Mark Suennen suggested that a recent college graduate might be a possible renter and going from a dorm room to an apartment of that size would be quite a draw. Douglas Hill added that first time renters with no kids would be another example. The Board’s general consensus was that this discussion should be continued to the next meeting. Dave Woodbury felt that the Coordinator’s suggestion regarding a Warrant Article was a good one and should be forwarded to the Finance Committee for the next level of discussion. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if there would be time for the Board to review the materials she had copied to them for
further discussion at the next meeting before proposing the warrant article. The Coordinator replied that would be fine, as she would not have met with the Finance Committee before the next meeting.
Douglas Hill recused himself from the Board as he was an abutter for the hearing. The Chairman seated Mark Suennen as a full voting member for the next hearing.
CLARK HILL TRUST By RR Adjourned from 8/26/08
& JH TRUSSELL, TRUSTEES
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/12 Lots
Location: Clark Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #8/1 & 4/62
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Art Siciliano, LLS, John Ashworth, land consultant for the applicant, and the applicant Ruth Trussell. An abutter present was Katherine Kachavos.
The Chairman stated that on the recently held site walk there had been an issue of sight distance from some of the proposed driveways. Art Siciliano, LLS, noted that he had submitted a revised plan one-day prior and had added a couple of items. He explained that on sheet #2 of the plan a property line was moved over to the existing stonewall and some changes were made to add acreages. Art Siciliano, LLS, added that on sheet #5 he added details of the 50’ shared driveway easements along with notes for the proposed bus stop which regarded the paved apron work being addressed by Clark Hill Trust (where children would wait for the bus) and the stipulation that no CO would be issued for any dwelling in the subdivision until this was accomplished. The Chairman asked
if a “No Parking” sign at the school bus stop had been added to the plan. Art Siciliano, LLS, penciled this in on the plan. The Chairman added that at the Technical Review Committee meeting the Road Agent had noted that he wanted the school bus stop to be constructed to Town road standards regarding depth of pavement, base material, etc. Peter Hogan asked how many bus stops were proposed for the subdivision. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied there were two proposed. Peter Hogan asked about their design concept. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that the paved apron where the children would stand off the road and wait was 8’ deep and noted that the bus would stay in the road and that plenty of sight distance was afforded. He noted that the other bus stop would be located at one of the shared driveways. Peter Hogan noted that the kids would be driven to the bus stops from their homes anyways. Don Duhaime added that a school
bus/no parking sign at the stops might address that issue. Peter Hogan asked about deed language for the shared driveways. Ruth Trussell stated that the language was reworked and submitted the documents to the Board. The Chairman stated that these could be reviewed by the Board and forwarded on to Town Counsel.
Art Siciliano, LLS, stated that some of the proposed driveways needed their sight distances shown on the plan, which he added he had submitted. He stated that the Stormwater Management plans had also been submitted and that the applicant was requesting one waiver regarding the scale on the plan which was 1” = 2,000’ versus the required 1” = 500’. He noted that Steep Slopes, drainage patterns and watershed outlines had been put on the plan. The Chairman asked about the CUP. Ruth Trussell replied that this had been submitted with the plans.
Don Duhaime stated that he believed proposed lot #8/1-5 was an example of stacking since it seemed to be located behind 3 lots and to him did not appear to be a backlot. Art Siciliano, LLS, noted that during one of the initial meetings for this proposal the Board had advised him to move the property line for this lot to its present location. John Ashworth added that lot #8/1-5 was behind two front lots. Don Duhaime commented that these front lots seemed to have wetlands also. John Ashworth stated that he did not think that having wetlands on a front lot determined whether a backlot was a backlot. Art Siciliano, LLS, then extended a portion of the property line for lot #8/1-5 straight up on the plan effectively swapping triangular sections of the lots to
alleviate the issue. Dave Woodbury stated that although this made the lot look more like a backlot he felt that the applicant was creating a marginally acceptable sham to get by the fact that there was stacking going on. Don Duhaime stated that he was not 100% satisfied with the lot line revision. Peter Hogan felt that the revision presented a clear resolution to the issue. Ruth Trussell asked if this revision would change the acreage allotments. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that it would not. The Board was satisfied with the change.
The Chairman stated that a waiver request for the requirement of granite bounds at the front lot corner had been requested. Art Siciliano, LLS, asked for suggestions regarding the shared driveways. The Coordinator explained that the pins could be placed below the paved apron as long as they could be found by a metal detector in the future. Peter Hogan thought that the center bound should be set in the driveway with the others (on each side of the driveway) a prescribed distance away so that they could be easily referenced. Art Siciliano, LLS, clarified that a waiver request would then be for drill holes in the stonewall versus granite bounds but that they should still be set with pins. Peter Hogan noted that the more important point, in his opinion, was that
the two 50’ measures were properly marked.
The Chairman asked about the Driveway Permits. The Coordinator replied that the Road Agent had not reviewed them yet. The Chairman then stated that waivers for Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies were requested. Don Duhaime stated that he did not think that any of the three studies should be waived since this was a major subdivision. Dave Woodbury noted that he always found the Fiscal Impact study to offer a “cookie cutter” result. The Chairman added that even if a single subdivision did not appear to pose issues it was the cumulative effects of it combined with surrounding subdivisions that needed to be considered by the Board also, therefore, he was in agreement with no waiving the studies. Ruth Trussell wished to note that
Betsey Dodge, Conservation Commission, had sent her correspondence by email stating that she saw no problems with wetland setbacks or the Dredge and Fill proposed in conjunction with the fact that these had been approved by the State. She added that she also had State Subdivision Approval and noted that she had a copy of Betsey Dodge’s email if the Board wanted to review it. Mark Suennen stated that he did not think that a Traffic Study was required but would default to the regulations in the case of the other studies being required. Peter Hogan stated that he had yet to see any such studies that educated the Board any better on these topics but felt that Betsey Dodge knew more from an environmental standpoint. He clarified that he would be in favor of waiving all three. Abutter Katherine Kachavos wished to note that she had spoken with Betsey Dodge regarding the proposed subdivision and that Betsey had told her that there was very
little the Conservation Commission could do based on limitations the State put on wetlands. In addition she said Betsey Dodge explained that the State was in the process of permitting but was revising their statutes, therefore, could not offer any protection. Katherine Kachavos noted that her abutting property was under conservation easement. John Ashworth wished to note that the only wetlands involved on the site were on the backlot proposed off Dennison Road, however, all the other lots were well clear of wetlands and in many cases, 75’ away. Peter Hogan suggested that no-build zones could be stipulated for the lots to keep the home owners out of critical areas. He suggested this for lot #’s 8/1-9, 11 & 12. Don Duhaime thought that this was a justifiable point. Dave Woodbury clarified with the Coordinator that the house would not have to be located within its 200’ square. The Coordinator replied that was
correct. Dave Woodbury noted that on lot #8/1-8 the 200’ square was partially located in a wetland. John Ashworth noted that they had designed the lots to be large so that owners would want to hold the land in current use. He thought that what was being suggested seemed less protective. Peter Hogan felt that, if anything, no-build zones would ensure what would be protected outside of current use. Dave Woodbury thought that the discussion begged the need for an Environmental Impact Study. The Board determined that they would make their motions and take a vote on the waiver request for each study.
Peter Hogan MOVED to grant the waiver for the requirement of the Environmental Impact Study. Mark Suennen seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote.
Peter Hogan – AYE. Don Duhaime, Mark Suenned and David Woodbury – NAY. The motion FAILED.
Peter Hogan MOVED to grant the waiver for the requirement of the Traffic Impact Study. Mark Suennen seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote. David Woodbury, Mark Suennen and Peter Hogan – AYE. Don Duhaime - NAY. The motion PASSED.
Peter Hogan MOVED to grant the waiver for the requirement of the Fiscal Impact Study. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the Environmental Impact Study would be required by the applicant. Dave Woodbury asked if Art Siciliano, LLS, could review the proposed merging of the two existing lots that currently made up the site as he had not been a seated ex-officio at the last meeting when this was discussed. Art Siciliano, LLS, explained that a voluntary merger was being done and the appropriate paperwork had been filed. Peter Hogan asked if the subdivision were to not be approved if the granting of such a lot line adjustment would become null and void. The Coordinator explained that this was a merger, not a lot line adjustment, therefore, if the plan were not approved the merger would still hold. The Chairman noted that the only issue holding up the acceptance
of the application as complete was an Environmental Impact Study. Dave Woodbury asked about items noted as missing from the checklist such as no mention on the plan of existing easements and deed restrictions along with right-of-way width, deed language for the proposed easement, watershed outline and drainage computations and cost estimates for the Stormwater Management Plan. Art Siciliano, LLS, stated that he had taken care of these issues. Ruth Trussell then submitted the email correspondence she had received from Betsey Dodge.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the application of Clark Hill Trust by RR & JH Trussell, Trustees, Major Subdivision, 12 Lots, Location: Clark Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/1 & 4/62, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to October 28, 2008, at 7:30 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill reclaimed his seat on the Board and Mark Suennen his alternate position.
SHEATLER, PAUL J. & DONNA M. Adjourned from 8/26/08
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/4 Lots
Location: Bedford Road
Tax Map/lot #12/70
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Bob Todd, LLS, and the applicants Paul and Donna Sheatler. Abutter Steve Hunt was present.
The Chairman thanked Bob Todd, LLS, for resolving the issue of the illegible maps. He stated that a site walk had been held two Saturdays prior and that there were waiver requests for the requirement of the three paper print copies of the soils maps along with Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact studies. The Chairman asked why a waiver was being requested for the soils maps. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that at the last meeting there were references to two types of soils on site, the first one being a predominantly Group 2 soil in the S class by NHDES who rated soils from 1-6. He noted that Group 1 soils had faster percolation and were most suitable for development but one drawback was poor filtration. He noted that the site had Group 2 soils which were the
next most favorable for development. Bob Todd, LLS, added that he would like to see the minutes reflect that the second soil on site, a Group B soil, was considered a hydrologic soil and noted that the Department of Agriculture rated soils for different characteristics and also soils that related to development. He stated that Group A soils had the greatest infiltration rate and transmitted laterally into the groundwater table. Bob Todd, LLS, added that the A & B soils had the least amount of runoff in a rain event, all other conditions being equal and the site was predominantly hydrologic Group B soils especially along the road frontage. Given this information he explained that it facilitated the applicants’ ability to plan Stormwater runoff controls by using bio-retention and infiltration trenches to cut down the total volume of runoff and peak runoff since it would not enter the drainage system along the road. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that
this was a big lot with favorable perc tests and the applicants felt they could safely get by without the additional information provided by a Site Specific Soils Survey.
The Chairman stated that another big issue was the applicants’ shared driveway proposal and the requirement to first prove that each lot by regulation could support its own individual driveway. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the central proposed lot on the site that would retain the existing house had a band of wetlands through its full frontage except for a short distance on the southern end where the jurisdictional wetlands stopped. He added that he felt the marsh on the other side of Bedford Road had an influence under the roadway which affected these wetlands and was a permanent situation, therefore, it limited frontage for a driveway which in the optimum placement, while a second option impacted wetlands on the lot and decreased the lots’ ability to handle runoff. Bob Todd, LLS, added that there had been some excavation of a nearby pond with runoff from an existing swale draining into it, therefore, proposing an individual driveway for the central lot would require
filling in some of that pond. In addition he explained that grading for this lot and the proposed backlot would merge the grades equally and create a large impact/disturbance on both lots. As an alternative Bob Todd, LLS, showed where he had drawn a second grade line and noted that if there was a common driveway from the edge of Bedford Road for 100’ in then it broke off to a favorable grade the existing driveway would service the new lot and a new driveway would be constructed for the existing house. The Chairman and Douglas Hill asked where the property lines were between these lots. Bob Todd, LLS, noted them on the plan. He reiterated that the driveway design proposed was more favorable in consideration of some Steep Slopes on site and would not cause any wetland impacts. Peter Hogan asked if the lot line could sit in the middle of the proposed shared driveway. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that if he did that then he would lose one of
the 200’ squares. He noted that he could get a permit to cross a jurisdictional wetland to show an individual driveway. The Chairman felt that to lop off a third of the lot to accomplish this was not in the spirit of the Regulations and not a good approach. Bob Todd, LLS, offered that individual driveways could be run side by side although there was a big boulder that would need to be addressed. Paul Sheatler stated that the way the driveways were proposed on the plan meant less impact to the environment and wetlands. Dave Woodbury thought a better alternative would be to lose a lot keeping the one proposed at the southerly end of the site. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the sight distance would be OK if the grade lines were laid side by side and although the grade would be disturbed it could be replanted. The Chairman stated that as the plan stood now, proposing to carve a third of a lot with the shared driveway was not a good solution
and felt that one of the two alternatives discussed was warranted. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that in order to do this the applicant would need a Dredge and Fill and drainage design along with the task of restoring hydrologic conditions. The Chairman stated that his point was that, in his opinion, the plan as it existed was not acceptable which is why the alternatives should be more concrete than to only serve the purpose of proving the point that an individual driveway could be supported. Douglas Hill clarified that the alternatives presented were really not the applicants’ fallback designs if the shared driveway did not get approved. Peter Hogan wished to return to the option of the single driveway with the boulder issue. Douglas Hill thought this would be a nice three lot subdivision. Paul Sheatler noted that the fourth lot was very nice. Donna Sheatler stated that they had a buyer for 2 of the lots (the existing home renter) but he was
not qualified to purchase them at the same time due to qualification issues of obtaining a mortgage.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that they would work out a way to propose an individual driveway that serviced the lot. Douglas Hill noted that the Dredge and Fill scenario for the individual driveway was not realistic because it would cost $60K to $70K to do. Paul Sheatler stated that this was merely an issue of dollars. Douglas Hill stated that it was an issue of approving a shared driveway across another lot which would require an easement. The Chairman explained that usually driveways were at a lot’s property line. Bob Todd, LLS, thought that if an existing boulder could be moved then the driveway on the lot in question could be graded without wetland impacts but then realized that there would be some right at the property line, therefore, any alternative
designs other than what the plan proposed would cause wetland impacts. Douglas Hill noted that a condition of the approval could be that the other lot could not be sold until its own driveway was constructed.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the comments from the Technical Review Committee related to school bus stops where the School principal and the Police Chief determined that due to traffic speed on that area of Bedford Road the bus would need to stop at each driveway. He noted that the Committee was in agreement that fewer curb cuts were better and that the Road Agent was in favor of a shared curb cut especially the one proposed at the southern end of the lot. Bob Todd, LLS, added that there had also been discussion regarding the formulation of an algorithm to determine offsite road improvements. The Coordinator noted that the Planning Department had just received the Bedford Road Traffic Study which the Board would need to discuss during Miscellaneous Business later in the
evening.
Don Duhaime stated that the site’s frontage flooded out the south bound lane of Bedford Road in that area every spring and wondered if anything would be done to rectify that problem as subdividing would create a bigger issue. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, had addressed runoff issues for the plan, which were influenced by the groundwater levels of the marsh on the opposite side of the road. He suggested that the culvert could be lowered. Don Duhaime stated that the problem needed to be rectified. Bob Todd, LLS, clarified that there would be no increase in stormwater runoff levels for peak or total runoff. Peter Hogan stated that a driveway could not be constructed without creating runoff. Bob Todd, LLS, described a sheet water
flow design that the plan implemented to handle such runoff. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that the plan’s runoff design to date reflected their proposal for the shared driveway not individual driveways. Peter Hogan stated that this could not be accepted as such because the plan needed to first prove individual driveways that would meet the Town’s Regulations. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, continued that there were several ponds on site that would need to be intercepted for impervious areas, therefore, flows would increase but through a balancing act in the design, be maintained by a drainage design for the common driveways which would now need their mechanisms expanded for the individual driveways the Board wanted proved. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the applicant would be responsible for showing that the total runoff could be captured and not escape the site. Peter Hogan stated that he was uncomfortable with all the work being shown on the plan
for a driveway the applicants never intended to build versus doing two parallel individual driveways that would be more palatable to the Board. Paul Sheatler stated that this was why they proposed the alternative shared design, as it was less impactive. Peter Hogan replied that the alternative driveways did not meet the Town’s Regulations. Paul Sheatler asked if they could submit the plans with the lot that had the existing boulder and then their buyer for the lot could come to the Board when he wanted to put a driveway in. The Chairman replied that such issues would need to be resolved before the plan was approved. Peter Hogan continued that it was the Board’s practice to assure that driveways on plans were feasible and accessible before that plan was approved. The Chairman suggested an adjournment to give the applicants time to come back to the Board with information on runoff that was acceptable and clarified that the Board would
wait on considering waivers until they discussed the Bedford Road Traffic Study.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the application of Paul J. and Donna M. Sheatler,
Major Subdivision, 4 Lots, Location: Bedford Road, Tax Map/lot #12/70, Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, to October 28, 2008 at 8:00 p.m. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
This will be an informational session for Richard Perreault, to discuss change of use of Tax Map/Lot #3/63-14, 123 Whipplewill Road.
Present for this discussion were Richard and Chris Perreault and present owner Rick Paulhamus.
The Chairman stated that since the last meeting the Board had researched options for Mr. Perreault’s Zoning use. He asked the Coordinator to give a summary of her findings. The Coordinator stated that the uses available in the Commercial District did not seem to fit the proposed use of home heating oil storage and delivery. She noted that the closest use would be “Contractor’s Yard” although that was still a stretch because this definition had been used before for construction contractors. The Coordinator said that Vehicular Sales and Repair Facility was not a good fit either. She noted that she had put the question out on Plan Link since she could find no definition currently in Zoning for Mr. Perreault’s proposed use that would
encompass his future plans for fuel storage on site and a few responses had been that this use would fall into the Industrial Zone. The Coordinator added that the Industrial District offered opportunities for trucking terminals and bulk storage which would appear to be closer to the proposed use. She noted that the only lot zoned Industrial in Town was already being used. Peter Hogan added that fuel storage would not be a good idea for the Industrial Zone located in the Town since an aquifer was nearby. Douglas Hill wished to note to Richard Perreault that while it was possible to consider the approval to park the fuel trucks on the site his future plans for fuel storage tanks may not be allowable. Dave Woodbury noted that for Commercial uses clients often go to the site as customers and this was not the case for the use proposed by Mr. Perreault, therefore, he believed his use did belong in the Industrial Zone and felt that he had a decent chance at
pursuing a variance to put an Industrial use on a Commercial lot. Richard Perreault stated that he had researched the adjoining property to the lot owned by Mr. Neville and found it listed as Commercial/Industrial use. The Coordinator replied that this was an assessing term not a Zone per the Zoning Ordinance. Richard Perreault replied that he understood but wished to note that he thought his proposed use offered less impact than what had been on the lot since 1997. He asked what the Board felt was his main issue. Peter Hogan replied that it was the proposed future storage of fuel on site. Richard Perreault noted that the future storage was planned in above ground tanks and that he had just purchased two double wall tanks with monitors prematurely because he could not pass up the good deal he purchased them for. Peter Hogan thought that the use could be considered a fuel transfer station allowable by special exception but noting that it was
not a service station. The Coordinator replied that Mr. Perreault’s proposed use did not fit that definition. Peter Hogan told Richard Perreault that the Board’s issue was trying to find a use that his business model fit. Richard Perreault noted that by a fluke he had come across three fuel storage tanks that were three years old and a great price that he could not ignore. He stated that he purchased them for his future plan of fuel storage on the site but did not want the Board to think this was an imminent idea. The Coordinator then read the definition for Auto Service Station from the Zoning Ordinance: “Any area of land, including structures thereon, that is used for the supply of gasoline or oil or other fuel for the propulsion of motor vehicles and which may include facilities used for polishing, greasing, washing, spraying, dry cleaning, minor mechanical repairs or otherwise cleaning or servicing such motor vehicles.
A service station is not a vehicular sales and major repair facility”. Peter Hogan noted that the product was the same. The Chairman further noted that the Board was not arguing the chemical semantics.
Rick Paulhamus stated that he presently owned the site and the previous owner’s use on the site was fixing and maintaining heavy equipment and trucks. He noted that for his business on the site he had to approach the ZBA and he did not understand why Mr. Perreault’s business proposal was so different that what he himself was doing right now. He stressed that Mr. Perreault was not considering the future plan of storage right now, only parking his fuel trucks there. Dave Woodbury noted that Mr. Perreault may be slamming the door in his own face if he wanted to store fuel on the site in the future. Peter Hogan clarified that a two-part process was being anticipated and later on Mr. Perreault would be coming back to the Board to amend his site plan.
Richard Perreault agreed and added that he would also need to approach the State for his future plan. The Chairman stated that Mr. Perreault’s future plan would take him into different territory so as long as he recognized that fact the Board could addressed his specific use now with him being forewarned. Alternatively he added that Mr. Perreault could address everything now. Rick Paulhamus clarified that the Board could consider the approval of the truck parking aspect on site now and he could come back in the future for the second aspect of his plan. Douglas Hill asked Mr. Perreault what he preferred. Richard Perreault stated that he would like to have the truck parking aspect considered now with the knowledge that he would need to come back in the future for consideration of the fuel storage. He added that he understood that he may have to approach the ZBA in the future also. Don Duhaime asked if the trucks would be full of fuel at
night when they were parked on the site. Peter Hogan stated that there was a big difference between fuel in a truck and in a storage tank.
The Coordinator stated that the next item to consider was that the Board would be approving a use that Mr. Perreault was not really proposing and that his plan needed to comply with a use in the district, which he needed to fit with. Rick Paulhamus noted that he felt Mr. Perreault’s use complied with the same as he was doing on the site. Peter Hogan stated that he strongly disagreed. The Chairman stated that there were two choices the first being that Mr. Perreault could look at the site’s existing plan as it was approved now, sign off that he would follow the same guidelines or, if not, submit his own site plan and go through the normal process. He added that the use of contractor’s yard seemed to be the closest fit. Douglas Hill thought that
realistically Richard Perreault could stick with amending the current plan that was in place now. Richard Perreault questioned how he would handle the hours of operation aspect by the current plan as there could be times when someone needed an emergency fuel delivery at 2:00 a.m. The Chairman explained that the plan would need to reflect how he would operate and if it did not he should consider amendments or even a new plan if there were many changes. Dave Woodbury noted that the definition of a contractor’s yard would not accommodate fuel storage. Rick Paulhamus noted that the fuel storage aspect was “plan B” for Mr. Perreault. The Coordinator clarified that if Mr. Perreault wished to sign off on the current plan for the site the Board would need to decide under Miscellaneous Business at a regular meeting if it was approvable. The Chairman wished to note that the advantage of doing a new plan was that it was a clean way of
dealing with things, although it did involve going through the site plan review process.
LACHANCE, CAROL S. & ALBERT J.
Compliance Hearing/CUP/Wetland Crossing
Location: NH Route 77 aka Weare Road
Tax Map/Lot # 2/112-2-3-4 & 5
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. Present in the audience was Albert LaChance.
The Chairman stated that a compliance site walk had been held and that Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, had recommended returning the bond except for $500 to be held until May 2009, for grass stabilization. He added that he had no issues in viewing the site. Mark Suennen commented that the grass was already growing on the site. The Coordinator noted that there was an outstanding certified letter fee of $105.00 that was sent to the applicant on September 18, 2008, but this amount could be added as a condition. (Applicant submitted check the next day and condition was removed from Decision. N.S.)
Douglas Hill MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the installation of one wetland crossing on N.H. Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Tax Map/Lot #2/112-2-3 & -4 & -5, by Albert and Carol Lachance, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. $500 will be held until May 2009 to confirm that the vegetation is stabilized and the silt fence can be removed. The confirmation of this condition shall be made administratively by the Planning Board and will not require an additional compliance hearing.
Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2008
1. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Louis G., II & Trudy M. Nixon, Tax Map/Lot #7/58-1, 116 Lyndeborough Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
Given that there were multiple signatures it was determined that the above noted Subdivision Plan would be signed at the end of the meeting.
2. Approval of the minutes of August 26, 2008, with or without changes, distributed by
email.
Mark Suennen stated that he had not received the minutes. The Coordinator was unsure as to why this had occurred since he was on the email list.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the minutes of August 26, 2008, as written. Mark Suennen abstained from the vote. The motion PASSED.
3. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing from the Town of Goffstown, re: installation of a wireless telecommunication facility.
Douglas Hill asked what company was doing the installation. The Coordinator replied that it was Crown Communication who had been responsible for the cell tower on the Dodge property in New Boston.
Page 2 of Miscellaneous Business also starts with #1:
1. The minutes of September 9, 2008, were noted as having been distributed by email for approval on October 14, 2008, with or without changes.
2. A copy of the General John Stark Byway Coalition Meeting Agenda, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that the above noted group was still seeking a planning board member and noted that their meetings would only be held quarterly, if needed. The Chairman stated that he would consider attending.
4. A copy of the Workforce housing documents were distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that these were what she had referenced earlier in the evening.
5. A copy of the Small Wind Energy Systems documents were distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that these documents were a model ordinance with ideas for windmill heights, etc.
3. A copy of the Bedford Road Safety Study Summary Report was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that the Board had seen a draft of the above noted study in the previous year and although there was now a list of things that could be done to improve things like curves and sight distances, capacity wise, Bedford Road was found to be able to handle all future anticipated traffic, therefore, the Board could not say, for example, that a connector road was required or that no more subdivisions could be handled off it. She felt that the best the Board could do with this information was to have the Road Agent prioritize what needed to be improved along Bedford Road so that fair share assessments could be allotted to developers once their plans in this area were approved. Mark Suennen asked how the assessment was calculated. The Coordinator replied that
it was formula based and involved lot size but the difference now was that there was a solid cost figure in place rather than a “floating” figure. She added that she would contact the Road Agent to the information needed. The Chairman stated that he would be happy to go with the Coordinator to get this information from the Road Agent at his office.
The Coordinator stated that the OEP Conference was scheduled for October 25, 2008, at Loon Mountain in Lincoln, NH., and that those attending should let her know what topics they would like to attend. The Chairman felt that the introductory session was informative and suggested to Mark Suennen, who was attending, that he listen to that one.
The Planning Board Chairman and Secretary endorsed the Subdivision Plan for Louis G., II & Trudy M. Nixon, Tax Map/Lot #7/58-1, 116 Lyndeborough Road.
At 9:50 p.m. Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk
| 
