TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Minutes of June 23 Meetings
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present was regular member Douglas Hill, alternates Mark Suennen and Dean Mehlhorn 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 Joann Albertini, Gloria Chandler, Katie Kachavos, Ellen Kambol, David Ely, John Ashworth, Ruth Trussell, Jonathan Markey, PE, Gordon Russell, Dave and Sheridan Elliot, George Philibotte and Ray Shea.
Discussion, re: Affordable/Multi-Family Housing.
The Chairman stated that Mark Suennen had agreed at the previous meeting that he would review the sample ordinances researched by the Coordinator and come up with a suggested basis for discussion for the committee that they sought to address Affordable/Multi-Family Housing. Mark Suennen stated that he had taking notes during the previous week on the sample ordinances and although he had not reviewed all of them in depth he felt that he had looked at enough examples to suggest that that the committee should first have a purpose statement. He felt the committee should consider who they were aiming for, i.e. was the goal to simply comply with the statute or actually encourage workforce housing so that young couples and/or seniors already living in the Town could afford to reside here. He added that a
definition of workforce housing should be clarified. Mark Suennen noted that he liked specific things from certain example ordinances such as the size restriction for workforce housing in the Hopkinton, NH, example and the non-expandable clause from the Chester, NH, example. He thought that incentives should be considered for developers such as fee waivers as well as “un-incentives”. Mark Suennen thought that the question of who would manage workforce housing for the Town should be considered by the committee, be it the Planning Board, Selectmen or some other third party. He noted that he thought the committee should consider geographical areas of exclusion such as those with certain soil types or steep slopes, for example. Mark Suennen raised the question as to whether the regulations should be by special zoning overlays or special exceptions and recalled examples like deed restrictions from the Wakefield, NH ordinance, general criteria
from Amherst, NH’s ordinance and a “no-demolition” clause from another town he could not recall that stated a site was subject to all the incentives offered to the developer regarding workforce housing in the first 10-15 years post construction.
The Chairman thought that the Board should make sure there were no open ended questions for the committee so that they did not head in a direction that was not in sync with what the Board wanted to achieve. Mark Suennen reiterated that a purpose statement should be a priority. The Coordinator noted that this could be pulled from the statute. Mark Suennen noted that this should be one of the first pieces of information given to the committee so that they did not try to define something that had already been defined. He added that a general agreement on who the workforce housing targets were should also be agreed upon, for example, young couples, seniors living in Town who wanted to be able to afford to stay in town, etc. Douglas Hill asked for a typical/standard definition of workforce
housing. Mark Suennen replied that in his opinion it was for individuals at or below the median income of the town or region where such housing would be affordable to those who, for example, made $20 to $60K for a median of $40K. Douglas Hill noted that in New Boston the lots were bigger and he did not think that this would be an affordable scenario in terms of workforce housing options nor would larger lots subdivided into smaller ones offer any greater affordability. He noted that land could not be purchased cheaply enough in New Boston. He felt that making lots smaller or building multi-family units was the way to proceed. Mark Suennen did not necessarily agree and felt that zoning could be changed in a way that would make it cost effective. The Chairman clarified that the statute noted that 5 units was the minimum unit size to be considered multi-family. Christine Quirk noted that the rules for mobile homes were very stringent.
The Coordinator stated that mobile homes could be placed on any lot in town as long as the building and life safety codes were followed. Christine Quirk clarified that she was speaking of a mobile home park. The Coordinator noted that there was no land currently zoned MHP that was available for a Mobile Home Park.
The Coordinator asked Douglas Hill if he thought that offering an incentive such as a couple of extra lots if a certain percentage of a subdivision was targeted as workforce housing would recoup enough cost to make it worthwhile for a developer. Douglas Hill said that he did not know but that calculation would be important to figure out. He thought that the land costs in town were “too big a nut to crack”. The Chairman asked how cities like Manchester with smaller lots handled purchase prices. Douglas Hill noted that it depended on the zoning where single family lots in the R-1 or R-A districts were less money than the R-2 or R-3 districts which allowed for multi-family development. Dean Mehlhorn pointed out that some of these lots inn Manchester were very small - only 50' x
100'. Christine Quirk added that they were serviced by city sewer and water. Mark Suennen noted that a good point was that a septic system was not necessarily feasible on every ¼ acre lot in a hilly town like New Boston. Douglas Hill thought that community wells and septics may be an option although he still did not think the lots could be small enough. Mark Suennen added that an option could be land trusts that owned acreage with homes on them owned by individuals. Douglas Hill thought that, realistically, they were looking at town house style developments for New Boston in consideration of workforce housing.
Mark Suennen stated that another question would be what were the geographical target areas in town and what, if any, areas would be excluded. Douglas Hill thought that an overlay requiring certain things would then allow this type of housing to be built anywhere. Dean Mehlhorn stated that soils would dictate structure sizing. Mark Suennen asked if the committee should look at this right away or wait until a concept was presented and see how the Town addressed it. Douglas Hill thought that the land and free market would be the dictators. The Coordinator suggested performance zones based on soil types, area and design guidelines, for example, as criteria that land would have to meet to qualify. Mark Suennen added that capability bonuses could be applied. The Coordinator noted that
the committee would need to consider the option of having the criteria work too well as the Town would not want multi-family/workforce housing as the only type of housing being built in town. Douglas Hill thought that given septic considerations based on soil types throughout town this would not be an issue.
Mark Suennen recalled the size restriction on workforce housing structures given in the Hopkinton, NH, example. He noted that if the issue was impractical based on land cost in New Boston this may not end up being an issue. Douglas Hill stated that he would be interested to see what would happen to the units when the restriction lifted and the units came onto the free market. Mark Suennen thought that the Town should stay away from anything that pointed to “rent control”. He stated that it could be messy and affect land values. He did not think
anyone would want to maintain the system in the Town and that size restriction would dictate its market. Douglas Hill asked if rentals or ownerships were being considered. Mark Suennen thought a mix was likely. Douglas Hill asked if there should be any restrictions put on a developer that stipulated rentals versus ownership. Mark Suennen was unsure and replied that this could be a committee topic also.
Mark Suennen stated that he also liked the idea of a non-expandable construction clause where expansions over a certain size could not be added to a unit as that would negate it as workforce housing. Douglas Hill stated that he was more interested in who lived on the property. He noted that if an investor purchased, for example, a multi-family unit he saw that investor as having two options: rent per market based revenue or sell to people who could only meet the affordable housing clause. Mark Suennen thought that if unit size restrictions were in place then the market would dictate price and this would put fewer restrictions on developers. He added that he would like the committee to discuss near term and long term effects. Christine Quirk thought that these were all good points for the
committee to discuss. Douglas Hill liked the points that had been raised and cautioned that care needed to be taken in placing restrictions that would not be too onerous. Mark Suennen wondered who would manage the process and if it would be determined by Zoning through a separate overlay. He noted at some point there would need to be tracking or reporting to clarify that the State requirement was being met. The Coordinator asked how the square footage requirement would be figured out to make sure that the units met the statute’s stipulation for people earning the median income. Douglas Hill replied that it would be self regulating because of the size of the structure. The Chairman asked if the square footage requirement would be noted in Zoning. The Coordinator replied that it would. The Chairman asked what the case would be if this needed to be adjusted over time. The Coordinator replied that this would require a Town
vote. Douglas Hill noted that if the size of the home was too small then a developer would shy away as they would not make enough money on the project, however, if it were too big then it would not be affordable. The Chairman thought that this was a key aspect of what the committee should address. Mark Suennen noted that keeping the administration aspect simple was important for whatever entity was to manage this and let the market dictate as much as it could. He thought it a good idea to have the committee develop their purpose and options and present alternatives to the Planning Board before going too far into drafting ordinances.
It was noted that Mark Suennen and Douglas Hill would on this committee. The Coordinator noted that Town resident Ellen Kambol had expressed an interest in being on the committee. She noted that Ms. Kambol had worked for NH Housing Finance. The Coordinator further noted that resident and former Planning Board Vice Chairman James Nordstrom was also interested in joining the committee, along with Jed Callen, Esq., who volunteered to review committee drafts. The Coordinator explained that because of time constraints it was probably a better idea to have a casual application process, i.e., forego the application, review and appointment process. The Board agreed.
Commercial Committee Design Guidelines
The Coordinator noted that Town Counsel still needed to review the guidelines. She noted that the words on the Post Office sketch within the guidelines had transferred upside down but this would be corrected. The Chairman stated that the word “please” appeared once in the document (at the last bullet point on page 4 regarding ADA compliance) and that the rest of the language throughout pointed more to doing something not asking that it please be done, therefore, it might be more consistent to eliminate this term. He added that on page 5 and 6 the phrasing “…a qualified professional…” seemed too general, especially since the Board had just addressed a similar question for a recent application regarding what an RF engineer was.
The Coordinator replied that the Small Scale Commercial Committee had purposely left this phrasing open so that it could cover many professionals and, therefore, potentially be more affordable for smaller projects than specifying that an expensive engineer be hired. The Chairman stated that his only concern was, again, to have this tightened up given that the Board had just gone through the RF Engineer issue with the recent cell tower applications. He noted that on page 9 although it was clear from the table of contents it seemed confusing while reading the body of the text, therefore, if the title read “Other Factors in Site Design” it might be more clear. The Chairman thought the remainder of the draft was very good. He asked if other Board members had any comments and there were none.
The Coordinator stated that this draft would have to be as an adopted as an adjunct to the Site Plan Review Regulations after Town Counsel’s review. The Chairman asked if the Board had any thoughts regarding the Committee’s reference to the three areas they had identified as commercially zoned sites. Mark Suennen questioned the Klondike Corner area being noted as one of the locations as it was not adjacent to any other commercial areas currently. The Chairman felt that this was the point since that area could use a coffee/gas station area while now anyone had to drive a distance to get to that type of service. Douglas Hill noted that the future needed to be considered for this area as well not just the present and this area would eventually have its
intersection altered to better accommodate increasing traffic flow. The Chairman added that there were also a considerable number of lots in that area that would likely be developed in the future. Douglas Hill asked if the locations noted by the Committee were the only places for Small Scale Commercial development. The Coordinator replied that these were merely the places suggested by the Committee. She added that they had looked at the Future Land Use Map from the Master Plan and that if there were other properties where the owner wished to petition to re-zone then they could do so while the areas that the Committee had suggested could be re-zoned after a proposal from the Planning Board and a Town vote. Mark Suennen asked if any areas were rejected by the Committee. The Coordinator replied that while the Master Plan had identified areas along River Road as possible Commercial sites the Committee had determined that since there was
already Commercial land zoned there that was not even being used currently for that purpose they would not go further and suggest more areas in that location. She noted that other areas discussed were the land that had just gotten the cell tower approved (near the land owned by the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests) and the Tracking Station (although this was currently Zoned as Forestry and Conservation). The Chairman noted that this was owned by the Federal Government and did not think that usage would ever go away. Mark Suennen thought that it may always be needed but could be moved. Christine Quirk did not think that land would ever be given up for anything else.
The Chairman seated Mark Suennen and Dean Mehlhorn as a full voting members of the Board in Peter Hogan and Don Duhaime’s absence.
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. No applicants, abutters or interested parties were present. He noted that NHDES was looking for restoration this year and that they might be considered for a wetland crossing the following year, therefore, the CUP was no longer needed. The chairman stated that the Coordinator had received a letter from the applicants requesting that their application be withdrawn without prejudice which meant that the application could be re-filed at a point in the future.
Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the withdrawal request for the application of Stephen and Patricia Henault, CUP, to install one wetland crossing to access the back of the lot, Location: 129 Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-33, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, without prejudice. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
There being time before the first scheduled hearing, the Planning Board addressed Miscellaneous Business.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JUNE 23, 2009.
- Driveway Permit Application for Joann Albertini, 117 Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-34, Secondary Driveway, for the Board’s action. (Joann to be present)
The Chairman stated that the issues for this item were that the driveway had been installed without a permit, it did not comply fully with the Driveway Regulations and now Ms. Albertini was before the Board with her permit and asked that the fee be waived because she had paid it the first time around. Joann Albertini stated that the Road Agent had reviewed the driveway with her that afternoon and taken measurements, finding the sight distance to be fine as long as some trees on either side were cleared. She noted that the grade was fine as it was and that it would be further defined with paving. Joann Albertini clarified that the Road Agent was satisfied with the driveway. The Chairman asked about the paved portion of the driveway being narrowed. Joann Albertini replied that from edge to
edge it would be 28’ and to preserve the edge of the culverts already installed she would have gravel placed, therefore the actual width of the driveway was likely 22’ to 24’ as a result. The Chairman clarified that the driveway Regulations stipulated a 30’ maximum width. The Coordinator replied that this was correct. The Chairman asked Joann Albertini if she had any other questions or comments. Joann Albertini replied that she did not and that she wanted to make sure the Board was satisfied with the driveway before she paid for paving. Douglas Hill asked if any abutters had issues. Joann Albertini replied that she had spoken with her neighboring abutters and they had no issues. She added that while she had not spoken with the abutters across the street she did not foresee any conflicts with them since workers that were at their house had been parking in her driveway. The Chairman asked if Joann Albertini was
sure she was not running over any wetlands. Joann Albertini replied that she was positive she was not.
The Chairman stated that a remaining issue was the applicant’s request to waive the Driveway Permit Application fee. Joann Albertini explained that she had paid this fee at her first application and the Chairman suggested that given the issues that had arisen she reapply and go through the process correctly. Mark Suennen asked what the amount of the fee. The Coordinator replied that it was $25. The Board had no issues.
Douglas Hill MOVED to waive the Driveway Permit Application fee for Joann Albertini 117 Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-34, Secondary Driveway. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion.
Mark Suennen clarified, for the record, that it be noted that the fee had been paid for with the initial application and the Board was waiving the “re-application” fee.
The motion PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill clarified that the Board would be receiving a formal statement from the Road Agent that the Road Agent had signed off. The Planning Board Assistant stated that she had heard the same information and would vouch for the applicant until a written sign off was received. Joann Albertini added that the Road Agent would also be visiting the site while the paving was underway to make sure that it was going according to plan. Mark Suennen asked if the trailer parking noted on the application was seasonal parking. Joann Albertini replied that was correct. Mark Suennen noted that the application also stated that there was a point in the driveway where the applicant could not get the trailer beyond due to its length which he felt implied more than seasonal parking. Joann Albertini
replied that the trailer was a race car trailer that was to be stored in the parking space she created in the driveway and in the summer months it was off the property and stored in Milford, NH. Mark Suennen thought that “seasonal” should be clarified on the application, i.e., how many times would the trailer be accessed. Joann Albertini replied that she had two car trailers, a snow mobile trailer and a horse trailer. She noted that she mainly was using the driveway for storage during the off season depending on the type of trailer and that her main issue was that when a lot of snow accumulated there was no where to put the snow other than at the end of her primary driveway which in the past had inhibited access to her garage. She added that she was only trying to use the secondary driveway for off season parking for the trailers. Mark Suennen asked if Joann Albertini would be able to have someone spot her during times that she needed to
move the trailers for safety purposes. Joann Albertini replied that she would. Mark Suennen stated that he was satisfied.
Dean Mehlhorn MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #08-036 for Joann Albertini, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-34, 117 Byam Road, with the standard Planning Board requirements: this permit requires two inches (2") of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a minimal distance of twenty-five feet (25') from the centerline of the road; the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of ten foot (10') radii minimum; and, the driveway shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60 - 90 degrees.
Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman clarified that the Road Agent would inspect the work once the driveway paving was completed and the Board would receive his comments. The Coordinator replied that was correct.
1. Approval of minutes of May 26, 2009, distributed by email.
The Chairman stated that he had some minor corrections to note, the first being on page 6 where the minutes regarding item #4 (Joann Albertini’s driveway) should reflect that the notes sent by the Chairman were sent to the office staff, not to the applicant. He added that on page 10 Douglas Hill was noted as having moved to extend the Board’s deadline for Planning Board action on the Trussell application, however, this was a hearing for which he had been recused, therefore, another Board member must have made the motion. The Chairman stated that on page 15 where the Board voted on the Christian Farm Estates road bond reduction it should be noted that Douglas Hill was recused for this item since it was his subdivision.
Christine Quirk MOVED to approve the minutes of May 26, 2009, as amended. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman postponed discussion of Miscellaneous Business Items 2a. and 2b. until later in the meeting.
3. A copy of the Town of New Boston Zoning Ordinance, Section 403.12, Timing of operation, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator stated that according to the Zoning Ordinance the recently approved cell tower applicants should be operating 9 months from the date of their approval. She noted that this had been brought to light when an old Site Review Agreement for the Dodge cell tower was reviewed when clarifying the language for the current applicant. The Chairman asked that a letter of clarification be sent to the applicant. Mark Suennen asked if the applicant could instead send the Board a waiver request after 9 months had past. The Coordinator replied that because this was Zoning the Board could not waive it and the applicants needed to be informed. The Chairman stated that the Board would re-vote the approval at the next meeting and that the applicant could be present or not. Mark Suennen
asked if the applicant would then need to go to the ZBA for an extension if they needed more time. The Coordinator replied that was likely the case. Mark Suennen stated that the permits needed could come through quickly or take beyond the 9 months. Christine Quirk felt that this could become an unfair situation for the applicant. The Coordinator noted that the Board would be looking at several items within the Ordinance that needed to be addressed including this one but this was the current language that had to be followed.
4. A copy of a memorandum dated June 16, 2009, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief and Board of Fire Wards, re: One Way Traffic between Hardware Store and Hair Salon, Tax Map/Lot # 8/110, Mont Vernon Road, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that if the property owner decided to apply for a special exception or change his special exception to remove the above noted requirement she thought it would be helpful for the Board to have discussed this and have comment to give to the ZBA just as the Fire Wards had done. Mark Suennen cautioned that the Board should not set a precedent opinion factor for future situations like this. The Coordinator replied that it was hard to know if that would occur as there was no background information as to why this one way stipulation was placed on the application in the first place, therefore, it would be on a case by case basis. The Board had no further issues if the one-way sign were removed as a requirement from the special exception granted in the past.
5. A copy of the Outstanding Items Summary, dated June 16, 2009, from Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Town of New Boston, Planning Coordinator, re: Twin Bridge Estates (Page Lane), was distributed for the Boards information.
6. A copy of the Outstanding Items Summary, dated June 17, 2009, from Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Town of New Boston, Planning Coordinator, re: Albert LaChance – Lull Road Upgrades, was distributed for the Board’s information.
7. The minutes of June 9, 2009, were noted as having been distributed via email for approval at the meeting of July 28, 2009.
8. Miscellaneous Business Item #8 had been previously discussed.
9. A copy of the Zoning Board of Adjustment minutes of June 16, 2009, was distributed for the Board’s information.
10. A copy of the Zoning Board of Adjustment Notice of Decisions from the meeting of June 19, 2009, was distributed for the Board’s information.
At 7:55 p.m. the Planning Board took a 5 minute break.
Douglas Hill recused himself as he was an abutter to the next hearing.
CLARK HILL TRUST By RR & JH TRUSSELL, TRUSTEES
Adjourned from 5/26/09
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/12 Lots
Location: Clark Hill & Dennison Roads
Tax Map/Lot #8/1 & 4/62
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Jonathan Markey, PE, John Ashworth, Land Use Consultant and the applicant Ruth Trussell. Abutters and interested parties present were Gordon Russell, Russell Foundation, Ellen Kambol, Katie Kachavos, Gloria Chandler and David Ely.
The Chairman stated that this plan was on a meeting by meeting extension due to several continuing issues. He noted for the applicant's information that the Board would only be meeting once in July and once in August for the upcoming summer season. The Chairman stated that since the last meeting the Board had received items they had been missing that included revised plans, ISWMP cost estimates, Stormwater Analysis and Calculations and approved legal documents. He asked if a Trustee’s Certificate had been incorporated into each document. Ruth Trussell replied that her lawyer had sent her an attachment that stated only one certificate was needed. The Chairman clarified that the backlot strips which had required a triangle shaped wedge had been modified off the plan which he thought a
good revision. He asked the applicant if they had seen the outstanding issues on the plan review. Jonathan Markey, PE, replied that they had. The Chairman noted that something would need to be done with the CUP at some point.
Jonathan Markey, PE, stated that at the last meeting the conceptual plan of revised drainage was presented and tonight’s plan put those proposals into action with not much changed since the last time. He added that they had incorporated infiltration trenches with the low impact design and that these along with the proposed infiltration basins were sized to handle a 50 year storm. Jonathan Markey, PE, stated that instead of having larger sub-catchments come down to larger detention ponds and slow the flow down before dispersing to the wetlands they broke them into smaller areas putting the flow back into the ground in these dispersed locations. He added that rooftop runoff would also be captured and go into plastic infiltration chambers that would be located at the down spouts. Jonathan
Markey, PE, stated that there would then be a net decrease in the amount of runoff that would come from the site due to the proposed infiltration along with decreases in all the rates for the 2, 10, and 50 year storms. He noted the areas of infiltration basins on the plan that would only hold water for 72 hours after which it would infiltrate into the ground then dry up. Jonathan Markey, PE, stated that the same was true for the infiltration trenches which would be built into small depressions about 1’ in depth with a stone bed in the center that would filter runoff into the ground.
Mark Suennen stated that trenches proposed on lot #1/11 seemed to cross lot boundaries and asked how maintenance would be addressed between property owners and in what type of agreement this would be listed. Jonathan Markey, PE, replied that the maintenance of the infiltration beds would be equally shared by these property owners and this would be noted in the Stormwater Drainage Easement. John Ashworth noted that the Coordinator had a copy of this. Interested party Ellen Kambol asked if there were deed restrictions for the requirement to have homeowners include the Stormwater Management system in place that the plan proposed should lots be sold once approved. John Ashworth did not think this was necessary as the Town would not issue a Building Permit unless an ISWMP was filed. The
Coordinator clarified that if the lot owner did not go by what the applicant’s plan stated for stormwater management then a new plan would need to be submitted to the Building Inspector. Ellen Kambol asked if the rooftop drainage would also be included and where it was stated in the language. The Coordinator noted that the point was that the plan presented tonight was to get the subdivision approved and when the time came to apply for a Building Permit someone may have decided to change a house location, etc., therefore, a new Stormwater Management Plan could potentially be submitted and it would have to be assured that the new Stormwater Management Plan met the drainage requirements that are part of this subdivision plan and there is no note that states anything about rooftop drainage being in place should this occur. Jonathan Markey, PE, stated that there were two notes on the plan that might address this question, one which read “This Individual
Stormwater Management Plan may be used during building application or final Individual Stormwater Management Plan provide the site contractor will adhere to the proposed disturbance shown on this plan.” He added that the next note read: “All site disturbance, construction and maintenance of temporary and permanent structural best management practices shall be monitored for compliance with this Individual Stormwater Management Plan. The design engineer will be required to monitor the site work and certify that the site work has adhered to the Stormwater Management Plan. No Certificate of Occupancy will be issued without the Stormwater Management Plan adherence statement issued in writing to the New Boston Building Department.” The Chairman asked if the Town Engineer had reviewed the plans. The Coordinator stated that the Town Engineer had not reviewed these plans although the Board had previously considered having the prior plans
with the long culverts reviewed. The Chairman asked if Art Siciliano, LLS, was still involved with the plan other than the drainage design. Ruth Trussell replied that he was. Mark Suennen noted that the Board had not had enough time to review the updated Stormwater Management Plan in depth and, therefore, did not think that an approval could be reached tonight. He thought that if the applicant considered the plan in final form then they could send it to the Town Engineer. Ruth Trussell noted that they had some small changes to make to the plan and asked how long it typically took for the Town Engineer to review the plan. The Chairman noted that the issue was that the Board would need to get the plans, reviewed by the Town Engineer, within 7 days prior to the next meeting (July 28, 2009). The Chairman thought that if the plans were back to the Board within a week that should be enough time. Ruth Trussell did not think this would be
doable since their engineer would be out of the office for a week. The Chairman clarified that the plans would be forwarded to the Town Engineer once the applicant felt they were all revised.
The Chairman asked about the bottom line figures from the drainage report and asked if it showed a 0 increase in runoff at the boundaries of the property. Jonathan Markey, PE, replied that it was 0 at all the design points, culverts and the two wetlands. The Chairman asked if this was marked somewhere. Jonathan Markey, PE, pointed them out on the plan. The Chairman asked if this was how this was normally addressed. The Coordinator replied that it was where the flow left the site. Jonathan Markey, PE, added that these were located at boundaries and that it was better to break them up as he had done because to show them as a whole would have been more conservative. The Chairman clarified that once the updates were made to the plan that the applicant had noted as minor adjustments
then the plans could be forwarded to the Town Engineer.
Interested party David Ely asked if any land was being set aside for conservation. Ruth Trussell replied that there were covenants that noted the land could not be further subdivided and that they had been very careful to stay away from wildlife corridors and keep the proposed lots reduced. David Ely asked if any consideration had been given to a cluster design as suggested by the Master Plan. Ruth Trussell replied that this had been considered, however, the problem was that the lots would have been very small and the plan they proposed did not need a through road. David Ely stated that he was afraid that the view of this subdivision from Clark Hill Road would be all front lawns. Ruth Trussell replied that she did not think that would be the case.
Katie Kachavos stated that she had written a letter to the Board when this plan was first proposed explaining that a conservation easement on her property did not allow utilities to cross it. She recalled that Art Siciliano, LLS, had stated he would note this on the plan. Katie Kachavos added that the Piscataquog Land Conservancy held the easement and had also forwarded a letter to the Board. She further noted that the relocated portion of Clark Hill Road in the site area had a true right-of-way that would allow for power lines to come down but at either end of the property the road was not relocated and was in that case a “road by prescription” so any power poles would have to be placed right against the road. She added that she was particularly concerned about the lot that was off
Dennison Road as it seemed to her that it would be easier to pull power across that land versus going around the boundary. Ruth Trussell stated that she did not understand Katie Kachavos’ concern as the poles would be right along the street. Katie Kachavos replied that she and others were concerned that the poles would be placed right across the conservation land. Ruth Trussell noted that Art Siciliano, LLS, had asked that language be submitted and he would take a look at it but never received it. Katie Kachavos replied that she had done so in her letter to the Planning Board along with the PLC. John Ashworth noted that they would look at the language.
Gordon Russell, Russell Foundation, stated that he had followed this plan closely and hoped that as the Board progressed from subdivision to subdivision and saw another one such as this that sliced conservation land down the middle, that they would listen to more of the content of the plan than drainage aspects and lot size. He noted that at the previous meeting a report submitted by an expert refuted all the observations he himself had made and he hoped the Board would consider that he too had a wealth of experience in the areas of conservation. John Ashworth asked the Chairman if he should go over his wildlife corridor map again. The Chairman replied that this was done at the last meeting and enough discussion had been held on that topic.
The Chairman stated that the issue at hand was whether the applicant would be able to get their revisions done in time for the Town Engineer to review the plan in time for the Board’s next meeting on July 28, 2009. There was then some discussion back and forth regarding time frames for the Town Engineer and the Board’s review on which the applicant was unclear. The Chairman stated that the applicant could be scheduled for now, for the next meeting date and their best bet was to get the plans revised sooner rather than later. The applicant agreed to an extension to the next scheduled meeting date approved by the Board.
Mark Suennen MOVED to extend the deadline for Board action and adjourn the application of Clark Hill Trust by RR & JH Trussell, Trustees, Major Subdivision, 12 Lots, Location: Clark Hill and Dennison Roads, Tax Map/Lot #8/1 & 4/62, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to July 28, 2009, at 7:30 p.m. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
ELLIOT, SHERIDAN
PHILIBOTTE, GEORGE & KATHY
Submission of Application/Public hearing/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: Tucker Mill Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/10 & 5/11
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicants Sheridan Elliot and George Philibotte and Sheridan Elliot’s spouse Dave Elliot. Also present was Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Ray Shea stated that this proposal was a lot line adjustment between two parcels on the west side of Tucker Mill Road with a residence on Lot #5/11 of 2.8 acres and a residence and business on Lot #5/10 of 2.2 acres. He noted that the proposal was to take ¼ acre of Lot #5/11 and attach it to Lot #5/10 in order to accommodate a leach field for the small business. Ray Shea stated that the State had issued State Subdivision Approval for the lot line adjustment and also approval for the septic system. He added that they had submitted a request for a waiver for the required Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. The Chairman stated that he had no issues with the waivers. The Board agreed.
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the waiver requests for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies for Sheridan Elliot and George and Kathy Philibotte (Applicants), Lot Line Adjustment, Location: Tucker Mill Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/10 & 5/11, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District as requested in Ray Shea’s letter of 5/28/09. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Mark Suennen MOVED to accept the application of Sheridan Elliot and George and Kathy Philibotte (Applicants), Lot Line Adjustment, Location: Tucker Mill Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/10 & 5/11, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the deadline for Board action was now August 27, 2009. Ray Shea stated that there were a couple of deed references that needed correction per the plan review. The Board determined that a site walk was not necessary. Mark Suennen asked if monuments would be set for both reestablished lots or just on the new line. Ray Shea replied that along the new line was usually what was required.
Dean Mehlhorn MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Sheridan Elliott and George and Kathy Philibotte, for Tax Map/Lot #5/10 & 5//11, Tucker Mill Road, such that Parcel A of 0.230 acres is annexed from Tax Map/Lot #5/11 to #5/10, leaving Lot #5/11 with 2.595 acres and Lot #5/10 with 2.483 acres, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
- 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;
- Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant;
- Submission of a certificate of bounds set and the appropriate fee for recording same with the HCRD (if necessary);
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be July 23, 2009, 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 that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Coordinator wished the applicants to know that until a deed was transferred for the land exchange the lot line adjustment did not finalize the process.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
2a. Discussion, re: Mark R. & Christine A. Bilodeau, cordwood home business, 229 Joe English Road.
Addressed with item #2b below.
2b. A copy of a memorandum dated June 8, 2009, from George Hildum, Assessor, to Selectmen, re: 2008 Abatement request for Tax Map/Lot #14/43, 227 Joe English Road
The Chairman stated that an abatement had been filed and approved for a neighbor of the Bilodeaus as a result of the cordwood business. Douglas Hill felt that the Bilodeau plan should be revoked and that as it operated currently, was not what he had in mind at the time he approved the plan. The Chairman stated that in reviewing the minutes and based on what the applicant had stated during the meeting the operation was very different in regard to what the assessor had observed. The Chairman asked if a revocation of this nature had ever been conducted by the Board. The Coordinator replied that the only other revocations by the board were the result of work not being started in the time frame approved. She noted that the fact that an abatement had been granted
could mean that other neighbors followed suit and the Town would not want the tax base affected in that way, therefore, the Board needed to address the issue. Mark Suennen felt that an alternative was, as a point of clarification, to do nothing and let other property owners file abatements which would lower tax revenue for the Town. He added that as long as the applicant was following the letter of what they were approved for there could not be an issue. The Chairman stated that he read the details of the discussion during the plan process and the applicant had noted that it would be a part time job with splitting in the winter months only and now it seemed that there was year round cutting and another employee, even though it may be a family member. He noted that many details from the discussion at the meetings were not on the plan. Douglas Hill noted that the hours approved were so wide to give the applicants options of when to work but they had
taken the opportunity to work a lot of them. The Coordinator noted that this highlighted a problem with offering applicants wide hours so that they would not fall foul of restrictive hours if they needed to stay open late every once in a while. Douglas Hill recalled Mr. Bilodeau’s wife stating that he worked his regular job all the time and would not have a lot of time to do the splitting. The Chairman added that his understanding of the grapple delivery was also not what had occurred where not just one grapple load was being delivered, cut and delivered to customers as he thought but load after load came to the site leading to a stockpile of material. Mark Suennen stated that he was not a member of the Board at the time of this approval but was trying to highlight that what was approved was what was approved regardless of what the intent was interpreted to be. The Coordinator noted that if this issue went to court the judge would look at all the
minutes and information and not just consider the plan itself. Mark Suennen continued that the other option was to revoke the plan in which case the Bilodeaus would have a cease and desist of their operation and need to come back to them with a new plan. The Coordinator noted that a third option would be to invite the Bilodeaus to a Board meeting and tell them they were not in compliance with their plan and offer that they could amend it to comply. She added, in response to a question from Mark Suennen, that the applicants could also file a petition for a ballot vote to be zoned Commercial after a Board recommendation, however, she did not think this would be something the Board would be in favor of.
Christine Quirk felt that this matter could go to Court and thought that the Board should seek advice from Town Counsel before moving forward. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if this was worth doing. The Coordinator replied that it was an option. Mark Suennen noted that the plan had still been approved regardless of the intent they assumed. The Chairman stated that the problem was that what was approved was partly documented in the minutes as well as on the plan itself and that he maintained Mr. Bilodeau represented a smaller operation. The Coordinator noted that the Board was not unfamiliar with these types of operations and had approved two other in Town with the same parameters that had not had any issues. Mark Suennen noted that for the Bilodeau
plan the hours of operation had been left open-ended. The Coordinator agreed and noted that this was part of the issue in allowing a wide range of hours for part-time work proposals and that this plan was never considered to be approved as a full time cordwood business. Christine Quirk stated that she had driven up the shared driveway to view the site and had briefly spoken with Lisa Plourde.
It was determined that Town Counsel would review the issue then the Board could prepare for a discussion with the Bilodeau’s at the July meeting and possibly invite them to the August meeting that followed. Christine Quirk noted that Ex-officio Rodney Towne would be seated on the Board for the next meeting and should get some detailed information on the matter to be brought up to speed on the matter. The Coordinator replied that she would supply a detailed packet.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn at 9:05 p.m. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Suzanne O'Brien, Recording Clerk
|