 |
TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of October 28, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Vice Chairman Douglas Hill who acted as Chairman in Stu Lewin’s absence. Present were regular members, Peter Hogan, Don Duhaime, alternate, Mark Suennen, and; ex-officio Gordon Carlstrom. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong and Planning Assistant Michele Brown.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Brandy Mitroff, Katherine Kachavos, Bob Todd, LLS, Art Siciliano, LLS, Jay Marden, Ken Lombard, Ruth Trussell, John Ashworth, Anthony Costello, PE, Gloria Chandler, Gordon Russell, Paul and Donna Sheatler, Chantelle Barton, Becky Grosso and Kim DiPietro.
Douglas Hill appointed Mark Suennen a full voting member for the evening’s meeting.
Discussion, re: Accessory Dwelling Units
The Coordinator apologized that the Board was just receiving her research on Accessory Dwelling Units at tonight’s meeting and explained that there was a delay given that she had been on vacation the previous week. She explained that she had gathered information online regarding different towns’ ordinances (not all towns were in New Hampshire) and had condensed the information into a bullet point format for the hand out. The Coordinator noted that the towns of Hollis, NH, Lyme, NH and Huntersville, NC, were the only towns that permitted accessory dwelling units in detached structures where all the other towns that were noted required accessory dwelling units to be within, attached to, or added on to an existing single family home. She further noted that
there were a lot of points in the ordinances that regarded the attached structures that could also be applied to detached structures. The Coordinator pointed out that she provided the Board with a second packet which did not include information on ordinances but was an informational bullet piece from Lake Forest Park, IL, that had interesting content regarding detached/attached structures in comparison to the lot size they were proposed on. She added that most towns were clear that the accessory dwelling should be one unit with owner occupancy in the existing or accessory dwelling, that it should not detract from the character of the surroundings in which it was located and that (for most) there should be no additional curb cuts, mailboxes, etc. The Coordinator noted that some towns permitting attached structures did not permit separate utilities and also required separate entrances to the accessory dwelling in the rear. She stated that most of the square
footage language ranged from a minimum 250 s.f. to 350 s.f. and specified either a maximum square footage or a percentage of the total existing dwelling area, whichever was less or greater. The Coordinator summarized that in most cases attached accessory dwelling units were required to be able to be re-incorporated into the existing structure and that Hollis, NH, was likely the closest example to what the Board was considering.
Peter Hogan stated that in considering accessory dwelling units he was thinking of in-law apartments. Gordon Carlstrom commented that he liked Plaistow, NH’s points (from the Coordinator’s packet) which specified no condominium conversion was allowed. Peter Hogan stated that he still questioned what issue the Board was trying to solve in the consideration of accessory dwelling units. Douglas Hill noted that he had a cousin who, when newly married, lived in an apartment attached to an older home in Dunbarton, NH, where heat was included and provided them affordable housing starting out. He noted that he saw this as an example of what need the Board was trying to fill along with the in-law scenario. Peter Hogan stated that he looked at it in another
way in how they could, as a hybrid scenario, provide work force rental housing and although he did not think the discussions they were having on this topic would necessarily provide for that it would accomplish the opposite to supplement home owners’ finances so that they could stay in their homes. He added that what was not made clear in the minutes that he read from a prior meeting where the Board discussed this subject was that he was not in favor of the owner occupying the site, and although he understood the purpose of doing it, it would not necessarily serve the purpose. He offered the example of a town resident who did not take care of his property and noted that the Board was trying to set a standard to a certain level of maintenance. Douglas Hill stated that the only example that would be in contrast would be if an investor bought a property and ran it in a “slum lord” fashion. Gordon Carlstrom stated that he would support the
owner occupied scenario. Peter Hogan replied that although there was a strong argument for that it depended on what you wanted to accomplish. He offered an example of a farmhouse owner who wanted to have 4 apartments. Gordon Carlstrom replied that such an example did not apply to this discussion as they were considering an existing home with one accessory dwelling unit. Peter Hogan asked what the case would be for a good size house such as a farmhouse, converted to a duplex and then a big barn that’s semi-attached. Douglas Hill noted that in the context of what they were discussing having accessory dwellings in the barn may not be allowed. Peter Hogan stated that it may not even apply to this discussion but recalled that the Board had expressed a need for apartments. Douglas Hill clarified that Peter Hogan was referring to affordable housing. Peter Hogan replied that this is what he meant. Douglas Hill agreed and regarding
Peter Hogan’s example of the barn attached to the duplex he clarified that there could be up to two apartments in the barn if one was allowed for each duplex owner. Gordon Carlstrom reiterated that such an example was again, not what they were discussing as an accessory dwelling example in this case would be to convert one bay of a barn as an ancillary use, not split the barn into multiple apartments. The Coordinator explained that the examples Peter Hogan was offering referred more to discussion for the Multi-Family Overlay District which had been another part of the application for the grant the Town had not secured from the State and that Accessory Dwellings was yet another (very specific) piece of the topic where they were small units targeted to a certain market. Peter Hogan noted that it took a certain incentive to rent to the public versus condexing a home, selling it and being done with it. He added that renting to those of more moderate income
was another consideration as a $2K rental required a $2K security deposit, therefore a $4K outlay versus cheaper rentals of $500 with $500 security deposits.
Gordon Carlstrom wished to get back to the discussion and stated that in regard to accessory dwelling units he would be in favor of owner occupancy on site and the accessory dwelling being tied into the existing septic system. He wondered how electricity would be considered. The Coordinator stated that for detached dwellings it would likely be separate although the Board may not want to make this a requirement. Don Duhaime stated that he
thought it should be separate either way. Mark Suennen offered that a separate zone for heating could be considered. He added that in the handout he noticed that most towns considered accessory dwelling units as special exceptions and asked if Planning Board approval would be required. The Coordinator replied that it would likely be an issue for the ZBA’s consideration and added that she did not see any town’s on the list that included a CUP requirement, but she could check into that. Douglas Hill noted that septic system considerations could be hindered in the cases of detached dwellings as it would be difficult to run one line without having a separate leach field. Mark Suennen noted that there may be cases were a conversion was not being considered and instead a new structure was being
added, therefore septic could be better planned. Gordon Carlstrom noted that in some cases there would be a need for integration with common systems.
Douglas Hill thought that it seems backwards that they were having discussions on considering a use that the ZBA, and not the Planning Board would be approving. Douglas Hill thought that the Coordinator should check and see what Bedford, NH, allowed because he was fairly sure that it was a more streamlined process to set up an accessory dwelling unit and did not require a hearing. Peter Hogan noted that Bedford, NH, had town sewer and water. Douglas Hill clarified that most of the lots in Bedford, NH, actually had septic systems. Don Duhaime wondered if the Planning Department wanted to invest a lot of time into this since it seemed to him that it was more of a Building Department and Zoning issue. Gordon Carlstrom noted that a major part of this was ensuring
that those who proposed such a use got the correct information on how to go about it and did not confuse it with duplex proposals. He added that, inversely, if the process was too onerous no one would attempt it. The Coordinator noted that a special exception differed from a variance and was considered an extra level of scrutiny to a permitted use. Peter Hogan stated that his thought was that in the accessory dwelling scenario the well, septic system and heating was either shared or not shared with the property owner and that either way the property owner was on site so that if, for example, an owner’s mother-in-law lived in the accessory dwelling and overused the septic or ran the well dry it would need to be replaced and likely upgraded under the guidance of a licensed installer, therefore, this was a self-regulating scenario. He noted that he would like to see accessory dwellings have separate utilities but in the context the Board was discussing
the issue it would as he explained be a self-regulating item. Peter Hogan added that he did not think that a property owner considering an accessory dwelling as a solution to a financial hardship would be able to afford to replace/upgrade their existing septic system and inversely if new construction was involved that would dictate itself. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the Planning Board would have no way, for example, of knowing that an existing furnace was undersized to handle a proposed accessory dwelling. Peter Hogan agreed and felt this would be an issue for the Building Inspector. Douglas Hill stated that the main scenario he was considering was a 2 car garage to an existing home with an in-law type apartment above it. Gordon Carlstrom felt that Peter Hogan was focusing on duplexing of an existing structure which was not the case for an accessory dwelling unit. Peter Hogan stated that he was thinking of a large house with a portion
rented out and no construction involved. Douglas Hill noted that some construction would still be needed in that example such as a separate kitchen, bath, laundry, etc. and noted that there was a difference between attached and detached structures, however, he was in favor of both and felt that most “attached” proposals would likely be in the existing basement or over the existing garage with separate entrances and some degree of remodeling. The Coordinator noted that an applicant proposing anything on a larger scale would be shifted over to a two-family proposal which was a different scenario. Douglas Hill asked if in-law apartments were allowed in Town currently. The Coordinator replied that they were, and, could either be an apartment over a garage or in an attached structure but were considered a two-family and in this discussion the Board was considering the detached function. Peter Hogan wished to clarify that the Board was then only
considering detached structures and did not need to address septic system issues. The Coordinator and Douglas Hill commented that the septic issue may depend on where the detached structure was located. Gordon Carlstrom still thought that the requirements of owner occupancy and square footage specifications should still be included in the language being considered. Douglas Hill felt that the Board was in agreement on this point and regarding the septic system item this could be looked at on a case by case basis.
Gordon Carlstrom asked how accessory dwellings would be numbered for emergency services and noted that if you got into scenarios with numbering such as A, B and C for example, in the case of two houses on a driveway would the driveway then become a road according to NFPA standards. The Coordinator asked if there were cases of this in Town. Gordon Carlstrom replied that Boulder Drive was one example along with an address on Beard Road, therefore, this was an item that would need to be carefully considered during an applicant’s Site Plan Review.
The Coordinator asked if the Board was interested in prohibiting accessory dwellings if there was a current duplex on the lot. Douglas Hill replied that they were and that only single family homes, owner occupied on site should apply. Gordon Carlstrom reiterated that the condex/condo prohibition be included. The Coordinator asked that the Board read through the special exception section in the Zoning Ordinance and that she would put some language together for their review for the next meeting.
The Coordinator noted that some considerations to Zoning were coming up on the calendar and in that regard asked if the Board wished to still have the second meeting in December (12/23/08) as it was Christmas week or, if not, would consider moving that meeting to December 30th which would still allow time for the required public hearings on the Zoning items. The Board thought that a shift to the December 30th date was acceptable.
At 7:10 p.m. the Planning Board took a 5 minute break.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2008
1. Approval of the minutes of September 23, 2008, with or without changes, distributed by email.
Peter Hogan asked that a motion to accept the above noted minutes be tabled until he had time to listen to the tapes as he did not feel that the minutes accurately reflected his comments. Douglas Hill asked if he could specify the sections. Peter Hogan stated that he had not yet listened to the tapes and knew that he could not change what he said but knew what he thought he said which was why he wanted to postpone the acceptance until the following meeting. The Board agreed to postpone the acceptance of the minutes of September 23, 2008, given Peter Hogan’s explanation.
2. Discussion with Kim DiPietro, re: Noise Ordinance.
Because Kim DiPietro was due to the meeting later in the evening the Board determined that they would address this item later.
3. Discussion, re: Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5-1, Inkberry Road, as-built.
Because the lot owner was due to the meeting later in the evening the Board determined that they would address this item later.
4. Schedule a compliance site walk for Locus Field, LLC for the acceptance of Kettle Lane.
Peter Hogan questioned what needed to be viewed. The Coordinator replied that there were some items on the final punch list and that this would be the approval of all that the applicant was supposed to do for the subdivision so that the Selectmen could then accept the road and then a maintenance bond would be forthcoming. A compliance site walk was scheduled for Saturday, November 15, 2008, at 8:30 a.m.
Public Hearing on Amendments to the Subdivision Regulations
Proposed by the Planning Board
SEE SEPARATE NOTICE
Douglas Hill read the public hearing notice. Copies of the proposed amendments were offered to audience members. From the audience Brandy Mitroff asked if the amendments to the road standards proposed were the result of the meetings held with the Board, Road Agent and Town Engineer over the past several months. Douglas Hill replied that this was correct. He noted that he would open the discussion with the Board and then open up the hearing to public input.
Douglas Hill stated that he had some written comments supplied by the Chairman who was absent this evening. He noted that one comment regarded some language/punctuation changes for proposed Amendment #6 with a rewording of its table headings. Gordon Carlstrom noted that part of the Chairman’s suggestion involved rewording “…primary road ADT > 1,000…” and felt that the Chairman’s suggestion of > 1000 ADT was confusing. He felt the phrasing should be worded as it stood. Mark Suennen agreed. He noted that to get specific, if ADT’s were exactly 1,000 the phrasing conflicted, i.e. it might be better worded as “…ADT > 1,000”. The Board agreed. Douglas Hill asked about the phrasing
which read: “…ADT < 1,000…” Mark Suennen felt that in the same respect the exact number of 400 should be accounted for somewhere and thought that the middle column was appropriate. Secondary roads would, therefore, read “> 400 < 1,000 ADT”. The Board agreed. Douglas Hill read from more of the Chairman’s comments and noted that he had inquired if the commas were removed from the “1,000” numbers in the table if all the text would fit in a single row. The Coordinator replied that she did not think that it would. Douglas Hill addressed the Chairman’s next written question on whether “ADT” (Average Daily Traffic) should be defined somewhere in the proposed amendments. Douglas Hill felt that this document was likely to be reviewed mostly by a traffic engineer who would understand the term. Mark Suennen agreed that every traffic engineer should
know that term but added that the only other thing that may need to be defined is how ADT is measured and the “vehicles per day” versus “automobiles per day”, i.e., this would exclude trucks, etc. He suggested this be added into the table as a.a. The Board agreed. Douglas Hill went on to note various punctuation errors flagged by the Chairman in the comments he provided and that in Amendment #7 the term “shall” should be changed to "should" to be consistent in the language. The Board agreed. Douglas Hill added that in Amendment #7, the required number of As-Built plan copies to be submitted (Section IX,10,7) should be mentioned directly after other discussion of plan details instead of at the end of the section. The Coordinator suggested that all the paperwork submission details and digital plat details (Sections IX, 10, 8 & 9) also be moved up and renumbered. The Board agreed.
Douglas Hill then opened discussion to the public. Bob Todd, LLS, questioned proposed Amendment #7 on page 7 and asked why item #9 did not require that data be presented as Autocad R-14. The Coordinator replied that this requirement was referenced at the bottom of page #6. She explained that the Planning Board always asked for a paper copy that they cut and pasted to tax maps for their own reference purposes and did not require a digital copy. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that item #8 noted the R-14 requirement, however, #9 did not. He asked the purpose of #9. The Coordinator replied that it was a way for the Planning Board to keep track of the subdivisions on the tax maps. Mark Suennen pointed out that in #9 the phrasing should be changed from
“…uses will be required…” to “… uses shall be required…”.
Bob Todd, LLS, asked if the Board was still holding to 50’ rights-of-way regarding the table on Minimum Standards for Primary Roads, and wondered if the Board had given any thought to increasing it to 60’. Douglas Hill replied that this had not been brought up in any of the Board discussions but wished if Bob Todd, LLS, felt strongly about it that he had been involved. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that given underground utilities and storm drainage it seemed better in some cases to have a 60’ right-of –way width. Douglas Hill stated that he did not disagree but was unsure if they could make a snap decision like that without needing to obtain the Town Engineer’s opinion. Peter Hogan did not think that increasing the width would concern the Town
Engineer. The Coordinator stated that the Board would need to consider that the specific wording read: “…drainage to cover full 50’ of right-of-way…”, noting this would mean the full 60’ being opened up if needed. Gordon Carlstrom suggested that the wording could be revised to read: “…drainage to cover full width of right-of-way…” in item “u”, page 4 as this would compensate for when the widths varied. The Board agreed.
Don Duhaime asked if Autocad R-14 was referred to this way in the Subdivision Regulations because this was what the Town used. The Coordinator noted that this requirement came from Bob Todd, LLS’s, original language for requiring digital versions of the subdivisions. Don Duhaime thought that maybe the phrasing should just make reference to the most up to date version since R-14 was somewhat dated. He asked Bob Todd, LLS, what version of Autocad he used in his business. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that they updated their version each year and were presently using 2008. He noted that most surveyors sent their data in the current version and did not hold to the R-14 requirement anyway. Gordon Carlstrom noted that most professionals using Autocad could save
down to the R-14 version but thought that some details may be lost in the process. Don Duhaime thought that the language could be re-phrased to say just “Autocad” or “…the Town’s currently supported version of Autocad…” The Coordinator noted that the only issue was then that the phrasing of the R-14 version was also referenced in another part of the Subdivision Regulations that was not part of these proposed amendments so that could create an anomaly. Douglas Hill suggested that they just address the change with next year’s proposed amendments. Bob Todd, LLS, asked if the phrasing was stricken in one location what would result. Mark Suennen felt that it would eliminate the redundancy and make the correction easier to fix next year. Peter Hogan agreed and noted that a release of Autocad was then not being specified, just the use of Autocad. The Board agreed. Douglas Hill asked if there
were any more comments and there were none.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to accept the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations as amended, dated 10/28/08. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
CLARK HILL TRUST By RR Adjourned from 9/23/08
& 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
Douglas Hill read the public hearing notice. He recused himself as he was an abutter and Peter Hogan sat in as Chairman. Present in the audience were Art Siciliano, LLS, land consultant for the applicant, John Ashworth, Environmental Consultant, Anthony Costello, PE and the applicant Ruth Trussell. Abutters and interested parties present were Katherine Kachavos, Gloria Chandler, Gordon Russell, Brandy Mitroff, Jay Marden, Kim DiPietro and Ken Lombard.
Art Siciliano, LLS, stated that since the last meeting they had made revisions to the plan requested by the Board one of which was a lot line adjustment between proposed lot #’s 8/1-4 and 8/1-5 which put lot #8/1-4 behind lot #’s 1, 2 and 3 and lot #8/1-5 behind lot #’s 8/1-6 and 8/1-7. He added that a note was put on page #2 of the plan that stated there was no existing easements or deed restrictions on the site. Art Siciliano, LLS, then submitted a waiver request for the requirement to how the bounds would be set which he added had been copied to the Coordinator and explained that the applicant proposed drill holes in the corners of the stonewall at the front of the site. He noted that they had contacted two firms regarding an Environmental Impact Study
and that it had not yet been done. Art Siciliano, LLS, added that the applicant was also requesting a waiver regarding the Stormwater Management Plans which Anthony Costello, PE, would speak to. He stated that another issue he would like to address is the bus stop proposal. Ruth Trussell added that she had submitted a letter to the Board regarding this topic also.
Anthony Costello, PE, wished to first address the Stormwater Management waiver request. He explained that in order to meet the Town’s requirements for no increase in peak flows pre and post-development they would need to do a closed drainage system to collect driveway runoff that would flow to existing culverts on Clark Hill Road. Anthony Costello, PE, noted that this would be a costly design that would require extensive tree cutting and ultimately the Town’s maintenance. He added that post-development drainage calculations indicated that the existing culverts could handle runoff for a 50 year storm, therefore, the applicant sought a waiver to the requirement of needing to keep post-development runoff < pre-development runoff. Anthony Costello,
PE, added that on the other side of Clark Hill Road the culverts drained to an existing wetland of standing water, therefore, the extra volume created by the subdivision would not be a significant impact downstream. Peter Hogan wished to have Anthony Costello, PE, stop with his explanation and noted that wetlands such as the ones he mentioned were seeing impacts and coming up over their banks to wash out roads such as in the most recent rain events of the past several years. Anthony Costello, PE, noted that the wetland across from the site was approximately 3 to 4 acres of standing water that would be raised up about 0.10” by the subdivision runoff. Peter Hogan asked what would happen when 10 other subdivisions occurred in the vicinity. Anthony Costello, PE, replied that he supposed that would then equal an increase of 1”. Peter Hogan stated that the Board would not grant any relief for increased runoff. Gordon Carlstrom noted that
the increase should be less than or equal to the pre-development runoff and this was the case because the Town had historically experienced significant loss of culverts with cumulative runoff increases. The Coordinator asked for clarification on Anthony Costello’s comment to the Town maintaining a proposed drainage system. Anthony Costello, PE, replied that he was not certain on how the jurisdiction of such a drainage system would transfer to the Town. Peter Hogan felt that a closed drainage system would be maintained by the Town as would a detention pond, therefore, it would need to be designed in such a way. John Ashworth wished to note that in reading over the State’s erosion control guidelines the language stated that enclosed driveway runoff should use existing culverts which conflicted with Peter Hogan's statement. He added that in reading through these regulations his impression was that the Town did not want increased flow rates as
it was that, not volume that encouraged flooding, therefore, the issue was to put the water somewhere else which they felt they were addressing. Peter Hogan and Gordon Carlstrom disagreed with John Ashworth’s comment and felt that the issue was volume. John Ashworth stated that volume impacts happened over time with flow rates. Peter Hogan stated that volume and flow rates were closely related. John Ashworth agreed but noted that they were not the same which was why detention basins were designed to dispense volume at a slower rate. Gordon Carlstrom noted that a major issue had been effects to downstream infrastructures, therefore, the Board wanted assurance that more impacts did not occur. Abutter Katherine Kachavos stated that Anthony Costello, PE, had mentioned the 50 year storm, however, in the last two years the Town had experienced two 100 year storms. Abutter Gloria Chandler noted a 15” culvert was being increased to an 18” culvert in front of her property which
abutted the site and asked if the Board knew why. Peter Hogan replied that this was being done to increase the capacity that could be held, for example, in the case of a 100 year storm, however it would not necessarily release more water but instead would handle flows so that it did not go over the road onto her property. He noted that Gloria Chandler’s point that there was a lot of run off in that location was recognized.
The Coordinator stated that she still questioned the maintenance issue for the drainage as ordinarily for Stormwater Management Plans the town relied on the seal of the professional engineer on the plan and the driveway culverts and other structures were privately maintained by the owners. She added that if the Town was to be involved in the plan’s proposed maintenance then the Town Engineer would need to be involved to review the plans and the installation of the drainage structures. Peter Hogan agreed that this would be necessary. Gordon Carlstrom added that an easement would also need to be added for maintenance access. Peter Hogan noted that if all was done correctly on site he would not think that closed drainage would be needed as there would not be any runoff
increases. Anthony Costello, PE, noted that they had taken the runoff calculated and could keep it on site but would need to install a 200’ pipe adjacent to Clark Hill Road and along the frontage. Art Siciliano, LLS, noted that there were also two detention ponds proposed. Peter Hogan asked where they would discharge. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that they would discharge to a treatment swale and to existing wetlands. Peter Hogan stated that this sounded wrong as he believed the runoff would run over a swale to the wetlands across the street. Anthony Costello, PE, replied that this was why they were requesting a waiver to the drainage to an existing culvert. Don Duhaime asked why the runoff could not go to the two detention ponds proposed. Anthony Costello, PE, replied that they were located 700’ to 800’ away. He added that they proposed the closed drainage to carry the clean water to the existing culverts on
Clark Hill Road while the dirty water from the driveway runoff would go through the closed drainage, be treated in a swale and discharged to the wetlands on site. Peter Hogan asked if the applicants proposed paved driveways. Ruth Trussell replied that they would probably not and this would be up to the lot owner. Peter Hogan clarified that the applicant proposed drainage runoff off 10% graded dirt driveways into closed drainage that the Town would maintain. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that this was not their preference. Peter Hogan replied that this could never happen. Ruth Trussell noted that the lot owners could choose to pave their own driveways and that with the plan they were trying hard to keep the land beautiful as it was on a Town scenic road. She noted that if there were elaborate drainage systems constructed they would need to remove trees and install catch basins which would be aesthetically displeasing. Peter Hogan stated
that he understood Ruth Trussell’s point but noted that the effects of water on a 10% driveway equaled a lot of damage when the water flowed to the rip rap. Ruth Trussell noted that the land was not smooth and that there were a lot of low areas with good drainage and from her layman’s perspective she understood that there should be a fair amount of water that would be reabsorbed into the ground. Interested party Gordon Russell stated that he was concerned about runoff going into the existing wetlands as there was a lot of diversity there and this further led to an abutter’s property to the north with a pond that had a great deal of productivity, therefore, he hoped that the applicant was careful given their proposal for a detention pond in the area and near vernal pools. Ruth Trussell stated that there was a certain amount of runoff that already ran across Clark Hill Road which she assumed picked up chemicals from the winter treatment of the road
and to the wetlands bog. She felt that what they proposed for runoff to the same wetlands would be cleaner. Peter Hogan noted that the cumulative effects were the Board’s main issue but noted that they could revisit the subject after a redesign for the runoff was done.
Peter Hogan stated that a final item they had time to discuss regarded a letter dated 10/20/08 that regarded the bus waiting areas for children. Art Siciliano, LLS, stated that instead of constructing a bus pull off area for one of the places for children to stand they proposed using shared driveway areas for the two stops. Don Duhaime asked if these areas had proper sight distance where cars coming down the road in an easterly direction would be able to see the bus in time. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that the sight distance was greater than 200’ in either direction from these driveways. Don Duhaime asked the scale of the plan. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that it was 100 scale. Peter Hogan clarified that the applicant was proposing bus stops at lot
#’s 8/1-4 and 5. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the Road Agent and School Principal should give their opinion on this. Peter Hogan thought the proposal ridiculous and believed that in bad weather the bus may pull over more and could crack the driveway aprons which would bring complaints for the lot owners. Brandy Mitroff wondered if the Town would plow out private driveways since they would also be waiting areas for school children and inversely if they did not then how could it be guaranteed that the owners would clear the end of their driveways for the children to wait especially if they had no kids themselves. Gordon Carlstrom felt that this was why the Road Agent and the School Principal needed to be contacted. Peter Hogan felt that the Planning Board should not be dictating where children should wait for the bus regarding private driveways and wondered who would be at fault, the Town or the driveway owner, if a child was injured in the
driveway while waiting for the bus. Brandy Mitroff thought it likely that the Principal mapped bus stops based on the terrain of the road and where children lived. Art Siciliano, LLS, asked what should be done with the bus stops proposed on the plan. Peter Hogan replied that the proposal would need to be run by those who designated such things to see if they had any other ideas. He noted that the application could not be accepted as complete because the Environmental Impact Study was not yet submitted. The Coordinator noted that the other waiver requests needed to be considered in order for the applicant to finish their plan, namely the Stormwater Management estimates and the cost estimate of the CUP permit (driveway on lot #8/1-12, Dennison Road-wetland crossing). Peter Hogan thought that this could be submitted when the construction began. The Coordinator noted that was a separate thing and that for the Stormwater Management bond an
estimate needed to be submitted now but the money did not come in to it until the Building Permit stage. She explained that the applicant requested a waiver to submitting the estimate now. The Coordinator added that the CUP was for the wetland crossing where you take the bond for the cost of installation when it was put in and she thought that the applicant’s request was to not do that bond not just not do the estimate. Peter Hogan thought that while the estimate was required up front the bond was not until the wetland crossing was built (for CUP). The Coordinator replied that the scenario Peter Hogan mentioned was generally taken as part of the Subdivision Regulations. Peter Hogan thought that it was changed so that when they did the building process they could submit it at that time. The Coordinator replied that this was the case for the Stormwater Management Plans. Peter Hogan stated that another thing he had seen was people doing
the crossing then getting their bond back and letting it sit which let the estimate be fresh so that it worked for the Board and was done. Ruth Trussell stated that it was likely that they would not do anything on lot #8/1-12 for a while. Art Siciliano, LLS, noted that this was why they were requesting the waiver. Peter Hogan stated that there was an advantage to not waiting so that everything would not be disturbed at once and once they were at the area of construction for the CUP that part of the site would already be established. Ruth Trussell asked if the bond was a percentage of the actual cost. Peter Hogan stated that he believed this was true but that others would know better than he would. He added that he did not know what would be involved due to the need for the redesign of the drainage that would provide for no increased runoff. Art Siciliano, LLS, asked then what was the purpose of keeping the bond. Gordon Carlstrom
replied that it was to assure that the project was fully completed to plan. He offered the example of a developer going bankrupt. Peter Hogan continued the example by stating that a new buyer could then dig into wetland area for driveways, cellar holes, etc., and pull a permit. Gordon Carlstrom explained that this was why the CUP went with the bond for the land. Peter Hogan clarified that this was the only time the Board saw it unless driveway grades were close to the maximum allowed.
The Coordinator stated that motions were required on the submitted letters.
Mark Suennen MOVED to deny the request for the waiver on the CUP bonding for lot #8/1-12, per Ruth Trussell’s letter of October 21, 2008. Gordon Carlstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Coordinator explained that regarding the waiver request for the Stormwater Management Plan the applicant was requesting not to give the bond estimates for the individual lots (the Board required this to be submitted with the plan and the bond not submitted until a Building Permit was pulled).
Don Duhaime MOVED to deny the waiver request for the Stormwater Management
bond estimates, per Ruth Trussell’s letter of October 17, 2008. Mark Suennen
seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Peter Hogan asked the applicant if she had seen a copy of a letter submitted by Gordon Russell, a former representative of the Piscataquog Land Conservancy, dated 10/17/08. Ruth Trussell replied that she had not. Peter Hogan stated that the Board needed to move on to the next hearing but offered the applicant a copy of this letter.
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the waiver request for changing the monumentation to drill holes for the front lot corners, per Art Siciliano, LLS’s letter received October 21, 2008. Gordon Carlstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED
unanimously.
Peter Hogan referred back to Gordon Russell’s letter and suggested that the applicant give it a fair amount of weight so that they could reference it when doing their drainage design. Gordon Russell asked if there would be an appropriate time at the next meeting to discuss the points of his letter. Peter Hogan replied that there would be.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Clark Hill Trust by RR & JH Trussell, Trustees, Major Subdivision, 12 Lots, Location: Clark Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/1 & 4/62, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to November 25, 2008, at 7:30 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill reclaimed his seat on the Board as acting Chairman.
SHEATLER, PAUL J. & DONNA M. Adjourned from 9/23/08
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/4 Lots
Location: Bedford Road
Tax Map/lot #12/70
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
Douglas Hill read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Bob Todd, LLS, and the applicants Paul and Donna Sheatler. Brandy Mitroff, Jay Marden and Katherine Kachavos were also present.
Bob Todd, LLS stated that at the last meeting the applicant had been advised by the Board to revise the plan. He noted that this had been done and the required number of copies submitted. He added that they had also received revised engineered drawings for the Stormwater Management Plans and had applied to the State for a revised SSA since the fourth lot had now been dropped and needed renumbering. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that the applicant had eliminated one lot by removing a lot line and combining lots, resulting in 3 lots (1 conventional front lot of 2+ acres, another conventional front lot of 7.5 acres and a backlot which remained unchanged at 23.7 acres. He added that there were no other changes to the other two lot configurations. Peter Hogan
asked what was left for outstanding issues. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that he was unsure of the assessed offsite road improvements based on the Bedford Road study. Mark Suennen replied that this was to be determined based on discussion the Board still needed to have on the study results. Donna Sheatler stated that they eliminated the shared driveway by combining two lots into one. Peter Hogan stated that this solved any issues he had with the plan. Gordon Carlstrom asked about erosion controls on the driveway. Douglas Hill thought that this was addressed on the individual Stormwater Management Plans. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the drainage had been revised. Gordon Carlstrom mentioned that the drainage was noted as being done for 2, 10 and 50 year storms, however he did not see the 50 year storm listed on the table. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he did not realize that this was missing. Peter Hogan thought that the drainage
calculations the Board had needed were for the driveway that was never meant to be built and not proposed any longer. Don Duhaime wished to point out that this area of Bedford Road still flooded right at the point where the property lines met. Donna Shealter felt that the flooding areas were more at the point where the road disappeared off the plan. Gordon Carlstrom noted that he felt it was near Doug Smith’s house at Campbell Pond Road. He highlighted a note on the plan that suggested replacing an existing 12” culvert with a 15” if it failed and wondered why the applicant would not consider replacing it now when all the equipment would be on site. Douglas Hill first asked if there was enough information to accept the application as complete before continuing with that point. The Coordinator replied that they were still outstanding waiver requests. Mark Suennen pointed out that the drainage report showed post-development
increases of 0.04 for a 10 year storm. Don Duhaime stated that he would like to see the 50 year storm numbers. Peter Hogan stated that he thought the driveway runoff situation had to do with the driveway that was no longer on the plan. Douglas Hill asked if the drainage was recalculated once the fourth driveway was eliminated. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was. The Coordinator clarified that the full report contained all the backup information for the 50 year storm bit she was not sure whether there were increases or decreases in runoff. Donna Sheatler questioned what this was for. Douglas Hill explained that it was for the overall subdivision not for a specific driveway. Gordon Carlstrom stated that a page seemed to be missing. Douglas Hill stated that he had no issue with it anyway. Peter Hogan agreed and noted that the parcel in question was the recipient of the water not the creator so he was not concerned about the
missing page. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the Board was trying to stick to no increases in runoff and was missing information. He added that they had been strict with the last applicant and now seemed more lenient with the current one. Douglas Hill agreed with Gordon Carlstrom’s observation but added that he would be more concerned if this were a larger subdivision instead of 3 lots. Peter Hogan added that if this subdivision were on top of a hill it would be a different issue. Mark Suennen stated that he was concerned over the fact that if there were runoff increases shown for the 10 year storm that there would be for the 50 year storm for which they were missing the information. Peter Hogan asked that this missing page be supplied. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the applicant had submitted an Individual Stormwater Management Plan for the proposed driveway that needed steep cuts. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this had been done.
Douglas Hill noted that the Board needed to act on the other outstanding waiver requests.
Peter Hogan MOVED to grant the waiver requested for three paper print copies of the site specific soils map based on Bob Todd, LLS’s, description of the soil types and capabilities. Gordon Carlstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the applicants requested a waiver to the requirement of a Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Study given that only three lots were proposed.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to grant the waiver requested for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED
unanimously.
Douglas Hill commented that the application could likely not be accepted as complete due to the missing information on the 50 year storm. The Coordinator clarified that the submission of this information was not required for the completeness of the application.
Peter Hogan MOVED to accept 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, as complete. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Peter Hogan noted that the Board still needed the last page that proved there was no runoff increase off site for the 50 year storm. The Coordinator added that the only other issue was the offsite road improvements from which a fair share estimate would be calculated for the Bedford Road Study that the Board would discuss later in the evening.
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 November 11, 2008 at 9:45 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Discussion, re: Bedford Road Study
Mark Suennen commented that he was disappointed in the results of the Bedford Road study but not surprised. He noted that because at peak traffic times it still took less than 30 seconds for a vehicle to be able to turn left onto Bedford Road at Klondike Corner he felt this answered the question of whether Bedford Road was overburdened. Peter Hogan stated that his issue dealt with the washouts that Bedford Road experienced during substantial rain events. Mark Suennen noted that this was not a volume problem but a design/maintenance problem. Douglas Hill asked what the Board was now trying to accomplish given the results of the Study. The Coordinator replied that the initial question that spawned the Study was whether an additional access was required to
allow for further development and the answer came back per the Study as “no” where it was found that Bedford Road could safely accommodate existing and anticipated levels of traffic with minor sight line changes and various things listed in Table #3 of the Study. Gordon Carlstrom stated that he disagreed with that premise when Bedford Road shut down (due to wash outs). The Coordinator noted that the access that was being considered was in the same vicinity of Klondike Corner, therefore, would not get you any further into Town but likely further into Amherst or Bedford, NH. She added that if the Board did not like the results of the Study which was evident then they would need to pursue having the Selectmen, with whom the Study request originated, go through the report and get back to SNHPC to advise them that they did not like the way the Study was done. The Coordinator noted that this did not take away from the fact that they now had a list of
road projects and numbers supplied by the Road Agent that could be plugged into a table to help calculate for offsite road improvements for the various subdivisions proposed in the area of Bedford Road. Mark Suennen stated that he had issues with the calibration of the model used in the Study. He noted that on page #2, paragraph #3, Table #1 future traffic to 2025 was included and he wondered if this incorporated traffic from towns west of New Boston which would be out of SNHPC’s jurisdiction since it was known that traffic flowed from the west toward Manchester and Bedford, NH. Douglas Hill noted that in the Bedford Road Study, Bedford Road was recognized as a corridor. The Coordinator noted that the towns in question were mentioned in the Study, however, she knew that the money paid to SNHPC was nowhere near enough for them to change the model to include those towns. Don Duhaime noted that a supposed 6 month project turned into 8 or 10 months
to complete. The Coordinator replied that the length of time that it took to complete the Study was not SNHPC’s fault or their issue. Douglas Hill asked if it mattered where the traffic was coming from if the Study had found that Bedford Road was only being used to one quarter of its capacity. Gordon Carlstrom replied that this was needed for future development models as well.
Brandy Mitroff stated that when she went through the Study she looked back at two letters from the Road Committee to the Town Administrator and the Coordinator which had raised concerns about what would be included in the scope. She added that while she was unsure where the Road Committee had derived their figures the Road Committee’s letter dated 3/07/08 indicated that they felt there would be a jump to 2,025 ADT by the year 2012. Gordon Carlstrom noted that this was significant difference from the Study results. Brandy Mitroff stated that she would be interested to know why the discrepancy was so broad. Douglas Hill thought that it might be a good idea to have one or two of the architects of the Study speak to the Board. The Coordinator answered Brandy
Mitroff’s question by stating that the Study was presented in draft form at a prior meeting and she thought that Tim White would present the final product to the Board but when the final figures were in he thought he was all done. She added that it would, however, be a good idea to have someone from SNHPC speak to the Board. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the Study should be copied to the Road Committee if it had not already. The Coordinator noted that she knew that the Road Agent had definitely received a copy. Gordon Carlstrom stated that he would bring the issue of the results up at the next Selectmen’s meeting followed by a possible meeting between the Planning Board, Road Committee and Road Agent at a future Selectmen’s meeting. Don Duhaime stated that an emergency access in the Klondike
Corner area of Town was needed one way or another in order to have access to the proposed Shaky Pond subdivision and the 40 lots proposed on the Lorden piece. The Coordinator noted that there would need to be a way to prove it. Peter Hogan thought that they needed to factor into the Study for times when a piece of Bedford Road was “missing”, i.e., washed out and see what the effects were. Mark Suennen noted that this would be based on travel times when the crossing point was closed or when a detour route was used. He added that this was mentioned in the Study. Peter Hogan wondered how they could manipulate the Study to successfully obtain the access road the Board had sought for years. Brandy Mitroff noted that the terrain where this mythical access road would go was very poor and she felt
that it would wash out before the Bedford Road areas of concern. Don Duhaime did not think this would happen if the road was properly designed. The Coordinator noted that one of the projects on the list complied by the Road Agent was to install new culverts on Bedford Road at the points of the wash out concerns. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the Bussiere family needed a road through their future subdivision how much more road would be needed to reach Bedford Road. The Coordinator replied that it would be significant. Don Duhaime noted that in the Study an assumption was made but it was not clarified. Mark Suennen summarized that table #5 of the Study was not adequate as it compared the existing road network to a proposed road network with a connection and the Board was saying that if Bedford Road was impassible between McCurdy and Klondike Corner what would be an alternative path and its criteria and if it was less than a detour without a connection
then the Board would require a connection. Douglas Hill noted that if a study came back saying that a separate entrance was needed the Town did not own the land anyway and in addition it seemed contradictory to the fact that other towns were using New Boston’s existing corridor road. Mark Suennen asked what happened if the break in the road access was on the north side of McCurdy Road as it seemed like the Board was more concerned over the area between McCurdy and Klondike Corner. Gordon Carlstrom explained that if this part of the road were out it was in the corner of the Town and, therefore, difficult to access the road networks. Mark Suennen summarized that there were 3 scenarios: Bedford Road open, Bedford Road closed with a connector road and Bedford Road closed with no connector road and in the Study they did not show scenario #3 which was the one with value. Peter Hogan stated that the Board was hoping that the Study would show that adding
another 20 houses off Bedford Road would put a burden on the intersection at McCurdy Road.
Douglas Hill wondered if in order to move forward with this the Board could consider tentative road improvement costs for future subdivisions. Peter Hogan stated that they should take what they had as a beginning point. Don Duhaime asked if they could do an estimate similar to the way one was done for Indian Falls. The Coordinator replied that she could begin working on this now as she had the numbers and would go back to the tax maps and open land to calculate fair share costs. Douglas Hill asked if the Coordinator could have these prepared for the next meeting. The Coordinator replied that there was some work involved but that she could get a fair amount done by then. Douglas Hill asked if there was room for discussion of this topic on the next Planning
Board agenda. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the Selectmen should peruse the Study first and get back to the Board.
Don Duhaime thought an additional warrant article should be proposed for $25K to have a further study done. Brandy Mitroff asked Don Duhaime why he thought $25K would get the right answers especially if an appropriate scope of work was not present. Douglas Hill asked how much the Study had cost. Brandy Mitroff replied that it had been $6K.
This will be an informational session for David Cass to discuss a sporting goods store on property owned by Douglas Cook, 636 North Mast Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/150.
No one was present for this item so the Board moved on.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
3. Discussion, re: Tax map/Lot #6/40-5-1, Inkberry Road, as-built.
Present for this discussion was lot owner Chantelle Barton and her friend Becky Grosso. Douglas Hill stated that as-builts had been submitted and that the Board would need to determine if the site was acceptable. He asked how grade corrections to the driveway affected the ascent into the garage bay of the home. Chantelle Barton stated that it was satisfactory and that they had done what the Board had requested in bringing the grade within required measures. Douglas Hill clarified that no part of the driveway exceeded a 10% grade. Chantelle Barton replied that it did not. Gordon Carlstrom asked if this needed to be verified by the Building Inspector. Douglas Hill replied that an as-built covered that issue. Peter Hogan stated that he would like
to do a site walk to observe the slope stabilization on site as it had not been adequate in the past and he wanted an assurance that water discharging from the site would not decimate the Town road. Gordon Carlstrom asked what the deadline was for the temporary CO. The Coordinator replied that she thought it was November 1, 2008. Douglas Hill stated that a 30 day extension could be considered and asked Chantelle Barton if she could wait to the next meeting (11/11/08) regarding any financing issues for the home. Chantelle Barton noted that Douglas Hill had told her at the last meeting that if she got a stamped as-built plan which noted that the driveway was at 10% grade or less then she would be all set. Douglas Hill replied that because work had been done to the driveway the stabilization of the slopes needed to be checked. He added that the slopes could be hayed or bonded until grass could grow there. Chantelle Barton stated
that this was not the agreement she recalled from the last meeting. Douglas Hill agreed that the process was a frustrating one but noted that since the slopes had likely changed in the grade work for the driveway this too needed to be addressed. Gordon Carlstrom explained that many applicants before her had not done the work required in similar scenarios and the Town had been left holding the bag. He added that the Board understood her efforts and agreed that she had net the rules, however, part of a compliance hearing was to assure that the total package was complete and although the driveway now met its required grade range the Board needed to assure that the side slopes would not wash away in the first rain storm. Peter Hogan added that for compliance the shoulders needed to be acceptable also. Becky Grosso stated that she understood the process but for a first time homeowner it was very frustrating. Douglas Hill noted that usually a
builder/developer dealt with these issues, however, the home owner had become caught in the middle for the builder/developer’s mistakes. Peter Hogan noted that the driveway plan needed to be reviewed and that grade was only part of the compliance. Chantelle Barton reiterated that she was told by the Board at the last meeting that with a stamped as-built she would be good to go.
Douglas Hill stated that he would willing to accept the as-built and be done, however, he was only one person on the Board. Gordon Carlstrom noted that she was not the problem but that any applicant in a similar situation would be treated in the same manner and the Board could not let her live in a situation where the rules were not being followed. He offered that with a bond the Board could vote tonight or they could view the site and be done. Peter Hogan noted that his issue was erosion control and added that he had visited the site many times. He added that he had an issue with the volume of water that was coming off the owners’ driveway and he wanted to ensure that it was not water from their site that was flowing down the left hand side of the driveway and nearly taking out the road as this would be a
costly fix and not something the home owner would like to deal with. Peter Hogan noted that owner Joseph Cabral (Chantelle Barton’s fiancé) had stated to him once that the water was not from his driveway. He added that if the Board viewed the site and could prove that the water was originating above the site that the Town could address it properly. Chantelle Barton stated that when the property was sold to them there was land from the road to their stonewall that was considered common and she felt that the water may be running down in that location.
Douglas Hill stated that the Board could extend the temporary CO 30 days and between now and the next meeting of November 11, 2008, they site walk the property or drive by individually and if all was fine then the owners could come in for the next meeting and the CO could be released. He added that if the Board felt that the banks should be stabilized they would bond a minimal amount for grass seeding. Peter Hogan replied that this cost reflected the cost to stabilize and that if the grade was satisfactory which by the presence of the certified stamp he felt it was, then the main issue was the stabilization. Douglas Hill stated that the Board would likely do drive bys to view the site as no one could make a site walk on November 1st or 8th. Don
Duhaime asked who would be responsible for loaming and seeding the common area. The Coordinator replied that this area was not common, it was part of the lot so the work involved was determined in a private agreement which was not the Board’s concern. Peter Hogan added that the shoulders of the road had been eroded in front of the lot also and he was not sure if the water runoff that caused this had originated from the site’s driveway. Douglas Hill clarified that all that they were doing was delaying the CO two weeks in order to view the site. He suggested that the lot owners stabilize the banks that had been discussed so that they did not wash out in the spring. Peter Hogan offered that the lot owners could get an estimate from a local contractor on what it would cost to stabilize the slope or they could do it themselves and bond it which involved a percentage of the cost. He added that once the work was done the Board released the
bond but they needed assurance that the work would get done and that once the work accurately reflected the plan they would be done.
Mark Suennen MOVED to extend the temporary CO for Chantelle Barton and Joseph Cabral, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5-1, Inkberry Road, an additional 30 days to December 1, 2008. Gordon Carlstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill asked that Board members please email their comments on the site once they had viewed it to the Planning Department so that they could in turn inform the lot owners. In this way he stated that there would be no surprises at the next meeting.
2. Discussion with Kim DiPietro, re: Noise Ordinance.
Kim DiPietro was present. She stated that she had been thinking about doing a petition with concerned residents for a Noise Ordinance and felt that it would be more productive to involve applicable Town departments in a similar time frame. Kim DiPietro explained that she had heard various complaints from residents regarding jake brakes on trucks coming down Hogback Hill on NH Route 13 (near gravel site) and wondered if more speed postings were put in that area truckers would think twice about using their jake brakes which caused a lot of noise, left skid marks, etc. She noted that in the town of Mont Vernon, NH, they did not have these issues as they worked hard to address it with truckers. Kim DiPietro stated that another part of the issue was half a dozen
recreational vehicles on her neighbors land every weekend and often for 6 hours on Sundays, who often crossed into the Town Forest and went on the road as well. She noted that the Police could not catch the offenders in time if called and that the neighbors were basically helpless to all this disruptive noise going on around them. Peter Hogan asked how Kim DiPietro thought this issue could be fixed with a Noise Ordinance as what was going on now was already violating some current laws. Kim DiPietro replied that it was all that she and these concerned residents could think of and noted that she believed there was some sort of Federal law that stated an individual’s right to quiet enjoyment of their life. Douglas Hill agreed that this was an issue off a quiet road but for those living downtown in the Village the main road was right there and he felt there was no way to not hear jake brakes, motorcycles, traffic, etc. Peter Hogan stated that the
issue was not the motorcycles but the pipes on the mufflers which were inspection concerns based on laws that the Police could enforce although the Police Department in Town chose not to. Kim DiPietro felt that if fines were posted of $100, $250, $500, etc., people might think twice before causing a noise disturbance with their vehicle, motorcycle, etc. Kim DiPietro stated that she had started doing some research on other towns addressing noise such as Moultonborough, NH, and noted that the police chief in Milford, NH, was currently working on the motorcycle noise issue. Peter Hogan clarified that he thought that Milford, NH, police chief was working on better enforcing the motor vehicle inspection laws which had better teeth as violations could be attached to an offender’s driver’s license. He explained that DOT had more leeway with these things that the Town could have. Kim DiPietro thought that the Police Department should get involved
in making noise measurements with decibel equipment but asked what should be done about her neighborhood being terrorized by recreational vehicles. Peter Hogan noted that if these vehicles were traveling along the road that was a violation. Kim DiPietro stated that they were by law allowed to travel the width of the road onto it or approximately 50’ and they were abusing that. Peter Hogan recalled that they were also allowed to cross the road only if it was to access another trail. He added that Fish and Game was cracking down hard on snowmobile performance pipes and might be a good contact for this issue as they had the appropriate and very best equipment to access wooded areas. Kim DiPietro stated that she would also check with the Police Department to see if they had the equipment to measure decibels. Peter Hogan added that DOT also had enforcement and that to get pulled over by them usually resulted in a full inspection of the offending
vehicle. He reiterated that laws were being violated already and the enforcers for those laws had more teeth than anything the town could enact. Kim DiPietro thanked the Board for their time and input.
5. A copy of a letter received October 17, 2008, from Joseph Ryan, to Planning Board Members, re: home office/business, 86 Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-7, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Gordon Carlstrom noted that this was a single employee with no deliveries, advertising, low volume (5-8 customers per year). Mark Suennen likened it to a glorified hobby. Gordon Carlstrom asked if Mr. Ryan met the checklist criteria for not requiring Site Plan Review. The Coordinator stated that the only minor issue would be #4, although there were only 5-10 sales per year so she did not think this was a problem. Peter Hogan asked Mr. Ryan’s means of advertising. The Planning Assistant stated that it was via a website. Peter Hogan assumed that this meant Mr. Ryan’s address was listed. Mark Suennen stated that the letter detailed that the business was limited to friends who were law enforcement officers so he assumed there would be no
contact with the general public. Gordon Carlstrom felt that if he received 50-80 customers they would look at this differently. Douglas Hill stated that this seemed to be just a hobby but because it involved fire arms Mr. Ryan wanted to go by the books.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to have the Planning Board issue the standard criteria letter for home businesses to Mr. Ryan. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
7. The minutes of October 14, 2008, were noted as having been distributed by email for approval at the meeting of November 11, 2008, with or without changes.
8. A copy of a memo dated October 10, 2008, from SNHPC, re: Energy Workshop on November 6, 2008, was distributed for the Board’s information.
9. A copy of the ZBA’s Notice of Decision and minutes of October 21, 2008, re: John and Rita Young, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Gordon Carlstrom noted that the ZBA denied the Youngs request to move the hardware store to their Valley View Drive property and asked where that left the Board. The Coordinator replied that it was now no issue for the Board.
10. A copy of an article titled, Age-Restricted Housing in New England, was distributed for the Board’s information.
11. A copy of an article titled, Got Culture, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that Indian Falls had begun their work plan to address the road issues and should be paving by the end of the week. She explained that when they opened up the area of concern they found that the base material was good along with the sub-material, compaction, etc. The Coordinator added that they thought there may have been water under the road so they put in an underdrain but otherwise could find no reason for the road cracking. She noted that the applicant’s extensions on their conditions subsequent would expire before the next meeting. Mark Suennen noted that the extension deadline was 11/08/08 and the meeting 11/11/08.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to extend the conditions subsequent for Mark Leblanc 2004 Trust, Tax Map/Lot #12/89 and Bussiere Tax Map/Lot #12/88, to November 15, 2008, with further action to be determined at the November 11, 2008, meeting after the repair to Indian Falls Road has been completed. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to adjourn at 9:45 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk
| |
