TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Minutes of June 9, 2009
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members Douglas Hill and Don Duhaime, and alternates Mark Suennen and Dean Mehlhorn. Ex-officio Christine Quirk was present for some of the meeting, having a conflicting Road Committee meeting from 7:00 p.m. until approximately 8:15 p.m. 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 Charles Cleary, Esq., Steve Dunbar, Nate Chamberlin, PE, Ian McSweeney, Russell Foundation, Eric Masterson, PLC, Jay Marden, Kim Burkhamer, Donna Mombourquette, Douglas Wilkins, Esq., and Shannon McManus.
Discussion, re: Affordable/Multi-Family Housing.
The Chairman stated that they had done a general review of information regarding Affordable/Multi-Family Housing at the last meeting and had asked the Coordinator to provide some local examples. He added that the Board’s plan would be to form a sub-committee and that Douglas Hill had volunteered to join. The Chairman noted that another Board member could sit on the committee as well if they wished to volunteer. Mark Suennen stated that he would be interested. He also felt that residents involved with development such as Bob Todd, LLS, might be interested and offer some knowledge to the committee and wondered if a list of names had been compiled. The Chairman stated that a list was not in existence and felt that it was likely a volunteer effort. Mark
Suennen thought local developers could offer good insight on the committee as well.
The Coordinator noted that the local examples that included limits to the amount of affordable housing that could be proposed likely had growth management ordinances and this was something New Boston did not currently have. She added that the issue of trying to figure out whether a fair share of work force housing was being offered by the town was hard to do. She added that a Housing Needs Assessment was prepared by regional planning commissions every five years, however, they did not get into calculating a specific town’s fair share and what they should be providing. The Coordinator explained that in-house the Town did not have the capabilities to address that going forward. The Chairman wondered if this could change in the future since the State now had a law that
said towns must address this item. The Coordinator replied that there had been discussion on this but nothing clarifying whether or not it could be addressed. She noted that the example models were fairly similar but she liked the New London model as it discussed eligibility for such housing (not controlled by the Planning Board but whoever ran the ordinance, such as a housing trust). The Coordinator noted that the Housing Finance Authority would run such a program for a town but only if their model Affordability Retention Zoning Ordinance was used. She noted that otherwise there would need to be an organization in Town to run this side of it. The Coordinator stated that she had included information in the Board’s packets about soil based lot sizing which could be a consideration when discussing the multi-family aspect which was a separate issue to the workforce housing. She noted that ordinance examples from Kensington and Atkinson, NH,
had taken information from the Rockingham Conservation Service which came up with tables of different soils and what the lot size should be. The Coordinator added that other performance features could be added as well such as architectural design guidelines, etc. She stated that she was perplexed by the conflict between local town zoning ordinance lot size minimums versus soil type calculations for lots and would need to research that. The Coordinator clarified that the town’s Zoning Ordinance might have a minimum lot size of 3 acres when the table of soil types allowed for a lot of 30,000 s.f., for example.
Mark Suennen stated that he was not satisfied with the New London example, especially article XXVI,H, as requiring a 30 year affordability restriction was essentially rent control. The Coordinator noted that 30 years was also listed in the model affordability ordinance from the Housing Finance Authority and a housing trust at the sea coast used the same time frame. Mark Suennen stated that he like the recommended maximum unit size offered by Amherst, NH., in Zoning Ordinance Section 8.5.5.5, as it seemed more reasonable and the rent did not need to be controlled since the size and square footage would naturally regulate that. The Coordinator thought that lot sizes also needed to be tied to this as a certain value home would need to be on a certain size lot. Mark
Suennen clarified that the law required the Town to prevent any of their regulations from being onerous to a developer to allow workforce housing and the Town was encouraged to provide incentives or positive regulations to encourage the construction of work force housing. The Coordinator replied that was correct and noted that while the Town could limit where multi-family could take place they had to permit workforce housing in greater than 50% of their residential area. Mark Suennen thought that workforce housing locations should be near to existing, under-capacity roads or those with significant available capacity. The Coordinator stated that realistically the entire Town was a “bedroom” community. Mark Suennen agreed but wondered if the Board would be encouraging further sprawl by allowing workforce housing that needed road systems built up. He thought locations already near facilities that are intended to handle traffic would be better. The Coordinator agreed that the
latter would be preferable but it depended on where land was available for sale. Mark Suennen agreed but felt that incentives could be targeted to certain areas. He suggested that expanding the areas that were currently zoned R-1 was a good idea. The Coordinator stated that the Master Plan looked at future land use needs as Mark Suennen was referring to. She suggested that the Board may want to pull back from this for now and focus on the workforce housing aspect otherwise it could become overwhelming. Mark Suennen felt that the overlay option was a way to accomplish what they needed to in the interim. The Coordinator stated that the concept of the workforce housing overlay could be expanded with the ideas presented for R-1. The Chairman clarified that the statute called for the Town to address 50% of remaining land not the entire Town. The Coordinator replied that there was language that stated it should be considered that
re-development could occur on developed lands but this did not seem to apply to New Boston as most 2 acre subdivided lots could not be subdivided further.
Mark Suennen stated that he liked the example from Chester, New Hampshire’s Zoning Ordinance, Section 6.14.5, which seemed to address the concern that workforce housing not grow to an unaffordable status. The Coordinator noted that allowing improvements to the home while not changing the affordability was accomplished by calculations that could be somewhat complicated but formulated as a town saw applicable, however, this could be more involved than New Boston was willing to address. The Chairman asked if the examples offered were existing and in force currently. The Coordinator replied that they were and that she knew developments had been
constructed in Amherst using the ordinance but was not sure about the other towns. She added that she liked the one page ordinance of Lyme, NH, which noted that a 30 year term of affordability needed to be assured and some town entity needed to oversee that but that it would not be the Planning Board’s responsibility. Mark Suennen added that he had read in the original packet that it was important not to isolate workforce housing to certain areas in a subdivision or town. He added that he liked the Hopkinton, NH, ordinance Section 16.5.2, which stated that no more than 25% of work force housing in a project be 1 bedroom or smaller and no more than 25% be three bedroom or larger which he thought offered a good mix.
The Chairman asked what the specific steps should now be so that the Board could offer guidance for the committee they would establish to address workforce housing. The Coordinator replied that the first step would be to gather a committee then have a brief discussion with them of the conversations had by the Board on the topic noting the content of the Master Plan on the subject then they could begin to work on a document. She thought that given the time frame the Board may want an update once the committee got started to make sure they were headed in the right direction. The Chairman agreed and added that they could aim for some finalization of the work in September or October, 2009. Mark Suennen thought that energetic young couples who may have experienced the
challenge of finding affordable housing in the Town may be good candidates for the committee. The Chairman felt that the Board could finalize their thoughts on this topic at the next meeting to be used as a baseline for discussion once a committee was formed. He asked Mark Suennen to get in touch with Doug Hill to come up with some thoughts on how to proceed for the Board to review at the next meeting and to include the Coordinator as needed.
The Chairman asked if there was any new information regarding the Driveway Regulations. The Coordinator replied that she was still waiting to hear back from Town Counsel regarding his review of the draft and would contact him again.
The Chairman seated Mark Suennen and Dean Mehlhorn as a full voting members of the Board.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JUNE 9, 2009.
There being time before the first scheduled hearing, the Planning Board addressed Miscellaneous Business.
- Approval of minutes of May 12, 2009, distributed by email.
Mark Suennen stated that he had noted some typographical errors. The Chairman clarified that in terms of content the minutes were acceptable. The Board agreed.
Don Duhaime MOVED to approve the minutes of May 12, 2009, as written. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Driveway Permit application for Daniel & Donna Hodgkins, Tax Map/Lot #3/135-2, Parker Road, for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator clarified that the Board saw this driveway application when the subdivision of which it was a part came before them, however, its approval had been an oversight at the time. The Chairman then signed the Driveway permit application.
3. A copy of a memorandum dated June 1, 2009, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Planning Board members, re: Bilodeau Site Plan, Tax Map/Lot #14/44, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that he agreed with the comments in the above noted memo and felt the Board should wait for the Town assessor’s analysis and comments before taking any action. He added that he found it helpful to read the abatement application and the specific issues that were noted. He added that he was surprised at Mr. Plourde’s tone on the application and the concerns he addressed seemed out of character compared to how he conducted himself during the application process when he seemed in favor of his neighbor’s project. He noted that the Board should first have a discussion as to how they would proceed with this matter and after those points were clarified, invite Mr. Bilodeau in to speak with them.
- Town of Greenfield Public Hearing, June 8, 2009, re: Telecommunications Facility & Personal Wireless Service Facility, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman asked if New Boston abutted Greenfield, NH. The Coordinator replied that it did not but that the State law required that all towns within a 20 mile radius of a town having a cell tower installed be notified.
- The minutes of May 26, 2009, were noted as having been distributed via email for approval at the meeting of June 23, 2009.
- Copies of the alternate/new member training package update were distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that he had added a section regarding meeting minutes and noted that if any Board members had comments or corrections they should let him know.
- A copy of a report by the Planning Board Chairman on Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control 1, dated June 4, 2009, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that he had inquired at this seminar about stump grindings being used as a permanent form of erosion control and was told that they were absolutely not to be considered a permanent method. He added that the Board should consider, given this information, if they wanted to make any specific changes to the Driveway/Subdivision Regulations based on that clarification.
At 7:35 p.m. the Planning board took a 5 minute break.
Douglas Hill arrived for the meeting and the Chairman reseated Dean Mehlhorn as an alternate.
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 were Steve Dunbar, Nathan Chamberlin, PE, and Charlie Cleary, Esq. Abutters and interested parties present were Ian McSweeney, Russell Foundation, Kim Burkhamer, Conservation Commission, Eric Masterson, Piscatoquog Land Conservancy, abutter Donna Mombourquette and interested party Jay Marden.
The Chairman clarified that this was an informational session which meant that discussion was non-binding and only for informational purposes. He added that audience members would have a chance to speak once the presentation was made and the Board had their discussion. He stated that the first informational session had been held on April 14, 2009, and that the Technical Review Committee had also reviewed the plan. He asked Steve Dunbar if they had seen the minutes from that meeting. Steve Dunbar replied that they had not but noted that they had met with the Conservation Commission three times.
Steve Dunbar stated that they had also met with Gordon Russell and Ian McSweeney, Russell Foundation and had site walks with them and Conservation Commission members. He noted that they were now in “plan D” of their proposal and highlighted the different building envelopes on the plan. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, noted that there were two iterations of the plan, conventional and open space. He explained that for the 27 lot conventional version a connecting road from Twin Bridge Road to West Lull Place was proposed. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, added that Dredge and Fill Permit Applications had been submitted to the State. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, noted that for the open space plan there was a through road, smaller lots and a river buffer that connected to the
buffer from phase 1 (previously approved). He noted that the Russell Foundation had not liked the through road and as a result they had come up with “plan D” which showed the road pulled back considerably from the river and off an esker with no through connection. Nathan Chamberlin noted that this road was approximately 3,100’ in length and the lots were reduced to 26 one acre lots with 60% of the parcel in open space. He noted that the open space concept required a 100’ buffer around the perimeter.
Ian McSweeney submitted a letter of support for “plan D” from the Russell Foundation and noted that the plan had been revised considerably noting that the open space concept protected wildlife corridors and took traffic off West Lull Place. He pointed out the location of a drumlin and noted that the lots' locations had been revised and pulled northward. Ian McSweeney added that the applicant was also willing to increase the building setbacks which meant that from the Piscataquog River structures would not be visible. He noted that the open space would then be contiguous through the easement protection and along the Piscataquog River. Ian McSweeney stated that the current iteration of the plan addressed the concerns of the Russell Foundation and even
though the cul-de-sac length would be longer they felt that sensitive land would be protected as a result of the conservation planned.
The Chairman asked if the plan addressed the list of missing items from NH DES. Nathan Chamberlin replied that it did to the level of 95%. He noted that there were no vernal pools on site. The Chairman asked the length of the cul-de-sac. Nathan Chamberlin replied that it was 3,100’ to the back of the cul-de-sac. The Chairman asked the distance to the cut off of the other cul-de-sac. Nathan Chamberlin replied that it was approximately 1,400’ to 1,500’. The Chairman stated that the feedback from the Technical Review Committee meeting was that they were not in favor of the blocked access originally proposed as part of the through road plan, nor were they in favor of the long cul-de-sac proposed. He noted that the TRC was
concerned with access and turnaround capability for emergency equipment vehicles. He asked if the applicant would consider a round-about at a half way point down the road to address this, otherwise his guess was that the Fire and Police Departments would argue that the maximum cul-de-sac length allowed per the Subdivision Regulations was 1,000’. Nathan Chamberlin replied that they could look at this option, however, he felt it would eat up a lot of land. Steve Dunbar noted an existing natural “road” that ran along the river from West Lull Place and the proposed cistern location which he thought might help with this issue. The Chairman thought that the applicant may want to run the “plan D” version of the plan by the Technical Review Committee since this changed the plans significantly from what they had seen. Steve Dunbar noted the 250’ easement on site that ran to the Weare, NH, town line. Douglas Hill
clarified from the Technical Review Committee minutes that the committee had seen the “plan D” version. It was noted by the applicant that cul-de-sacs longer than the regulations' maximum of 1,000’ had been approved by the Board in the past. Douglas Hill replied that this had been done, however, there were additional considerations such as a subdivision on McCurdy Road that had proposed a reduction in lots from 27 to 17 if an extended cul-de-sac length was considered. He asked Nathan Chamberlin, PE, if underground utilities were proposed for the subdivision. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, replied that they were. Steve Dunbar felt that they could not make everyone happy but noted they had met with many Town entities and had tried to address the concerns of everyone involved. He added that they were at least looking for a nod from the Board and would be happy to approach the Fire Chief regarding his possible concerns about the
cul-de-sac length. Nathan
Chamberlin, PE, stated that the applicants still needed their State permits before submitting a final plan, therefore, they needed some direction regarding what path they should take.
Kim Burkhamer, Conservation Commission, asked for confirmation that the Board had received the Commission’s letter regarding Open Space and wildlife corridors. She stated that the Conservation Commission was very aware of the applicant’s efforts with this project in conjunction with the Commission. Eric Masterson, Piscataquog Land Conservancy, stated that he was not involved in the process very much but wanted to go on record stating that he would support this plan in conjunction with the Russell Foundation and the Conservation Commission. Douglas Hill asked what NHDES’s main concerns were. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, replied that it was mainly having the road close to the river, however, with the road pulled back as currently proposed many concerns had
from NHDES. He noted that he did not understand the suggested alternative from the DES review regarding road location. He noted further that he was unhappy that previous wetland impacts were to be added to this project which might put the total over 10,000 s.f. thus requiring mitigation. Douglas Hill stated that he was interested to find out if a through road was impossible and the regulations unmeetable in this regard. Steve Dunbar stated that no waiver would be required if the conventional subdivision plan was submitted.
Interested party Jay Marden noted that many concerns of abutters and interested parties had been adequately addressed through the efforts of the Russell Foundation. He added that he was happy with the current plan and the amount of land being dedicated as a result. Jay Marden asked if the 35 acres being dedicated would be deeded in fee subject to an easement. Steve Dunbar replied that this would be dependent on negotiations with the State, the Russell Foundation, Conservation Commission and Piscataquog Land Conservancy, i.e., whoever was willing to take it. Jay Marden asked if the 250’ easement from the first phase of the subdivision that was already approved was deeded in fee. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, replied that this was an existing easement and not
deeded in fee.
Abutter Donna Mombourquette stated that after many years of being involved with this property she wished to state her full support of this plan and recognize the efforts of all parties involved. She asked how much footage was between the proposed through road and the high water mark for the Piscataquog River as she felt the State would weigh heavily on this subject. She added that she hoped the Town would consider all the hard work done on this plan by many parties.
Steve Dunbar stated that the applicant was looking for the Board’s input so that they could start their process. The Chairman suggested that this was the next step anyway as the applicant had received the input regarding the safety issues that would likely be raised by proposing a cul-de-sac greater than the maximum allowed per the regulations. He noted that other Board members could weigh in, however, the applicant should keep in mind that this was an informational session only and nothing was binding. Don Duhaime felt that if an open space plan was proposed then there should be a 100’ buffer around the perimeter. He added that he agreed with the Fire Department’s views regarding cul-de-sac lengths because there was a reason for the 1,000’ maximum length. Mark
Suennen first wished to commend the applicant for the intensive work that had been done with the conservation groups. He noted that while “Plan D” seemed better than “plan A” he wondered if the existing condition of the site was better than “plan D”, i.e., a 3,100’ cul-de-sac with 3 wetland crossings before the road even reached lot #3/5. He felt that if any of those proposed wetland crossings became damaged or impassable it would cut off access to the other lots, therefore, he would not be in favor of any development on the site that did not connect by a through road or a much shorter cul-de-sac. Dean Mehlhorn thought that the proposed cul-de-sac was too long as it was three times the maximum length stipulated in the regulations. He added that he liked the roundabout idea to accommodate emergency vehicle access. Steve Dunbar noted that the Board had approved two cul-de-sac lengths in the past year that
exceeded the maximum length. He recalled that a Board member had offered that working successfully with the Russell Foundation would get them the Board’s support on the subdivision. Douglas Hill stated that he had no issue with the road but knew the applicant had calculated the lot density by having the through road and if “plan D” had instead been the original plan they likely would not have come up with that number of lots. He asked how many lots were proposed beyond the third wetland crossing. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, replied that it was 13 lots but noted that there was 55 acres in that area. Douglas Hill stated that he would not like to see a through road there and a 1,000’ cul-de-sac would require that. He noted that a fine line existed and some entity would end up unhappy. Mark Suennen recalled that the Board had approved cul-de-sacs beyond the maximum length allowed against the Fire Department’s approval
and felt that if there was a way the applicant could win over the Fire Department in this case that would be the best scenario. Douglas Hill asked if the subdivision would have both fire sprinkler systems and a cistern. Steve Dunbar replied that was correct. Douglas Hill noted that the Board had not site walked the property and asked what the wetland crossings were like. Kim Burkhamer replied that the third crossing would be over an intermittent stream that could likely be handled by a box culvert. She added that another crossing looked like it had water flow but this was actually post-melt from the winter season. Kim Burkhamer noted that there would always be some drainage there but culverts should accommodate it. Steve Dunbar noted that they had gone from proposing a 30” to a 4’ bridge-type culvert in that area. Douglas Hill questioned whether washouts would be an issue. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, replied that there
should not be any major drainage there and on the model for the 50 year storm it was not even half full.
Jay Marden wished to note that even though the applicant only lost a few lots by their new plan the lots were much smaller and the site gained 35 acres preserved. Douglas Hill wished to note that his comments were not intended to seem as if he simply wanted fewer houses in this subdivision, but to point out that from a safety standpoint, fewer people living there might help the applicant reach a compromise. Steve Dunbar asked if they could obtain copies of the minutes forwarded by the Technical Review Committee. The Coordinator noted that these had been sent directly to the applicant. Douglas Hill gave Steve Dunbar his copy of the minutes. Charlie Cleary, Esq., asked when the 1,000’ maximum length for cul-de-sacs had gone into effect for the Town.
The Coordinator replied that it might have been in 2002 but she had to check on that. Eric Masterson asked if the Board could speak to the conditions that a waiver for a cul-de-sac length had been granted for previous subdivisions. The Chairman noted that in one example the density of lots had been reduced from 27 to 17 lots if the waiver was granted along with the elimination of three wetland crossings. Mark Suennen asked the length of that cul-de-sac. The Coordinator replied that it was 2,800’. Kim Burkhamer noted that the waiver to the cul-de-sac length for the subdivision being noted had also saved vernal pools, wetland crossings and gave 30 acres back to conservation. Ian McSweeney noted that the subdivision in question abutted more conservation land which offered a contiguous area and this plan offered the same (except to the west). He noted that there would also be no risk of the future potential to expand or for abutting
properties to do so. Nathan Chamberlin, PE, asked if a waiver to the cul-de-sac length could be considered by the Board if design reviews were submitted. The Chairman thought that a site walk should come before that consideration. Steve Dunbar noted that while he could attend the Technical Review Committee meetings he was not necessarily allowed to speak. Douglas Hill suggested that if the applicant’s questions were put in a letter format this could be forwarded to the Committee and they could discuss those topics at their meeting.
Steve Dunbar, Nathan Chamberlin, PE, and Charles Cleary, Esq., thanked the Board for their time.
VISTA ROAD, LLC (OWNER) Adjourned from 5/26/09
ANDERSON & KRIEGER, LLP, for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T)
(APPLICANT)
Public Hearing/Major Site Plan/Personal Wireless Service Facility
Location: Wilson Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/33
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Doug Wilkins, Esq., and Shannon McManus, site contractor. The Chairman noted that while there were two very similar applications for cell towers before the Board they were dealing with them separately. He noted that there were no remaining issues with the plans but he had some questions with the Stormwater Management Report.
Douglas Wilkins, Esq., stated that the last set of plans was submitted to the Board on June 2, 2009. He then submitted an example of the Certificate of Liability Insurance and the removal bond. He stated that he was unclear if it would be a requirement to remove the concrete pad for the structure also and clarified that if this was the case then the estimate came in at $36K instead of what had been previously submitted. The Chairman asked the Coordinator what had been considered for past applicants. The Coordinator replied that she would need to research that. Mark Suennen thought that if the stipulation was to return the site to its preexisting condition then this meant the removal of the pad. The Coordinator in looking at the requirement noted that it did speak to preexisting
conditions. The Board determined that the removal bond should include the cost of removing the concrete pad(s) on site.
Doug Wilkins, Esq., stated that the NEPA analysis and SHPO report were still outstanding and asked that these be considered a condition of approval. The Chairman stated that another question for the Board related to letting the 150’ buffer re-grow around the site and although this was placed on the plan they would like to see a separate legal document. Doug Wilkins, Esq., replied that they were fine with doing this if it could also be made a condition of approval.
The Chairman asked how multiple carriers that may rent space on the pole from the applicant were involved should the structure need to be removed, i.e., was that the responsibility of the applicant or theirs as well. Douglas Wilkins, Esq., replied that the applicant was solely responsible for the pole and the pad. The Chairman asked about the maintenance of rip-rap which was noted in the Stormwater Management Plan and if the applicant would be responsible for ongoing maintenance. Doug Wilkins, Esq., replied that they, as lessee, would be.
The Chairman noted that the plan showed a double wall tank but the Stormwater Report included mention of a lip on the concrete pad which the plan did not show. Doug Wilkins, Esq., replied that they would address both. The Chairman then asked if the Town would be accepting the access road when the work was done. The Coordinator replied they would not as it would be considered a private road.
The Chairman stated that an outstanding waiver still needed to be addressed as related to storm drainage, erosion control and snow storage. He noted that by the things that had since been done on the plan the waiver itself may not be needed but nonetheless should be addressed.
Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the waiver requested to Site Plan Regulations Section 4.5 – 4.7, for the requirement of storm drainage provisions, acceptable erosion and sedimentation control measures and snow storage. Don Duhaime seconded the motion.
Mark Suennen stated that the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Section 2.4 specified that servicing and storage of equipment, including fueling, and changing, adding or applying lubricants or hydraulic fuels had to be 100’ from the edge of adjacent resource areas and, therefore, did not think it practical for the site. Douglas Wilkins, Esq., stated that the applicant stood by this report.
The motion PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman noted for the record that the applicant had added a table of ongoing conditions to the plan. Don Duhaime asked about a legal review by Town Counsel. The Chairman replied that this would be a condition of approval. Douglas Wilkins, Esq.,
then reviewed the NOD draft prior to the Board’s vote. He asked that the vegetative buffer as described in section 403.8,D, be called out as adequate and the antenna array noted in section 403.8,J. The Chairman noted that these issues had been approved by the Board at the last meeting and noted that the Board felt the buffer easement proposed would meet the requirement. Doug Wilkins, Esq., stated that this was fine.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the application to construct a single Personal Wireless Service Facility on Land of Vista Road, LLC, Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/33, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) revised site plans that include all of the checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this evening’s hearing.
2. Submission of any outstanding fees, including the cost of recording documents at the Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds.
3. Submission of an executed Agreement and Release regarding the use of Wilson Hill Road, a Class VI road, for access to this personal wireless service facility, for recording at the Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds, the cost of which recording shall be borne by the applicant.
4. Submission of a legal document regarding the 150' vegetative buffer area, for recording at the Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds, the cost of which recording shall be borne by the applicant.
5. Submission of the language of the bond for the cost of removal of the facility per the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for review and approval by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
6. Submission of the bond as approved and in the amount approved including the additional cost for removal of the concrete pad(s).
7. Submission of proof of liability insurance.
8. Submission of the State Historic Preservation Office Report.
9. Submission of the National Environmental Policy Act Screening Report.
10. Execution of a Site Review Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be December 8, 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 prior to that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing pursuant to RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. All site improvements are to be completed as per the approved site plans.
2. The deadline for complying with the conditions subsequent shall be December 8, 2011, at which time, or upon prior receipt of notification that the improvements as shown on the plan have been completed, a site inspection shall be performed and a compliance hearing held, prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department.
3. No occupancy/use of the areas included in this application and plan shall be permitted until the site improvements as noted have been completed and a
compliance hearing held.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
THOMAS LORDEN (OWNER) Adjourned from 4/28/09
ANDERSON & KRIEGER, LLP, for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T)
(APPLICANT)
Public Hearing/Major Site Plan/Personal Wireless Service Facility
Location: Old Coach Road
Tax Map/Lot #8/132
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Doug Wilkins, Esq., and Shannon McManus, site contractor. The Chairman noted that the issues with this application were much the same as for the previous one, noting that the plans were OK, there was an outstanding waiver to be acted on, and the same set of conditions could be included regarding submitting documents. He added that this application was complicated by the 100’ vegetative buffer extending onto Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests (SPNHF) land.
Doug Wilkins, Esq., replied that this was being addressed with the Society. He noted that it was understood that satisfying this requirement would be a condition of approval. The Chairman noted that the table of ongoing conditions had been added to the plan. He asked how the easement change negotiations were progressing. Shannon McManus replied that although the Society’s meetings were the only time they could procedurally address this they were on board and this was almost concluded. Doug Wilkins, Esq., submitted the revised removal bond along with, he noted, an actual Certificate of Liability Insurance.
Mark Suennen noted that as for the plan in the hearing before this one he had the same comments regarding the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as it specified that servicing and storage of equipment, including fueling, and changing, adding or applying lubricants or hydraulic fuels had to be 100’ from the edge of adjacent resource areas and, therefore, did not think it practical for the site. Doug Wilkins, Esq., replied that he would stand by this report also. The Chairman asked about the existing gravel access road and whether construction of the site would compromise drainage since there was currently no culvert at the end of the road. He added that the plans only addressed the 70’ driveway to be constructed on the Lorden land. Doug Wilkins, Esq.,
replied that the notes on the plan reflected that nothing was proposed for drainage as the existing method of flow was downhill and to the south. Douglas Hill agreed and did not think that placing underground utilities would have any change on existing drainage patterns. The Chairman clarified that work to the road would not increase flows onto Old Coach Road. Douglas Hill replied that was the intent. The Coordinator noted that offsite flows were not permitted and the Town would deal with this if it happened.
The Chairman clarified that, as for the previous hearing, the concrete pad on the plan did not show a lip that would contain any fuel spill. He noted on sheet A02 of the plan that the tower was in the wrong location and back 40’ to 50’ from where it should be. On sheet A04 he pointed out that there seemed to be a depression between two high points where everything should be at a 635’ level on a straight bank. Mark Suennen noted that on sheet A02, note 7, physical features within a 300’ radius was shown by a blank space. The Chairman noted that the Wilson Hill plan had more detail. Douglas Hill added that more detail was also shown on sheet A04. The Chairman noted that this could be a condition precedent. Douglas Hill thought
it a waivable item since the Board had site walked the property. Mark Suennen noted that the Board had waived the original request to section 3.5.
Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the waiver to Section 3.5 (11 & 13). Christine Quirk seconded the motion. A vote was taken. Douglas Hill – AYE, Don Duhaime, Mark Suennen and Christine Quirk – NAY. The motion FAILED.
The Chairman explained that when the plan was updated that radius should be filled in. He noted that the Board still needed to address waiver request #15 regarding storm drainage, erosion and snow storage.
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the waiver to Site Plan Regulation Section 4.5 – 4.7, for the requirement of storm drainage provisions, acceptable erosion and sedimentation control measures and snow storage. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the application to construct a single Personal Wireless Service Facility on Land of Thomas Lorden, Old Coach Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/132, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) revised site plans that include all of the checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this evening’s hearing, including physical, natural and manmade features within 300’ of the site.
2. Submission of any outstanding fees, including the cost of recording documents at the Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds.
3. Submission of a revised Easement Deed from the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests to Thomas Lorden allowing access to the personal wireless service facility as well as the previously permitted uses.
4. Submission of an executed Agreement and Release regarding the use of the access easement over land of the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests (SPNHF), for access to this personal wireless service facility, for recording at the Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds, the cost of which recording shall be borne by the applicant.
5. Submission of a legal document regarding the 150' vegetative buffer area, for
recording at the Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds, the cost of which recording shall be borne by the applicant.
6. Submission of the language of the bond for the cost of removal of the facility per the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for review and approval by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
7. Submission of the bond as approved including the removal of the concrete pad(s) and in the amount approved.
8. Submission of proof of liability insurance.
9. Submission of the State Historic Preservation Office Report.
10. Submission of the National Environmental Policy Act Screening Report.
11. Execution of a Site Review Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be December 08, 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 prior to that date, the applicant is hereby put on
notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing pursuant to RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. All site improvements are to be completed as per the approved site plans.
2. The deadline for complying with the conditions subsequent shall be December 08, 2011, at which time, or upon prior receipt of notification that the improvements as shown on the plan have been completed, a site inspection shall be performed and a compliance hearing held, prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department.
3. No occupancy/use of the areas included in this application and plan shall be permitted until the site improvements as noted have been completed and a compliance hearing held.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn at 9:10 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Suzanne O'Brien
Recording Clerk
| 
