TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Minutes of April 14, 2009
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members Peter Hogan, Douglas Hill, Don Duhaime; and ex-officio Christine Quirk. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O'Brien.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Ed Hunter, Building Inspector, Jay Marden, Dean Mehlhorn, Kim Burkhamer, Cyndie Wilson, Stephen and Patricia Henault, David and Joanne Sherman, Ken Clinton, Kevin Short, Steve Dunbar, Charlie Cleary, Esq., Nathan Chamberlin, PE, Janet White, James Denesevich, Gordon Russell, Brandy Mitroff, Donald Garretson, Rick Kohler, Bob Todd, LLS, Dave McGlauflin, Tom Clapp, Ken Lombard, Victor Lemay, Tim LeClair, Tom True, PE, Elizabeth Aksten, Tyler Smith, Danielle Brunette, and Bill Linscott.
Discussion, re: Driveway Regulations
The Chairman stated that at the last meeting the Board hit on some topics/review points and that the Coordinator was going to prepare a review for this meeting. The Coordinator stated that she would review the handout briefly (which included the Town Driveway Regulations) and the Board could then read their copies more thoroughly for review at the next meeting. She explained that she had inserted questions/notes at the back of the handout that referenced various sections of the Driveway Regulations as things that should be discussed/addressed and noted that some questions may need to be forwarded to Town Counsel.
The Coordinator stated that on the first page under Section 3, Purpose, she had struck item E and re-lettered the remainder as it did not match what was stated for the Steep Slopes District since with a Stormwater Management Plan any lot in Town could be developed and there was no other ordinance in Town that tried to minimize the amount of terrain alteration, vegetation removal, etc.
The Coordinator went on to explain that elsewhere in the Driveway Regulations the Board would note that she had removed the “Planning Board” and inserted “Road Agent” such as on page #2 in the Scope section. She added that also in this section she had left the first paragraph the same but referring only to driveway entrances and added the third paragraph: “…Additionally these regulations shall apply to the installation of driveways that are proposed as part of a Subdivision or Non-Residential Site Plan Review Application before the Planning Board…” which gave the Board the two major ways of addressing driveways. The Coordinator noted that the last paragraph was stricken because the Board was no longer addressing that
type of scope.
The Coordinator stated that there used to be just one definition for “driveway” in the Town and confusingly enough, it meant curb cut and driveway from road to house, therefore, her suggestion was to change the definition to have a definition of “driveway” being the private access from the edge of the right-of-way to the structure (or dwelling/house) and then a separate definition for “driveway entrance” which meant curb cut but was easier to say. She added that there were never defined terms such as “driveway permit” and “permit to use” so she added those suggested definitions in. The Chairman asked if for “driveway entrance” they should add “curb cut” in parentheses for those who knew what it
meant. Douglas Hill agreed as that was the proper terminology. The Coordinator stated that she could do so.
The Coordinator went on to discuss Section #6, General Provisions. She clarified that construction of a driveway on a lot meant subdivisions and non-residential site plans. She added
that in looking at the final sentence of this section she and the Planning Assistant could not decipher what was meant by “…for new construction or final acceptance for existing construction.”, therefore, she struck it from the text, ending the sentence after “Certificate of Occupancy”.
The Coordinator stated that for Section #7 she added the phrase “(ALL LOTS)” to the title as this section had to do with the permitting process for curb cuts or driveway entrances for all lots and in the body of the text “Road Agent” replaced “Planning Board” and the later sub-sections that had to do with the Planning Board were stricken. She noted that the remaining issue with this section was to determine with the Road Agent what he felt was a good time frame regarding acting on the permit after he received it.
The Coordinator stated in Section 8 she changed the title to clearly specify that it was for driveway permits and driveways in subdivisions or as part of non-residential site plan review. She explained that this was the part that dealt with making sure that driveway permits for a new road were submitted at subgrade, how the Board would go on a site walk for a subdivision and may require engineered plans to be prepared and then As-Built plans to be submitted subsequently if that were the case and then finally that the Building inspector would be the entity to inspect the site and assure the applicant met those requirements.
The Coordinator stated that Section #9 was now divided into three sections with the first one being for curb cuts and driveway entrances (the portion within the Town right-of-way). She noted that Section #10 would need Town Counsel review as it included recommendations but were recommendations for existing lots such as maintaining a grade suitable for emergency service access, etc. She questioned whether these things were enforceable and, therefore, should not be included here but because they were already included in the language she left them for Town Counsel’s input. Don Duhaime asked to what lots this section referred. The Coordinator replied that this section referred to lots that predated Zoning. The Chairman asked if “existing lots” or
“lots of record” were defined. The Coordinator replied that she could pull these definitions from Zoning. The Chairman also thought that anywhere there was the word “shall” it should be changed to “will” as Mark Suennen suggested at a prior meeting for language on another topic. The Coordinator stated that she would make the changes.
The Coordinator stated that Section #11 contained all the items for driveways that were in the Subdivision Regulations such as 10% maximum grades, guardrails, culverts, drainage, erosion control, etc. She noted that Section #12 contained requirements on how the driveway apron should be constructed and Section #13 dealt with driveway construction materials on the interior of the lot. The Coordinator stated that Section #14 likely needed a lot of discussion since the Board did not always agree regarding common driveways. Douglas Hill asked about the guardrail requirement for all slopes over 3:1. The Coordinator replied that this was the current practice but that the Board could revisit the topic if they wished to modify it. She noted that in Section #16,
Temporary Driveways, the language stayed the same but there had been a suggestion for a fee amount to match the paving-only permit and that was a negotiable amount for the Board to consider. The Coordinator stated that on page 16 the Building Inspector was added in as doing compliance inspections on driveways for the Planning Board and page 16, Section 21.2 was her first attempt at trying to note that the Building Inspector could hold some sort of security if a driveway was not satisfactorily completed at the time of an inspection when the matter could not be addressed at that point in time. She asked that the Board review that section.
The Coordinator stated that Section #22, Planning Board Appeals was completely new as they had formerly only had a provision that stated an applicant could go to court if they were not pleased with the decision on a driveway permit. This new section allowed a way for applicants to approach the Board at the outset for approval of their permit or installation if there was some disagreement with the Building Inspector and/or Road Agent. She concluded by stating that the rest of the language thereafter remained the same and asked that the Board review it all in detail along with the questions and comments on the last two pages for the next meeting.
The Coordinator stated that the next topic dealt with what was changing in the Subdivision Regulations as most everything that came out of the Subdivision Regulations regarding driveways went into the Driveway Regulations. She added that now in the Subdivision Regulations it would state that a Driveway Permit was required per what was stated in the Driveway Regulations.
The Coordinator stated that from the new Stormwater Manual that had just been released by NH DES and had taken the place of the Erosion Control Manual, she had copied the section regarding Temporary and Permanent Mulching. The Chairman asked if this was the manual referenced in the changes. The Coordinator replied that was correct. She added that the only item she had not yet researched was the vesting aspect for driveways that were approved but no construction was done for some time. Christine Quirk asked if prior driveway approvals could potentially fall under these new regulations. The Coordinator clarified that this would not apply to any permits already approved and those driveways would go by what was in place at that time.
She asked if anyone wanted the handouts emailed rather than having the physical sheets. The Board was satisfied with using the handout itself for their review. The Chairman clarified that the one area that had not yet been addressed in the Driveway Regulations overview was common driveways which the Board should discuss. The Coordinator replied that was correct.
The Chairman asked if anything had been heard from the owners of the lot on Byam Road that wanted a second curb cut for their horse trailer. The Planning Assistant replied that the owners were first going to take into consideration the suggestions made by the Board in their letter. Peter Hogan asked if Mr. Cabral had responded to the Board’s letter regarding the signoff on his Inkberry Driveway and the Board’s ongoing concerns. The Coordinator replied they had not. Peter Hogan stated that he had viewed the driveway several times recently after it had rained and found that the driveway issues were just as the Board had predicted with washout into the culvert onto the neighbor’s driveway and the level spreader previously cleaned out by the Town full
again.
Douglas Hill asked if for Section #11.5, the exclusion of shoulders, snow storage areas, drainage or parking areas referred to the 12’ width or 20’ width. The Coordinator replied that it referred to the 12’ width. She noted that she may remove the reference to the 20’ unobstructed width as it was a confusing read. Douglas Hill returned to the subject of guardrails being required for 3:1 or steeper slopes and asked how this was interpreted if a ditchline was involved. Peter Hogan thought that a standard should be applied as to what angle an average vehicle could
handle safety wise. Douglas Hill asked Bob Todd, LLS, who was in the audience if he had any opinion. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that he had not reviewed the piece as of yet. The Chairman thought that a linear distance of slope could be applied. The Coordinator offered that she could ask the Town Engineer his opinion.
The Chairman asked if there was a distinction between a driveway and a dead end parking area as he did not think the Byam Road curb cut for secondary parking fit the definition of driveway. The Coordinator replied that if the curb cut did not access a structure and was more of a parking pad then all that had to be addressed was the curb cut/driveway entrance. The Chairman thought that in that case Section #15 should apply to both.
Douglas Hill asked about Section 21.2 and asked if the Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer was the only official to check temporary stabilization. The Coordinator replied that this was up to the Board.
There being time before the first scheduled hearing, the Planning Board addressed Miscellaneous Business.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 14, 2009.
1. Approval of the minutes of March 10, 2009, distributed by email.
Doug Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of March 10, 2009 as written. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. A copy of an application for proposed pond for Tracy Maynard & Jim Guichard, 449 Joe English Road, Tax Map/Lot #14/61, prepared by Christopher Danforth & Associates, LLC, was distributed for the Board’s information. (complete package available for viewing in office)
Douglas Hill asked if these individuals would be coming before the Board for approval of the pond. The Coordinator replied that the Board did not get involved with ponds, only wetland crossings.
3. A copy of an Abutter Notice dated March 19, 2009, from Town of New Boston Building Department, re: application to construct a wind turbine on 111 South Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot # 14/1-1, was distributed for the board’s information.
The Chairman asked Ed Hunter, Building Inspector and Code Enforcement Officer if he had gotten any feedback on their wind tower. Ed Hunter replied that he had received one positive letter and some verbal comments that the person was not willing or interested in putting in writing.
4. Town of Francestown Public Meeting Notice, received March 27, 2009, re: wireless communications facility, was distributed for the Board’s information.
5. Notification, re: Agenda for Natural Resources Advisory Committee, Tuesday, April 21, 2009, Southern NH Planning Commission, was distributed for the Board’s information.
6. Approval of minutes of March 24, 2009, distributed by email.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of March 24, 2009, as written. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
8. A copy of a letter dated April 6, 2009, from NH Dept. of Agriculture, Markets and Food, to Heidi Akerman and David Clukay, re: Best Management Practices for Manure in NH, was distributed for the Board’s information.
- A copy of a letter received April 9, 2009, from Russ Boland, New Boston Fire Inspector, to Heidi Akerman, re: trailer parked in fire lane, was distributed for the Board’s information.
7. Discussion, re: Jon’s Auto Sales, 666 N. Mast Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/64.
The Coordinator noted that the only reason the above noted item had been labeled for discussion was because the Planning Department was uncertain what the status of the site would be at the time of this Planning Board meeting, however, the Building Inspector had recently visited the site and found everything to be much improved. A letter staing this had been copied to the Board.
HENAULT, STEPHEN & PATRICIA
Public Hearing/CUP/to install one wetland crossing to access back of lot
Location: 129 Byam Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/41-33
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicants Stephen and Patricia Henault. Abutters present were David and Joanne Sherman. Interested parties present were Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission and Ken Clinton.
The Chairman noted that abutters and interested parties would get their chance to speak once the applicants had made their presentation. He noted that an email regarding the proposal had been received by the Board from interested party Ken Clinton, along with a fax from the Conservation Commission. Stephen Henault stated that he had cleared two thirds of an acre at the rear of his property and had been in the process of constructing a bridge over a brook to access it. The Chairman stated that there was an open question as to whether a State permit was required for the work that had already been done. He asked if anyone had spoken to him about this. Stephen Henault replied that no one had. Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission, asked if the Board had the
plot plan for the lot. The Chairman replied that they did. She asked if the bridge was indeed crossing a “brook” versus “wetland” as when she had viewed the site from the road she did not see any wetland remaining and at the time of mapping there may not have been any water present although the soil type may indicate a wetland area. Stephen Henault noted that when he purchased the property the plot plan had been inadvertently labeled as having a wetland on site versus a brook and to correct the notation would have been a $600.00 expense. Cyndie Wilson asked if a soils test had been performed on site and noted that in the presence of wetlands any work on site would need a permit from NHDES. She explained that since this had not been done the applicants should proceed by obtaining an after the fact Dredge and Fill permit from the Town Clerk’s office. She noted that the Conservation Commission could then review this
along with a copy of the plan and soil scientist’s documentation at their May, 2009, meeting.
Abutter Joanne Sherman stated that when they purchased their property they had relied on the diagram on their plan that noted wetlands present between them and the Henaults and counted on this and the trees as a buffer that would remain. Douglas Hill noted that in order for the buffer to remain there would have had to have been some type of restrictive covenant listed on the deed. He noted that this matter was a separate issue from the wetland issue and added that the applicant was free to clear trees on his property if he wished. Joanne Sherman stated that she assumed a permit would have been required for the applicant to cut his trees. Douglas Hill replied that anyone could clear trees on their lot. Christine Quirk added that abutters were not required to be
notified if their neighbors wished to cut trees on their own property.
Peter Hogan stated that he was unsure of the width of the brook noted on the plans but that it appeared to him that the bridge being constructed was spanning a wetland and this would make a dramatic difference for the applicants when they applied for their permit. Cyndie Wilson agreed that spanning a wetland would not be a huge issue with DES. She noted that because they had not yet filed for a Dredge and Fill the applicants would need to apply for an After-the Fact Dredge and Fill permit as a way to rectify the issue which she strongly suggested. Peter Hogan thought the end product would be a good one and noted to the applicants that Cyndie Wilson had very good knowledge of the bureaucratic process involved, therefore, she would be a good reference.
Interested party Ken Clinton stated that he was a resident and also a licensed land surveyor who had experience in dealing with wetland applications. He noted that as he passed by the applicants’ property on several occasions over the past 5 or 6 months he had noticed the marginal tree cutting that did not raise any flags but felt that the wetlands on site had been stumped and grubbed thus altering the stream channel and causing a wetland violation. Ken Clinton added that while the applicant was now proposing the spanning of a wetland he had already constructed headwalls into it, therefore, in consideration of a possible wetland violation, the Board should not be considering a CUP this evening as there could be greater than 10,000 s.f. of impact. He explained that it would be important to determine the level of disturbance and what was filled and altered, i.e., this was a second issue after the issue of the permit. Peter Hogan did not think the
area of the site construction in question was near the area to which Ken Clinton referred. Ken Clinton thought a more accurate plan was called for. Peter Hogan disagreed. The Chairman stated that in viewing the site from the road he was inclined to agree with Peter Hogan, however, onsite viewing may prove differently. The Board determined that they would site walk the property on Saturday, April 18, 2009, at 8:30 a.m. The Chairman clarified that the applicants would work with Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission, regarding the State permits to move their process forward. Cyndie Wilson pointed out that the work that had taken place so far on the property was within 50’ of the wetlands which was against the Town’s Wetlands Ordinance. Don Duhaime offered that the applicants could also access the appropriate forms online through DES under the Wetlands Board selection which would enable them to print out the proper permit forms.
Peter Hogan asked what the purpose was for the access proposed. Stephen Henault replied that they wished to hold their daughter’s wedding in the field at the rear of the property which could not be accessed without the bridge and that there would be no structures planned, only a tent for the wedding.
Cyndie Wilson stated that the Conservation Commission would need a representative to go on the Board’s scheduled site walk and that she might be able to arrange a review of the After-the-fact Dredge and Fill permit prior to the Conservation Commission’s May, 2009, meeting, in consideration of the approaching wedding. She added that the Commission might be able to forward a letter of recommendation to NHDES explaining the circumstances. Peter Hogan asked Cyndie Wilson if she would be available to attend the scheduled site walk. Cyndie Wilson replied that she would try.
Joanne Sherman asked if she could make some comments for the record before the hearing was adjourned. The Chairman replied that she could do so now or by written letter. Joanne Sherman stated that she watched the construction process from its start to the present and had not been notified as a neighbor nor was she notified of a survey, although she was unsure if one was done. She was also unsure as to whether any trees that were part of her property had been cleared as a result. Joanne Sherman stated that when she contacted the Planning Department, the Coordinator had informed her that a permit to cut trees was not necessarily required by a land owner which she felt was a pity in a town like New Boston. She added that since the clearing and disturbance of the
wetlands on the applicants’ site she had not seen a single animal whereas prior to this construction she had witnessed wild life gatherings, therefore, she felt the animals would not be returning to this area now that the brook had been impacted.
Joanne Sherman stated that she now realized that as an abutter she had no rights in this issue other than to state that she was very upset and felt that no one she had notified in the Town offices cared to do anything about this matter except to tell her to mind her own business. She noted that since the bridge on the applicants’ property was already half way constructed they might as well let him finish it at this point. The Chairman stated that Joanne Sherman’s points had been noted. Abutter David Sherman stated that the land looked very different now than it did prior to the construction. Joanne Sherman stated that their privacy buffer was now gone.
Cyndie Wilson wondered if the CUP could be granted conditionally by the Board contingent on DES’s granting of the permit. The Chairman replied that the Board should site walk the property and hold off on the CUP for now.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the application of Stephen and Patricia Henault, CUP, to install one wetland crossing to access back of lot, Location: 129 Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-33, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to May 26, 2009, at 7:30 p.m. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Informational session for Twin Bridge Land Management, LLC, re: Phase II, conceptual subdivision plan for Tax Map/Lot #2/62-12 & 3/5.
Present for this informational session was Nathan Chamberlin, PE, of Meridian Land Services, Charlie Cleary, Esq., and Steve Dunbar who represented the applicants. Abutters and interested parties present were Janet White, New Boston Representative to the Piscataquog River Local Advisory Committee, James Denesevich, Gordon Russell, Kevin Short, Brandy Mitroff, Kim Burkhamer, Ken Lombard and Jay Marden.
Nathan Chamberlin, PE, stated that the applicants had been approved in 2007 for a subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #2/62 and had constructed Page Lane. He added that they were now considering a subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #2/62-12 and 3/5 for future development as Phase II. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, stated that they had met with the Conservation Commission one and a half weeks prior where they presented a conventional subdivision plan in which they would gain access to the lot by proposing a through road from Twin Bridge Road to West Lull Place. In doing so he explained that the applicants would not need a waiver for a cul-de-sac length. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, noted that the two parcels were zoned differently, Tax Map/Lot #2/62-12 being “R-1” and Tax Map/Lot #3/5
being “R-A”. He explained that the conventional subdivision proposal had 10 lots with 1 ½ acres and 150’ of frontage on Lot # 2/62-12 and the 2 acre zoning in the “R-A” District, Lot #3/5, had 17 lots, 3 of them backlots and the rest 2 acres with 200’ of frontage, for a total of 27 lots, including a lot with frontage on West Lull Place. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, stated that they wanted to keep the development away from the esker on the property by having the houses close to the road frontage. He added that the home styles would be similar to those constructed on Page Lane as entry level homes. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, stated that at their meeting with the Conservation Commission there was discussion regarding the 250’ buffer to the Piscataquog River which was protected by the Shoreland Protection Act which prohibited certain uses. He noted a purple shaded area on the plan that represented a 50’
waterfront buffer and along with a line representing a 150’ woodland buffer which would not be impacted other than construction of the road. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, stated that the Conservation Commission had asked at their meeting if they would consider a cluster design on Tax Map/Lot #3/5. He noted that with such a design the road would need to shift over and the lots would become smaller at just over an acre. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, added that the two backlots that looked like backlots really were not as they maintained the required reduced frontage. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, explained that the applicant met the density requirement based on the acreage of the site, noting that they were keeping away from the 250’ buffer area also and now looking for guidance on which way to go with the design. The Chairman asked what was proposed at the top of the plan. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, replied that this was proposed open space and that they
preferred not to punch the road through this area if that was not necessary, possibly opting for a waiver to a cul-de-sac length or proposing an emergency access road that was gated. The Chairman asked what the dead end length would be if they were to go that route. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, replied that it would be 3,900’. The Chairman asked how Tax Map/Lot #3/5-2 would be accessed. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, replied that it could be accessed off West Lull Place although an abutter had expressed interest in purchasing that lot anyway. He reiterated that the applicants wished to work with the Town for a plan that was satisfactory. Steve Dunbar added that the applicants planned to donate any excess sand from the site to the Town and had no plans to truck any other material off site. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, noted that the cluster design option would involve more earth work versus the larger lots of a conventional subdivision. Steve Dunbar
noted that with the open space design the applicants would deed that portion of land to be in continuance with the existing 250’ buffer. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, thought that the applicant would meet the bonus incentive of 20% with 10% for offering affordable housing and protecting natural resources. He added that the applicants were not asking for anything more than was allowed by the density calculation. Steve Dunbar explained that when they spoke to the Conservation Commission they had discussed the gated access option with an area set aside for passive recreation such as canoeing and fishing. He added that the gate could be the type with clicker access for the police and fire department and be solar powered and having this access would avoid putting traffic out to Lull Road.
Peter Hogan stated that in looking at the two designs offered he preferred the cluster design. Steve Dunbar wished to note that the Conservation Commission had recalled to them a development done in Town near the Mont Vernon, NH, border that also had the access they were considering with a turn around area. The Chairman asked Cyndie Wilson if the Conservation Commission had additional questions or comments. Cyndie Wilson replied that the Conservation Commission felt this proposal was a huge improvement over the applicants’ past design although they still had concerns over the possible spreading out of the esker. She noted that with a conservation easement one party owned the land while another party would own its development rights, therefore, some partnership
between two conservation groups was involved. Steve Dunbar wondered if a deed to the Town or to the Piscataquog Land Conservancy would be easier. Cyndie Wilson replied that the Conservation Commission would need to consider that, however, she felt that a deed to the Town might be an easier route. She added that this would need further discussion.
Interested party Jay Marden asked if the no further development clause on the first phase of the approved plan referred to a white section noted at the top. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, replied that this area was already an existing single family house lot that had been part of the applicants’ 2007 approval. Jay Marden clarified that the lower section on the plan was for no further subdivision. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, replied that was correct. Jay Marden asked, in regard to the deed that might be made to the Town/Conservation Commission, if the land on the left line of the plan was at the toe of the esker, meaning that the esker would be undisturbed. Nathan Chamberlin replied that was correct. Steve Dunbar stated that anything connected with the easement
would remain in the state that it was currently.
Janet White, local representative for the Piscataquog River Local Advisory Committee, asked if the applicants had any plans to re-forest the area they clear cut near the Piscataquog River from phase 1 of their plan. Steve Dunbar replied that the natural revegetation was coming in well and any areas of concerns could be addressed by adding shrubs and whatever was needed for wildlife. Abutter James Denesevich referred to the plan and noted the area of West Lull Place which he explained was a single lane dirt road. He explained that the area the applicants wished to use for the access was in a flood plain and within 50’ of the water line to the river. He added that the illegal clear cutting that had taken place on land from phase 1 of the approved plan would not
recover by planting bushes and making a parking lot for passive recreation.
Interested party Gordon Russell submitted copies of an overview of the site in question. The Chairman asked, in the interest of time, if Mr. Russell could give a brief summary of this submission with the promise that he could elaborate further at the next scheduled hearing. Gordon Russell replied that he could. He asked that the Board consider what was written in his submission as the bigger picture of the issue. He noted that this area along the Piscataquog River was considered an ecological unit and more biologically productive that any other section in the entire watershed. Gordon Russell added that he wished the applicants had given more thought to this when they clear cut the area in question which had great impacts on an otter dam that had been in
existence since the mid 1970’s. He stated that he had great concern over a cluster or conventional subdivision in this area as it approached the river’s edge as he had studied the wildlife patterns here for many years and to do a subdivision so close to the river would place its middle branch designation of “natural”, the highest designation given to a river, in jeopardy. Gordon Russell added that the drumlins on site were geographic formations that could be impacted also and the presence of the 250’ buffer would not repair the former clear cut degradation that had occurred. Steve Dunbar wished to note that not all 27 proposed lots would be along the river and that every lot needed its own drainage proven by an engineer. He added that he had not been present three years ago when the applicants gained their approval on phase 1 of the plan but was trying to move forward now to handle things differently. Nathan Chamberlin,
PE, stated that the applicants would be required to follow AOT regulations and everything would be subject to the new rules now in place. Peter Hogan asked Gordon Russell what number of house lots would be sustainable on the plan in his opinion. Gordon Russell felt that six or seven lots could have beautiful views to the northwest if they could be located on the existing drumlin, however, because of its steepness a road access would be difficult and the drumlin would need to be moved for a more level area. He pointed to another area for 6 more house lots and noted that the position of two proposed lots was too near a wetland. Gordon Russell pointed to areas on the plan that he would like to see protected. Steve Dunbar offered that one lot was kept very large in the consideration of wildlife and that an abutter had expressed interest in acquiring it for his own buffer.
The Chairman stated that it seemed the general consensus that the second plan (cluster design) was better received than the first (conventional). Steve Dunbar stated that the applicants were open to having the Board site walk the property before they went forward with their engineered design. He added that they wanted to come up with something that would work for the Town and the applicant noting that they were willing to have boundary markers installed on site for the easement areas. Gordon Russell felt the proposed density could be reduced and with properly placed home sites the applicants could still increase their profitability.
Interested party Brandy Mitroff wondered about the cul-de-sac option which would counteract a huge offsite road expense. Steve Dunbar replied that this was one reason that they proposed to continue their easement through other parcels. He added that they would bring all these concerns back to the applicants. Brandy Mitroff thought that shorter lots might be a good trade off. The Chairman suggested that the plan should be sent to the Town’s Technical Review Committee for additional feedback. He noted that a meeting would be set up through the Planning Department. Steve Dunbar replied that they would follow up with this. He and Nathan Chamberlin, PE, thanked the Board for their time.
GARRETSON, DONALD E, &
RIGHTWAY BUILDERS, INC.
Public Hearing/Revocation/Major Subdivision/15 Lots
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 5/52
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant Donald Garretson. Abutters and interested parties present were Tom Clapp and Kim Burkhamer.
The Chairman stated that the plan was approved on July 25, 2006, with conditions precedent and subsequent extended several times thereafter. He noted that at the prior consideration for extension no representatives were present at the hearing. The Chairman asked Donald Garretson if he had any comments. Donald Garretson replied that he had no comments and was here to see how things proceeded. Peter Hogan asked, for clarification, the reason the Board would consider revocation of the plan. The Coordinator replied that the conditions deadline had expired and had been extended two times and that apparently no one associated with the plan wished to ask for further extensions. Peter Hogan confirmed that no one was present to request an extension. No one
spoke.
Peter Hogan MOVED to revoke the Subdivision Plat for Lands of Right Way Builders, Inc., Map 5 Lot 52 & Donald E. Garretson, Trustee, Map 5 Lot 50, on Beard Road, in the Residential-Agricultural "R-A" District, as the Conditions Precedent as listed in the Notice of Decision of July 25, 2006, with an original conditions precedent deadline date of November 1, 2006, and original conditions subsequent deadline date of September 1, 2008, extended to November 1, 2007, November 1, 2008, and March 1, 2009, have not been completed, and there has been a lack of activity and response from the owner of the subdivision. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MCGLAUFLIN, DAVID A. & ELLEN J.
Submission of Application/Public hearing/minor Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: 42 Mason Drive
Tax Map/Lot #15/10
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Rick Kohler and Bob Todd, LLS, of Robert Todd Land Use Survey and the applicant David McGlauflin. An abutter present was Cyndie Wilson.
Rick Kohler stated that the applicants proposed a subdivision of an 8.3 acre parcel that had frontage on Old Chestnut Hill Road and Mason Drive in order to create Lot #15/10-1 which would then total 2.681 acres leaving the parent Lot #15/10 with 5.7 acres. He noted that surveys and test pits had been performed with test pits at the septic system area and another down slope at TDM 5+3. Rick Kohler explained that the soils were determined Montauk (stoney, fine, sandy loam) and that slopes were proven at 3% to 8% by topographical survey with no Steep Slopes present as detailed by the Town ordinance, therefore, no Stormwater Management Plan was required. He added that the seasonal high water table was perched at 23” which was typical for the soil series.
Rick Kohler stated that the proposed driveway location was at the northwest corner of the lot which would afford ample sight distance in either direction. The Chairman inquired about the Release of Liability Form from the Selectmen which would be required for a subdivision along a private road. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this was a standard form which could be provided to the applicants. The Coordinator noted that the form had been submitted but was not yet executed and could be checked against the standard format.
Peter Hogan MOVED to grant the waivers requested in a memo dated March 27, 2009, by Robert Todd, LLS, for 3 paper print copies of the soils map, 3 copies of the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies as he found the rationale offered to be acceptable. Don Duhaime seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked how many lots existed currently on the private road. Cyndie Wilson replied that there were seven.
The motion PASSED unanimously.
Peter Hogan MOVED to accept the application of David A. and Ellen J. McGlauflin, Minor Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: 42 Mason Drive, Tax Map/Lot #15/10, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the deadline for Board action was now June 18, 2009. He asked if a site walk should be considered. Peter Hogan did not think a site walk was necessary since the subdivision was along a private road. The Chairman stated that they had received Cyndie Wilson’s letter regarding the subdivision. Cyndie Wilson asked if her letter would be kept with the plan. The Coordinator noted that it would not be recorded but would be kept in the application file in the Planning Department. Cyndie Wilson stated that she realized that she would need to sign the Formal Release of Liability. The Chairman clarified that the applicants would submit the executed agreement of the recorded document. Dave McGlauflin replied that he would do so.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision of David and Ellen McGlauflin, Tax Map/Lot #15/10, Mason Drive and Old Chestnut Hill Road, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,
including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of the mylar for recording at the HCRD;
3. Submission of an executed Agreement and Release Private Road for recording at the HCRD;
4. Submission of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application or recording of documents at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be May 14, 2009, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Since there was time before the upcoming informational session the Planning Board took a 10 minute break at 8:35 p.m.
Informational session for Brian Pratt, PE, True Engineering, Inc., and Victor Lemay (owner) to discuss the potential subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #9/21-5, Wilson Hill Road.
Present for this informational session was Tom True, PE, of True Engineering, Inc., Tim LeClair and owner Victor Lemay. Tom True, PE, stated that the 29 acre site was on Wilson Hill Road and surrounded by the Chancey conservation land on the east and south sides with 9 lots proposed. He added that there were two wetland areas, one to the north and one to the southeast that would result in 4,000 s.f. of wetland impact. Tom True, PE, pointed out an existing concrete pad that currently straddled the lot line with neighboring Lot # 9/21-2. He noted that Mr. Lemay was currently in negotiations with Lot #9/21-2’s owners to do a lot line adjustment that would allow the concrete pad to be wholly contained in Lot # 9/21-2 while giving land to Lot # 9/21-5, thereby
allowing the proposed road to be located further from the wetlands. He added that they still needed to finalize wetlands and soils tests and they still needed State Subdivision Approval. Tom True, PE, pointed out another possible wetland impact on the plan which he explained would then leave a 1,500 s.f. area of remaining impact.
Tom True, PE, stated that the proposed cul-de-sac length was 1,000 s.f. per the Subdivision Regulations. He added that they had received feedback from the Natural Heritage Review that there were no species on their list identified on site and he noted that no AOT permit would be required. Tom True, PE, stated that the septic design had been approved for the proposed lot and Victor Lemay wished to begin building a house on the lot in the interim which would eventually be lot # 9/21-5-2. He noted a driveway easement to the north and asked for the Board’s input. The Chairman asked if the house lot would become a backlot after the proposed subdivision. The Coordinator replied that if it became lot #9/21-5-2 it would need to have its frontage proved before the
driveway easement could be granted. Christine Quirk clarified that the lot would need to prove its own frontage per the regulations. The Chairman asked if the two proposed backlots that would result from the subdivision needed to have the lines for the 50’ strip running parallel to each other. The Coordinator checked the regulations and stated that 50’ of frontage was required to be maintained at 50’ minimally to the body of the lot. She noted that this meant the lines could flare until they were past the frontlot.
The Chairman asked if an open space design had been considered. Tom True, PE, replied that it was, however, it did not fit the site as well as the conventional design when they looked at it. Victor Lemay commented that the open space design made for a longer road and denser lots. The Chairman asked the distance of the site to an existing cistern on Wilson Hill Road. Tom True, PE, replied that he believed it was within 2,200’. The Chairman asked if the cement posts he saw when driving along Wilson Hill Road were at the northern lot line when looking at the plan. Tom True, PE, replied that was correct.
Tom True, PE, asked the Board’s opinion regarding the owner beginning construction on his existing lot. Douglas Hill stated that it would be important to be able to prove the lot’s driveway off the proposed road or else once the subdivision occurred, if approved, it would not be a lot. Tom True, PE, replied that a driveway from the proposed road would be possible. The Board had no other issues. Peter Hogan asked if the parent lot would have a 50’ driveway off Wilson Hill Road. Tom True, PE, explained that they were trying to avoid the crossing of existing wetlands by using the existing path onto the lot for now but could also prove that the driveway could enter off the new road also. He thanked the Board for their time.
The Chairman noted to the Board that they could carpool in the Recreation Department van for the upcoming site walks on April 18, 2009, and that anyone interested in doing so should meet at the Town hall by 8:20 a.m. It was determined that the van would not be needed but carpooling in private vehicles would probably take place instead.
The Chairman wished to address the appointment of Dean Mehlhorn as alternate to the Planning Board as this would be the second meeting he had attended which had been the Board’s stipulation prior to considering a recommendation to the Selectmen.
Peter Hogan MOVED to recommend to the Board of Selectmen that Dean Mehlhorn be appointed as alternate for the Planning Board. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 9:05 p.m. the Planning Board took a 10 minute break as there was time before the next scheduled hearing.
AKSTEN, ELIZABETH R.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: Pine and Thornton Roads
Tax Map/Lot #4/64
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Rick Kohler and Bob Todd, LLS, of Robert Todd Land Use Survey, the applicant Elizabeth Aksten and her son-in-law Tyler Smith. Abutters present were Danielle Brunette and Bill Linscott.
Rick Kohler stated that State Subdivision Approval had been received for the one lot subdivision proposed for the northwest corner of the site as well as approval for the septic design. He noted that the parent lot was approximately 120.5 acres and the proposed subdivided lot would be 2.1 acres. He added that the soils were tested by two deep soil test pits and the seasonal high water table determined to be 2’. Rick Kohler noted that the septic design was proposed in a narrow window of land between two critical areas on site and noted the 15% to 25% slopes by the dotted line on the plan while the cross hatches denoted slopes greater than 25%. He explained that while impacts to the slopes in the 15% to 25% range were proposed there were none proposed in the
range of 25% and greater. Rick Kohler stated that the proposed driveway location had been chosen to maximize sight distance of over 200’ in either direction and that some trees had been surveyed for removal to aid the cause. He added that the driveway
would head southerly into the lot and swing through the 100’ and 105’ contours while the construction of the house would be contained as much as possible in the building envelope shown on the plan. Rick Kohler stated that there were no wetlands on site.
Rick Kohler stated that the site development plan was identical to the septic design except that the notes related to the Zoning Ordinance for Steep Slopes. He noted that the property sloped uphill slightly off Pine Road on the south side to a terraced area and at the 100 line interval sloped down slightly to a “saddle” with storm runoff and then up steeply again, therefore, a Stormwater Management Plan would be necessary in order that sediment did not migrate there. Rick Kohler stated that the terrain was comprised of hard and soft woods and a 3” to 4” organic layer. He noted that they proposed the use of Filtrex filter socks onsite which would contain organic seeded matter and be placed at the toe of the slope for the septic system which was near
15% to 25% slopes. He added that the house would be placed on the 50’ setback and was planned to be a 4 bedroom with an attached garage. Rick Kohler stated that the trees planned for removal had been flagged and the gravel driveway staked at the road edge and into the proposed building area.
Abutter Danielle Brunette stated that an area owned by Elizabeth Aksten at the beginning of Pine Road had been clear cut five years prior which had created an erosion issue for 50’ of the road. Rick Kohler stated that he lived nearby and his property was also the unlucky recipient of the runoff to which Danielle Brunette referred. Danielle Brunette asked how the applicant’s proposal would affect the existing runoff issues along the road. Rick Kohler noted that the site was far from the end of Pine Road and additionally sloped southerly upward away from the road so any runoff would not flow north into Pine Road but rather 500’ to 600’ before the saddle and the subsequent wetland beyond. Danielle Brunette mentioned an existing culvert that
overflowed to their stream when it became blocked which then caused the water to rise up over the road. Rick Kohler noted that, in the proposed subdivision, with direct point source runoff in a wooded site from things like a roof there was good reason to think that it would be absorbed by the healthy forest mat that was present, therefore, he did not think that the proposal would raise the level of the water in the nearby wetland. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that a woodland buffer such as the one noted onsite was considered one of the best management practices for filtration. Rick Kohler added that the forest would not be disturbed beyond the limits that he had noted.
Abutter Bill Linscott wished to note that he lived further back in the woods and like to shoot on the range he had on his property. He added that he hoped this proposal would not affect his ability to continue to do so, on his land. Elizabeth Aksten replied that they were aware of Mr. Linscott’s shooting range and that it was not and would not be an issue. Rick Kohler noted that Mr. Linscott’s property was located east of the site on the northern side of the road.
Douglas Hill MOVED to grant waivers for three copies of the soils maps and the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies, as listed in the memo by Bob Todd, LLS, dated March 26, 2009. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Peter Hogan MOVED to accept the application of Elizabeth R. Aksten, Major Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Pine and Thornton Roads. Tax Map/Lot #4/64, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the Board’s deadline for action was now June 18, 2009. He noted that a waiver request had also been submitted by Bob Todd, LLS, on March 26, 2009, to request that he be allowed to prepare the plans as a certified erosion control specialist instead of an engineer. It was noted on the Board’s cover sheets to this application that this had been allowed in the past.
Peter Hogan inquired about the water flow issues with the existing culvert on Pine Road. Danielle Brunette replied that her husband had spoken with the Road Agent and that he was aware of the current water concerns there. Rick Kohler reiterated that there was no indication that there would be direct flow from the site to the road given the wooded area and no visible scoured channel.
Peter Hogan MOVED to allow Bob Todd, LLS, to prepare the Stormwater Management Plans for the applicant as a certified erosion control specialist. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked Bob Todd, LLS, to run through his remaining waiver requests. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the nearest surface water was 400’ to 500’ east of the lot line and no wetland was directly connected to any of the onsite channels, therefore, to go beyond the site in relation to stormwater management seemed unreasonable and the same was true for drainage patterns. He also noted that watershed boundaries were not relevant to this subdivision since no drainage structures were proposed and no sizing of culverts needed. He noted that there would not be enough runoff from this subdivision to make watershed mapping a reasonable request.
Peter Hogan MOVED to grant the waivers requested for mapping surface waters and wetlands and drainage patterns within 400’ of the site and showing watershed boundaries per Bob Todd, LLS’s, memo dated March 26, 2009. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman inquired about the remaining acreage left over after the proposed subdivision and noted for the record that it was shown by tax map reference, not survey. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the applicant expressed no desire to further subdivide. Rick Kohler noted that the applicant was an agriculturalist and equestrian noting the existing home and barn on the parent lot and used her land for those purposes. Elizabeth Aksten stated that the proposed subdivision was so that her son-in-law and daughter could build a home. Christine Quirk asked if the outstanding fees had been submitted. The Chairman noted that they had been submitted just prior to the start of tonight’s hearing.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the Major Subdivision of Elizabeth Aksten, Tax Map/Lot #4/64, Pine and Thornton Roads, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of five (5) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,
including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
- Submission of the mylar for recording at the HCRD;
- Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F, 3.
4. Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set, and the appropriate fee for recording same with the HCRD. (If necessary.)
5. Approved Pre-Engineered Individual Stormwater Management Plans may be
resubmitted as the final Individual Stormwater Management Plans at the time of application for a building permit provided the builder complies with those plans. If
critical areas are to be disturbed beyond those shown on the Pre-Engineered
Individual Stormwater Management Plans, revised Individual Stormwater
Management Plans shall be prepared and submitted for approval. If the Pre
Engineered Stormwater Management Plans are not to be used at the time of
application for a building permit new Individual Stormwater Management Plans shall be submitted for approval. In any event, the bonds for the Individual Stormwater Management Plans must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit.
6. Submission of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application or recording of documents at the HCRD.
7. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be June 14, 2009, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn at 9:40 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Suzanne O'Brien
Recording Clerk
|