TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of August 25, 2009
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members Douglas Hill and Peter Hogan, alternates Mark Suennen and Dean Mehlhorn and Ex-officio David Woodbury. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Valerie Diaz.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Jon Willard, Jay Marden, John Ashworth, Ruth Trussell, Donna Mombourquette, Gloria Chandler, Katie Kachavos, Michael Dahlberg, LLS, James Denesevich, Karen Roach, Brian Pratt, PE, Tim LeClair, Clifton LaBree, Diane Boutin, Bruce and Elaine Tostevin, Steve Hughes, Marcy Boyton, and Sylvia and Bing Chancey.
Discussion, re: Meeting with Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Committee
The Chairman acknowledged that four members of the Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Committee were present, Jon Willard, Jay Marden, Douglas Hill and Mark Suennen. Jon Willard made the Board aware that the committee would be conducting a compliance review to ensure that the Town meets the new state statute with regard to Workforce/Multi-Family Housing. He advised that the Committee planned to audit existing zoning regulations as well as the Master Plan.
Douglas Hill asked Jon Willard to provide a brief overview of the new State Workforce/Multi-Family Housing legislation. Jon Willard explained that the State Statute clarified the requirements of a 1991 New Hampshire Supreme Court decision in the case of Britton v. Chester and provided guidelines to towns for the review of zoning regulations to make sure there were no barriers to workforce/multi-family housing and that realistic and reasonable opportunities were available for the development of such housing. Peter Hogan inquired if there were any towns that currently had Workforce/Multi-Family Housing. Jon Willard answered that all towns had a requirement to provide Workforce/Multi-Family Housing. He added more specifically that in Hillsborough County the New Hampshire Housing and Finance
Authority defined the purchase price for a home to be $228,000.00 or less to meet the requirement for Workforce/Multi-Family Housing. Peter Hogan thought that the cost of land would dictate the price of housing. He noted that there was not a lot of time available to come up with a set of rules for workforce housing that could coincide with land costs. Dough Hill thought that multi-family construction was probably the most viable option in New Boston. Jon Willard stated that most large workforce housing projects needed outside funding sources to get to the price point mentioned, but pointed out that the committee was not focused on how to provide a house for $228K, but more on looking at the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance to see what, if any, requirements increased the cost of a typical development so as to be out of reach of workforce purchasers.
David Woodbury asked if it is determined that no artificial barriers exist could there be valid economic reasons for workforce housing to be unavailable. Jay Marden stated that, for example, allowing increased density such as three townhouses on two acres would lower the land cost and eliminate the economic barrier. Jon Willard said that the committee was working on various options that would provide incentives to developers for building workforce housing and pointed out that the Town's priority was to find out if they met the statutory requirements and, if not, how to make sure that they can. Peter Hogan stated that this was all the State's idea and he did not feel a landowner should have to subsidize it in any way.
Jon Willard asked to present the Committee's ideas and went on to identify three goals of the Committee. The Committee’s first goal was to assess the Town's compliance with the statute currently and to audit existing regulations to determine if there are any barriers to Workforce/ Multi-Family Housing in New Boston. Secondly, the Committee desired to investigate whether the Town’s existing land use regulations supported Workforce/Multi-Family Housing. Jon Willard explained that Workforce Housing would accommodate individuals in the community such as teachers, police officers, or firefighters who do not make high enough salaries to live in the town in which they serve. The Committee’s third goal was to confirm that the majority of the residential portion of the Town be available
for Workforce/Multi-Family Housing, i.e. 51%.
Jon Willard then asked the Board if anyone had questions regarding the compliance and/or audit review of the Town’s land-use regulations. David Woodbury asked how the Master Plan might impede or encourage Workforce/Multi-Family Housing. He further suggested that language be added to the Master Plan that encouraged Workforce/Multi-Family Housing as such language would suffice in meeting the requirement of the statute. Jon Willard agreed but indicated that the Committee would need to do further research. Mark Suennen advised that it would be incumbent upon the Board to reconcile any inconsistencies between the policies in the Master Plan regarding open space, water resources, transportation, energy, etc., that may be counter to developing workforce housing.
Jon Willard went on to advise the Board that in addition to auditing the existing regulations the Committee also wanted to conduct research to aid them in moving forward. He noted that the first area of research would be to create a conditional use permit process for a Workforce/Multi-Family Housing overlay. He explained that the concept of an overlay which might use similar standards to those in the R-1 district, would allow for incentives and more options in the R-A zoned land. He stated that requirements for lot loading would have to be considered and the CUP process would give the Board approval authority through a set of standards. Jon Willard explained that the next area of research was for the Committee to determine what land in Town would support Workforce/Multi-Family Housing with a
conditional use overlay and whether it met the 51% requirement. Peter Hogan asked where the Committee envisioned restrictions to Workforce/Multi-Family Housing so it would not be allowed. Jon Willard answered that conservation land and existing R-1 areas would not support Workforce/Multi-Family Housing. Peter Hogan inquired more specifically of the land in the Village. Jon Willard replied that the Village would most likely not support Workforce/Multi-Family Housing as much of it was commercial land. Peter Hogan asked if there were any undeveloped R-1 areas. Jon Willard responded that he believed one lot existed, and Mark Suennen offered that the lot in question was not enough to support the 51% requirement. Peter Hogan asked why the Town would want to prohibit workforce housing in any R-A district if the land supported it. Jon Willard indicated that the Committee needed to identify what land supported Multi-Family Housing. He added
that the Committee was in favor of using R-1 zoning, probably with a little tweaking.
Jon Willard stated that the next area of research would be to determine what density bonus was needed to make Workforce/Multi-Family Housing financially viable. He then addressed whether or not the Air Force Tracking Station should continue to be zoned with a residential component. He added that the area was not available for housing development but that it would count against the Town in terms of the 51% land requirement. Douglas Hill commented that the land should not be included in the calculation. Jon Willard suggested that the land be rezoned. Mark Suennen suggested that it would not matter to the US Government or military installations if the residential use was removed from town zoning since they were exempt from those regulations and could install housing if they so chose anyway.
Jon Willard then discussed a presentation that was given to the Committee by Ben Frost on Municipal Approaches to Workforce/Multi-Family Housing. He went on to list recommendations that were included in the presentation that addressed lowering the cost of development. Jon Willard indicated that the Committee needed to address the issue of land cost. He further stated that the Committee needed to research density bonuses as well as clustered developments. He noted the recommendation of the sale/grant of publicly owned land did not apply as the Committee was unaware of any sites that would be appropriate. He went on to state that the Committee would research conditional use permits for an overlay in an attempt to streamline permits. Jon Willard continued with the next recommendation of
creating subsidies and/or low interest loans and explained that the Committee did not feel the Town could afford the capital or the administrative expenses required and that subsidies and/or low interest loans were not in the best interest of the Town. The next recommendation addressed hard costs, construction costs, and zoning for manufactured housing. Jon Willard then explained that the next recommendation of site prep and accessory dwelling units already existed. He continued with recommendations regarding off-site costs. He noted that the Committee needed to further research cluster and zero lot line standards to determine where it would work and what standards would be needed. He stated the Committee determined that the recommendation regarding modification of existing zoning governing roadways was not recommended due to fire and highway department concerns. He also stated that the Committee would further research off street parking as well
as lot coverage. He indicated that the recommendation concerning sidewalks, curbs and gutters was not a requirement of the Town and therefore did not have any impact on cost. He stated that that the recommendations regarding targeted exemptions as well as regulatory incentives needed further consideration by the Committee. He also stated that early vesting and development agreements raised concerns about monitoring and enforcement and emphasized the importance of the Town being involved in the development. He indicated that inclusionary zoning merited consideration. Jon Willard stated that with regard to a housing trust, the Committee felt the Town could not afford the capital or the administrative expense involved with its creation. He further stated that there were available non-profit entities that could assist in this capacity if necessary. He stated that the Committee did not feel that private/public partnerships would benefit the
Town.
Jon Willard next addressed architectural design guidelines for Workforce/Multi-Family Housing. He mentioned that the Committee weighed various pros and cons of the project and that the Committee needed to conduct further research in order to craft informed recommendations.
Jon Willard also addressed the Committee’s concern of long term affordability and noted that further research in this area was needed and invited experts to comment. In general, the Committee agreed that they needed more information about implementing long term affordability.
Jon Willard advised that the Committee had presented a list of questions to the Coordinator who indicated that she had not received the same. Jon Willard went on to list the questions, which were as follows: (1) does the Coordinator need the Committee's help in auditing the land-use regulations; (2) where is R1 permitted; (3) how do you recommend the handling of the Tracking Station zoning; (4) what research material exists and what resources have committees used when looking at land use build-out analysis and housing characteristics.
Jon Willard indicated that the Committee wanted to consult with other committees such as Open Space and Conservation to avoid conflicts with proposed regulations.
The Chairman commented that the Committee needed to come up with a set of proposed changes by November to get on the ballot. Jon Willard was not certain of the date and referred the matter to the Coordinator. The Chairman added that a significant amount of work needed to be accomplished in a short amount of time.
The Chairman asked that the Committee report the results of the compliance audit. Jon Willard agreed and added that he would like to schedule a meeting with all of the committees for input and feedback at that time.
The Chairman invited further comment from the Board. David Woodbury advised that the term “Workforce Housing” fostered a negative perception that such housing was a zoning district separate from the housing districts enjoyed by the general populace. He stressed that the policy behind such regulation intended to create affordable housing only and that special attention should be given to the wording and/or title of a regulation to avoid an “us vs. them” scenario. The Chairman recommended that the term “Affordable Housing” should be avoided. Douglas Hill commented that Workforce Housing would be markedly different from single-family detached housing in that large multi-unit buildings would probably be constructed to make it affordable. Jon Willard stated that
there were two parts to the legislation: Workforce Housing and Multi-Family Housing. Jon Willard indicated that Workforce Housing encouraged home ownership and that Multi-Family Housing could not be prohibited under state legislation.
The Chairman stated that the Committee had been asked to come to the Planning Board with their ideas for moving forward on the workforce housing issue. He asked if any members of the Board had any ideas of how the Committee should approach things differently from what had been presented this evening. The Board did not, and consensus was that the Committee should proceed in the fashion outlined by Jon Willard and other Committee members at this meeting.
Public Hearing : Source Water Protection Plan. SEE SEPARATE NOTICE
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was interested party Jay Marden.
The Chairman stated that the Source Water Protection Plan (hereinafter SWPP) was a two step adoption process. The SWPP needed Planning Board approval and subsequent approval by the Board of Selectmen. The Chairman noted that copies of the SWPP were available on the Town website. He then asked Jay Marden if he had read a copy of the SWPP. Jay Marden answered that he had not read the SWPP in full.
The Chairman briefly gave the history of the SWPP. He stated that a subcommittee was formed with representatives from the Planning Board, Shannon from the Building Department and Health Office, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, and the Department of Environmental Services. He noted that the State had a list of public water supply sources and contamination sources and the subcommittee came up with other sources even though they did not fit the criteria for the state list.
The Chairman clarified that by adopting the SWPP the Board was not adopting the recommendations but merely adopting the document and could revisit the recommendations at a later time.
The Chairman stated that there were three changes that needed to be made that were not included in the available version of the SWPP. The changes were as follows: (1) correct the pagination of the appendix and maps; (2) change the font on the headers and footer to match the body text; (3) change the reference to the GRCD on Page 20 of the plan to be renumbered as the first recommendation.
The Chairman invited comments from the public. Jay Marden voiced his concern that the SWPP was not worth adopting unless it would be enforced. He suggested that one of the following entities should be responsible for enforcing the SWPP: DES, PWA, the Selectmen or the Building Inspector. The Chairman responded that the SWPP did not contain any enforceable regulations. He further explained that the SWPP only offered visions and recommendations to be translated into regulations at a future date. He also recognized Jay Marden’s suggestion to appoint an outside agency to enforce the regulations but explained that the Board was not able to do this.
Peter Hogan questioned whether or not the Board should adopt any regulations. The Chairman answered that there were not any regulations contained in the SWPP and therefore he did not expect the Board to adopt any new regulations. Peter Hogan asked what was proposed for adoption. The Chairman answered that the SWPP served to provide recommendations that could later be adopted by the Board. Peter Hogan did not think it was necessary to adopt such a plan when the Board could consider and vote on the recommendations independently. He was of the opinion that the Town’s land use regulations sufficiently covered the issues identified in the SWPP. Peter Hogan further stated that he did not believe the Board should adopt regulations to replace current regulations that were not being
enforced. The Chairman did not agree and reiterated that by adopting the SWPP the Board was not creating a new regulation. Peter Hogan questioned why the SWPP needed to be adopted and not just kept as a reference. The Chairman stated that could be an alternative. The Coordinator explained that merely keeping the SWPP as reference material was not an option because it was considered part of the Master Plan. She further stated that if the SWPP was not adopted as part of the Master Plan the recommendations could not be translated into regulations. Douglas Hill inquired if the Board had the ability to add to the Master Plan. The Coordinator clarified that the Planning Board did have that authority.
The Chairman again invited comments or concerns from the audience. Jay Marden expressed his hesitation that the Board delay the adoption of the SWPP until a decision was made relative to the enforceability of the regulations. Douglas Hill replied that the Board could not make any regulations unless the SWPP was adopted and made part of the Master Plan. He continued that the SWPP was laying the ground work for future regulations with regard to groundwater. Peter Hogan voiced his concern that if the Board adopted the SWPP that it would become the mandate as it was already part of the Master Plan. He continued that he was concerned the Board did not fully understand every aspect of the SWPP. The Chairman asked Peter Hogan specifically what he did not understand. Peter Hogan
responded that he could not bear to read the Source Water Protection in full because of its redundancy. Peter Hogan also felt that many of the problems described were common sense violations of existing laws.
Jay Marden asked the Board if it would consider postponing the vote for thirty days. The Chairman answered that he did not believe there was a problem with a postponement but would want to know the reasons for delaying the vote. Jay Marden responded that he would like to read the SWPP and that other Board members may also want to finishing reading it. Jay Marden and Peter Hogan both agreed that if all the Board members had read the SWPP and were ready to vote a postponement would not be necessary. The Chairman asked the Board for their input. Douglas Hill responded that he agreed with both sides of the issue and did not have an issue with postponing the vote. David Woodbury wanted to know what the practical effect was for postponing the vote for thirty days. He further questioned
whether or not there was a downside to postponement of the vote. The Chairman responded that he did not believe there were any negative effects to a postponement. Mark Suennen needed clarification on whether or not the Chairman sought a postponement for the sake of a second public hearing or if the vote on the adoption was being postponed. The Chairman replied that he was interested in the Board’s thoughts on whether the vote should be tabled for a month to hear Jay Marden and Peter Hogan’s concerns and proceed with a vote at that point. Mark Suennen was concerned that the vote could be postponed again at the next meeting if someone else were to say that they hadn’t read the SWPP and needed another month to review it before the vote. He stated that he would not have a problem with a one month extension on the vote but emphasized that he did not wish to have this matter postponed again. Dean Mehlhorn believed that the vote should
be postponed for one month.
Peter Hogan MOVED to defer the proposed Source Water Protection Plan to September 22, 2009. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the public hearing on the Source Water Protection Plan until 6:30 p.m. on September 22, 2009. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Jay Marden requested a copy of the plan.
The Chairman seated Mark Suennen as a full voting member of the Board in Don Duhaime's absence and Dean Mehlhorn as a full voting member of the Board since Douglas Hill recused himself as he was an abutter to the next hearing.
CLARK HILL TRUST By RR & JH TRUSSELL, TRUSTEES
Adjourned from 07/28/09
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 John Ashworth, Land Use Consultant and the applicant Ruth Trussell. Also present were abutters Gloria Chandler and Katie Kachavos.
The Chairman noted that the deadline for Board action on this application had been April 30, 2009, and meeting by meeting extensions were being considered. He noted recent correspondence from Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, regarding the plan review escrow and a revised Declaration of Stormwater Management had been sent to Town Counsel for his review. He also noted that revised subdivision plans had been received the day before.
Ruth Trussell stated that she had sent a letter dated August 19, 2009, to the Coordinator after Arthur Siciliano, LLS, submitted subdivision plans with regard to issues that he had overlooked.
The Chairman asked whether the Stormwater Management Plan was outstanding. The Coordinator advised that a final plan was needed. Ruth Trussell was aware of this matter. She stated that she had recently resolved an issue with her first engineer and her current engineer to this effect.
The Chairman asked the Board if anyone had concerns or issues with the proposed change to the language at the end of Plan Note number nine. Ruth Trussell informed the Board that the proposed language was written by her attorney. The Board found the proposed language acceptable.
The Chairman asked the Board regarding Mark Suennen’s question about language to require revised SWMP plans be submitted to affected abutters. The Chairman noted that the Coordinator and Kevin Leonard, PE, had discussed the issue and generated language that would replace General Construction Note #5 on the SWMP plans. He asked if the Board found the language acceptable and they did.
The Chairman asked the applicant if she had given any thought to the issue of preparing an operation and maintenance manual of the drainage systems for future lot owners. Ruth Trussell stated that the drainage system plans were much less complicated and required less maintenance than the previous plan. She continued that her engineer was not present this evening. She also stated that she had the new plans but they had not yet been reviewed by Kevin Leonard, PE. Ruth Trussell asked the Board for clarification on what they would like for her to provide with regard to the operations and maintenance manual. Peter Hogan wanted to confirm that the plans had been changed. Ruth Trussell stated that the plans had been changed. The Chairman asked the Coordinator for clarification of
what was needed from the applicant. The Coordinator explained that the Board was looking for written instructions for future lot owners that advised what maintenance was required for the various structures and measures on the lot. The Chairman suggested that the applicant refer to the previously submitted operations and maintenance manual and edit it to fit the new plan. Ruth Trussell agreed to provide an updated manual. Peter Hogan stated that this was essentially a new plan. Ruth Trussell agreed with Peter Hogan’s statement. Peter Hogan requested a presentation of the new plan. Ruth Trussell and John Ashworth explained that there had been a presentation at which Peter Hogan was not present. Peter Hogan asked when he would be able to see a copy of the new Stormwater Management Plan. Both Ruth Trussell and John Ashcroft advised that the Town had copies of the plan. John Ashcroft also referred Peter Hogan to the
Planning Board Minutes of May 22, 2009. Peter Hogan acknowledged that he had read the Minutes from May 22, 2009. Peter Hogan requested that a plan be displayed to the Board. Ruth Trussell stated that Kevin Leonard, PE, had not yet reviewed the plan. She advised that once Kevin Leonard, PE, reviewed the plan she would have her engineer present the plan. The Chairman suggested that all of the changes should be made to the plan and to schedule a final presentation to the Board. Ruth Trussell and John Ashworth agreed with the Chairman’s suggestion.
Ruth Trussell asked the Coordinator if she had received the legal language from Town Counsel. The Coordinator advised that she had not received anything to date. She continued that she had a conversation with Town Counsel who advised that he needed more time for further consideration.
Mark Suennen referred the Board to the Declaration of Stormwater Management, Installation of Maintenance, page 2, line 2. He stated that he would like to clarify that the “design function” was intended to prevent water or other sedimentation from damaging neighboring properties or Town facilities. The Chairman asked if Mark Suennen had language to propose. Mark Suennen responded that adequate maintenance should be defined. He continued that the language “their design functions are…” should be added at the end of line 2. He also stated that the design functions he was most concerned with were to avoid impacting any of the neighbor’s property and to avoid impacting Town facilities. Ruth Trussell questioned adding the language stating that she believed
the Town was already protected by the definition. The Chairman responded that Mark Suennen’s intent was to make the language very clear to the future homeowner. Ruth Trussell and John Ashworth agreed to add the language. Mark Suennen stated that he would like Town Counsel to review the suggestion.
The Chairman asked the applicant if there were any other concerns that should be addressed. John Ashcroft stated that Arthur Siciliano, LLS, dropped off five sets of revised plans to the Planning Board office and that one copy was for him. The Planning Assistant advised that the Planning Board office required five sets of plans. She continued that she could give them one copy as they were going to need to provide revised sets.
The Chairman invited comments from the public. Katie Kachavos wanted clarification from Mark Suennen with reference to his proposed sentence. Specifically, she wanted to know if the operative word was “abutters” or “neighbors.” Mark Suennen answered, “abutters.”
The Chairman stated that an updated set of plans needed to go to Kevin Leonard, PE, and that any outstanding issues needed to be cleared up by September 15, 2009. The final hearing in this matter was scheduled for September 22, 2009. Ruth Trussell stated that she intended to get the plans to Kevin Leonard, PE, by the end of the week. The Chairman noted that if Kevin Leonard, PE, had any issues, the applicant would have time to address the issues prior to the final hearing. The Chairman continued that at the final hearing the applicant’s engineer would give a presentation on the final plan. Mark Suennen added that the Board would have a letter from Kevin Leonard, PE, confirming that the applicant has addressed all issues. Ruth Trussell asked the Board if they would like the
operations and maintenance manual for the drainage systems to also be provided at the final hearing. The Chairman answered that it would be welcomed but advised that the Board could make the manual part of a condition for the future. The Chairman noted that if the applicant could produce instructions from the manufacturer he would find that acceptable. Ruth Trussell asked that if the Town’s Counsel were to find that she needed to address an issue that the Board let her know as soon as possible in order to meet the deadlines. The Chairman answered that the Board would alert her if necessary.
The Coordinator advised that the applicants need to agree to the extension. The Chairman asked the applicants if they agreed to the extension. The applicants answered that they agreed to the extension.
Peter Hogan MOVED to extend the Board's deadline for 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 September 22, 2009, at 7:30 p.m. David Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman returned Dean Mehlhorn to alternate status. Douglas Hill returned as a full voting member of the Board.
NEW ERA CF TRUST and
TURTLE COVE REVOCABLE TRUST
Adjourned from 07/28/09
Public Hearing/Lot Line Adjustment and 4 Lot Major Subdivision
Location: Gregg Mill Road, Lull Road and West Lull Place
Tax Map/Lot #3/9 & 3/10
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Michael Dahlberg, LLS, representing the applicants, James Denesevich and Jay Marden were present as owner and agent respectively. Also present were Donna Mombourquette and Karen Roach.
The Chairman stated that the application had been accepted as complete with the understanding that the waivers may be revisited following the site walk. The Board's deadline date for action was October 1, 2009. A site walk was held on August 13, 2009, and a letter from the Conservation Commission dated August 24, 2009, had been received.
Michael Dahlberg, LLS, stated that they had made the necessary changes to the plan. He pointed to the lot off Lull Road and stated that the driveway had been moved west-south-westerly about twenty feet. He also stated that the lot line for Lot 5 was moved westerly about twenty feet to avoid the conflict with the existing culvert that drained onto the property from the west side of West Lull Place. Michael Dahlberg, LLS, noted that all of lots had been labeled with the proper setbacks. He stated that he added the second part of the Board’s standard plan note re: ISWMPs. He also stated that a copy of the warranty deed had been submitted.
Michael Dahlberg, LLS, acknowledged receipt of the letter from the Conservation Committee that resulted from their site walk. He did not agree with the Committee’s assessment of the wetlands. He pointed to the map at the wetland area in question. He stated that he stood by the wetland delineation marked by Wetland Scientist Chris Danforth and further explained that due to the amount of rain this season areas were saturated with water. Michael Dahlberg, LLS, added that a wetland was defined by state and/or federal laws and that wetland delineations submitted to the Board were marked accordingly. Douglas Hill asked Michael Dahlberg, LLS, to identify the subject wetland area using the plans submitted to the Board. Douglas Hill inquired as to whether the land in question would be affected
by development if, hypothetically, the land were subject to wetland regulations. Michael Dahlberg, LLS, said it would not. The Chairman stated that the Conservation Commission was concerned that there was an area on the lot that had not been flagged. Michael Dahlberg, LLS, advised that the subject area had not been flagged as the applicant had not proposed any development in the area. Michael Dahlberg, LLS, stated that the area could be flagged if necessary. The Chairman asked and the consensus of the Board was that no further wetland delineation was required.
The Chairman confirmed that the deed language concerning the fire sprinklers had been addressed. The Chairman inquired as to whether there was a restriction on further subdivision. Michael Dahlberg, LLS, stated that there was enough frontage to serve a future subdivision; however, steep slopes and/or the contours of the land would negate a proposed subdivision.
The Chairman noted for the record that the remaining acreage of Lot #3/9 was shown by record plans, not survey. He then raised the issue with the proposed driveway of Lot 3/9-5 which intersected at Lull Road where the slope of said way was in excess of 8%. Michael Dahlberg, LLS, stated that Lull Road in this location had a slope of 12%-14%. The Chairman asked if the 8% rule would prohibit the creation of an intersecting driveway where Lull Road, an existing public way, had a slope in excess of 8%. Douglas Hill stated that the subject driveway regulation was concerned with new subdivision roads only. The Chairman stated that the regulation could be set aside if the applicant presented an appropriate waiver. Michael Dahlberg, LLS, advised that in anticipation of the issue, he had prepared an
amendment to the waiver on behalf of the applicant. Mark Suennen stated that he would not agree to a waiver as he was of the opinion that there was an alternative driveway placement that would not violate the 8% rule by moving the driveway to West Lull Place. The Chairman indicated that the consensus of the Board appeared to be in favor of a waiver, but he inquired if any of the Board members had changed their view given Mark Suennen’s objection. David Woodbury requested that the applicant share its opinion relative to Mark Suennen’s objection and the alternative placement of the driveway. Jay Marden advised that the alternative placement of the driveway would create an unnecessarily longer route to the home.
James Denesevich of 42 West Lull Place stated that West Lull Place, at the intersection of the applicant’s proposed driveway, was steep enough to cause motorists to make a so-called “running start” up the incline of the road. He was concerned that a motorist exiting the proposed driveway would find himself crawling up West Lull Place without the aid of a running start.
Donna Mombourquette of 42 West Lull Place voiced her interest in the preservation of certain trees along the property line which would be cut if the alternative driveway were implemented.
Peter Hogan MOVED to grant the waiver in Mike Dahlberg, LLS's, letter of 8/25/09, to accept the driveway [on lot 3-9-5] on Lull Road in an area in excess of 8%. Douglas Hill seconded the motion. Dave Woodbury, Dough Hill, Peter Hogan - AYE. Mark Suennen - NAY. The motion PASSED.
With reference to all of the applicant’s outstanding requests for waivers in Mike Dahlberg, LLS's, letter of 6/22/09, the Chairman asked if there were any objections from the members of the Board. David Woodbury abstained citing his lack of knowledge with the waiver proposals. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, offered as rationale to his waiver requests that the nature of the application and size of the lots, along with the fact that the future houses were not proposed adjacent to the wetlands or the wetlands buffer; the test pit data and outside topography did not indicate the need for a HISS; and erosion controls would be handled at the building permit application stage, if needed. The Coordinator pointed out that the waiver request for soils mapping per the Wetlands
Conservation District was not needed because the required soil type delineations had been included on the subdivision plans.
Peter Hogan MOVED to grant the waiver requests on the June 22, 2009 letter from Dahlberg Land Services with the exception of WCD Soils mapping which had been provided. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously. David Woodbury abstained.
The Chairman noted that the wetland scientist's seal was missing from the plan. Michael Dahlberg, LLS, stated that the seal would be on the final plan. Mark Suennen inquired of the LCIP easement and whether it was applicable. Jay Marden answered that the easement was not applicable to the subdivision. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted that the easement lines were blazed and monumented once a year and were easily seen and defined.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the Lot Line Adjustment/Major Subdivision/4 Lots, by New Era CF Trust and Turtle Cove Revocable Trust, Tax Map/Lot #3/9 and 3/10, Lull Road and Gregg Mill Road and West Lull Place, such that Parcel A of 6.64 acres is annexed from Tax Map/Lot #3/9 to Tax Map/Lot #3/10, and Tax Map/Lot #3/9 is then subdivided into three new lots with remaining acreage, 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 a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD;
3. Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F, 3.
4. Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set confirming that the monumentation has been placed as on the final plat to be recorded at the Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds (if necessary).
5. Submission of an executed Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions with
Respect to Property Owned by New Era CF Trust, re: sprinkler systems to be recorded at the Hillsborough Registry of Deeds.
6. Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.
7. 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 October 25, 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 the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. Sprinkler systems shall be installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New
Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee before the occupancy of any dwelling in the approved subdivision, in accordance with Chapter NB-5.0 of the Town of New Boston Building Code before the occupancy of any dwelling in the approved subdivision.
2. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until the sprinkler systems are
installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee, in accordance with Chapter NB-5.0 of the Town of New Boston Building Code, and the driveways are installed and approved by the Road Agent and the Planning Board.
3. An 'Individual Stormwater Management Plan' (ISWMP) to be submitted prior to
the issuance of a building permit, will be required for land disturbance or
development in 'Critical Areas' (both those designated hereon or created during development). For building permits requiring an ISWMP, Certificates of Occupancy will only be issued after receipt of a 'Stormwater Management Plan Adherence Statement' as specified in the New Boston Subdivision Regulations.
There shall be no deadline for complying with the conditions subsequent as the installation of sprinkler systems, driveways and Stormwater Management practices will be ongoing as lot development takes place.
Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously. David Woodbury abstained.
The Board adjourned for a 5 minute recess.
LEMAY, VICTOR & LISE S.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/9 Lots
Location: Wilson Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #9/21-5
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Brian Pratt, PE, Tim LeClair, Clifton LaBree, Diane Boutin, Bruce & Elaine Tostevin, Steve Hughes, Marcy Morton, Sylvia and Bing Chancey.
The Chairman noted that an informational session had been held previously for this plan and this was now in design review. He noted that abutters would have the opportunity to speak and asked that they give their names and address for the record.
Brian Pratt, PE, of CLD Consulting Engineers stated that the subdivision proposed nine residential lots located on Wilson Hill Road near the intersection of LaBree Road, located 800ft south of an existing cistern on Wilson Hill Road. The subject parcel was reported to be 29 acres which primarily consisted of upland with two wetland bodies running through the proposed site as was shown on the plans. Brian Pratt, PE, identified steep slopes; however, the majority of the land presented slopes less than 15%. The subdivision’s 9 lots would be serviced by a 1,000ft road with a cul-de-sac; the 1,000 feet measured per regulation to the 'throat' of the cul-de-sac. All lots would be serviced by their own wells and septic systems. Seven of the nine lots would range between 2 to 3 acres with two back lots
being 5 acres or more. The seven lots would have 200ft of frontage and the back lots would have 50ft of frontage each. Brian Pratt, PE, advised that a subdivision permit was submitted to the Department of Environmental Services (hereinafter DES) which sent a review letter with minor comments. He was of the opinion that DES was waiting for the wetland permit to be issued. Brian Pratt, PE, also indicated that an application was submitted to the DES Wetlands Bureau which deemed the application complete.
Brian Pratt, PE, stated that the proposed road was designed to track an existing woods road as closely as possible. Because the existing woods road presented steep slope it gave rise to the need to make cuts in the front of a certain lot as indicated by Brian Pratt, PE,. Addressing storm water control, Brian Pratt, PE, indentified a cross culvert system with a retention pond for storm water attenuation and water treatment. The wetland impact was reported to be a total sum of 4,800 square feet on account of the proposed subdivision roadway and driveways.
Brian Pratt, PE, advised that two of the nine lots, Lots 2 & 3, proposed to use driveway easements over other lots, noting that an existing driveway that had an approved wetland crossing was already in place to Lot #2. Brian Pratt, PE, stated that there was enough space so that each of the two lots could have their own driveway through their own lot frontage; however, the proposed easements would provide for a larger wetland buffer and thus minimize wetland impact. Exhibits were offered. He noted that driveways for the two lots in questions could be installed on their own frontage but would be longer and steeper.
Brian Pratt, PE, stated that the Natural Heritage Bureau was contacted and that no record of endangered species in the area was noted.
Brian Pratt, PE, also stated that alteration of terrain permitting was not needed on account of the land disturbance being less than 100,000 square feet.
Brian Pratt, PE, advised that the applicants had obtained an approved septic design for Lot 2 on account which a building permit had been submitted.
Douglas Hill inquired of the location of the driveway concerning Lot 2 as submitted with the building permit. Brian Pratt, PE, stated that the application for the building permit showed the proposed shared driveway with easement. Douglas Hill asked if there was an alternative driveway plan in the event the Board denied the easement. Brian Pratt, PE, identified two alternative driveway proposals. Douglas Hill stated that the Board had a long history relative to driveways. The Chairman recommended that the applicants seek an alternative driveway placement not dependent on the use of an easement. Douglas Hill advised that he would be interested in viewing all of the driveway proposals.
Douglas Hill asked if any consideration had been given to making Lot 2 a back lot off Wilson Hill Road with the location of the driveway on the backside of Lot 1. Brian Pratt, PE, and Tim LeClair answered that prior consideration had been given to this alternative, however, due to an existing cemetery in that area they decided to move forward with the proposed idea to prevent any unnecessary disturbances. Brian Pratt, PE, also noted that excavation regulations prohibited excavation within twenty feet of a cemetery. Douglas Hill stated that there appeared to be plenty of frontage to move the driveway location so that it was on the lot line.
The Chairman asked if the cistern was 800 feet from the intersection of Wilson Hill Road and the proposed road and asked how far the cistern was from the furthest proposed house. Brian Pratt, PE, answered that the cistern was 2,000 feet from the furthest house, noting the distance came in under the 2,200 ft. regulation. The Chairman asked the Coordinator of the regulation that states how far the cistern should be from the lots. The Coordinator stated that the regulation provided for 2,200 feet from the cistern to the nearest lot line of the furthest most lot to be served thereby. The Chairman advised that they needed to have something that truly measured the distance to prove that it was less than 2,200 feet. Brian Pratt, PE, said that he would provide that measurement. Douglas Hill
inquired if all the lots were covered by the placement of the cistern. Brian pointed to the map to confirm that indeed all the lots were covered noting that the distance was 1,200 along the road and 800 ft up to the cistern.
The Chairman questioned whether or not the applicant was aware that a Conditional Use Permit and Dredge and Fill Permit for Lot 2 needed to be obtained prior to construction of the culvert replacement. Brian Pratt, PE, replied that a wetland permit would not be necessary for this particular lot at this time because the existing driveway was passable and the culvert replacement would happen at a later time.
The Chairman invited questions from the Board. Mark Suennen wanted to clarify that the applicant was not asking for waivers. Brian Pratt, PE, stated that they would not be asking for any waivers. Mark Suennen also questioned whether the traffic, fiscal, and environmental impact studies needed to be completed at this time. The Chairman answered that the impact studies would need to be submitted with the final application. Brian Pratt, PE, asked the Board if the impact studies would only be needed if determined necessary. Douglas Hill responded that the impact studies were required unless a waiver was requested. He also noted that the traffic impact study should address the turn from Wilson Hill Road onto Bedford Road. David Woodbury added that the Town has been anxious to
improve the sight line at the Bedford Road/Wilson Hill Road intersection. Douglas Hill stated that the Town had a calculation for percentages of offsite road improvements that would go towards that.
The Chairman invited comments from the public.
Clifton LaBree identified himself as an abutter. He pointed to the map where his property was located. He then referenced an intersecting corner of Lot 2 and Lot 3 and indicated that his well was located close by at the bottom of the steep slope. He questioned whether the location of the proposed septic system could be moved south so as not to interfere with his well. Brian Pratt, PE, advised he did not design the septic system but would be willing to look at the design and compare it to the location of the well. Douglas Hill questioned if the septic system was within 75 feet of Clifton LaBree’s well. Tim LeClair stated that the proposed location of the septic system was not within 75 feet of the well. Clifton LaBree stated that his concern was that the location of his well
was down slope from the proposed septic system site.
Clifton LaBree addressed his concern of the feasibility of developing Lot 3. He explained that because there was a pond bisecting Lot 2 and Lot 3 at the base of the steep slope there is constant water drainage. He questioned the impact on the wetlands by having the septic system in that location that crossed the wetlands. He added an apology to his neighbors for the lot being subdivided into three separate lots when he had sold the lot as a single house lot and had been sure it would never be subdivided.
The Chairman noted Clifton LaBree’s statement for the record. The Chairman wanted to verify the distance between the well and the proposed septic system site. Tim LeClair stated that he had the septic system design approval but it did not indicate the distance in question. Douglas Hill asked what the distance was from the proposed septic system site to the property line. Tim LeClair stated that the septic system would be located about sixty feet from the property line. The Chairman advised that Clifton LaBree’s concern regarding the wetlands on Lot 3 would be addressed during the presentation of the final plan.
Diane Boutin of 6 Wilson Hill Road indicated that she abutted the proposed road. She stated that the location of the proposed road was on steep slope and that 10% grading was going to be used to construct the road. She also indicated that the location of the proposed road would run parallel to her yard where she had an in ground pool and her children play. She wanted to know what the elevation drop was going to be next to her property; if a safety wall was going to be installed; and what preventive measures would be taken against erosion. She also inquired of the plans for maintenance. Douglas Hill indicated that certain erosion regulations needed to be met. The Chairman added that more detail would be available to address Diane Boutin’s concerns when the final plan was
presented. Diane Boutin also raised concerns about a spike strip; she wanted to know why there appeared to be 3 feet of property that began at Wilson Hill Road and ran parallel to the proposed road back to Lot 9. Brian Pratt, PE, replied that a fifty foot right-of-way as well as a 25 foot radius was required for the road. He explained that he could not start the right-of-way on the applicant's property because he needed a 25 foot radius. He added that the road was narrow because of the location of wetlands. Diane Boutin was concerned that access to her property where she parks her camper would be denied. Tim LeClair acknowledged that the concrete slab on which Diane Boutin parked her camper was on both Diane Boutin’s property as well as the applicant's. Douglas Hill responded that the Board wasn’t able to address that issue because the property was not hers. Peter Hogan questioned the use of this thin strip of land.
He indicated that the 50 foot right-of-way was a minimum width under the regulations. Tim LeClair suggested that the right-of-way be increased to 60 feet which would eliminate the need for the radius on the lot line and once the Town approved the road it would become Town property. Mark Suennen further indicated that the Town would own part of the concrete slab.
Bruce Tostevin of 101 Wilson Hill Road asked Brian Pratt, PE, to review how it was determined that there was only 4,800 square feet of wetlands. Brian Pratt, PE, clarified that there was 4,800 square feet of wetland impact. He identified on the map the location and size of the wetlands. Bruce Tostevin asked if an area on the map where the cul-de-sac was located contained any wetlands. Brian Pratt, PE, replied that there were no wetlands in the location in question. Marcy Morton pointed to a field on the map and asked if any wetlands had been identified in that area. Brian Pratt, PE, replied that wetland scientists had delineated that area in question and no wetlands were identified. Bruce Tostevin commented that the area in question was nicknamed Lake LaBree and he
did not understand why the area was not identified as a wetland. Brian Pratt, PE, explained that the area in question failed to meet the criteria of jurisdictional wetlands to be identified as such. He continued that area needed to be wet for a certain period of time, contain specific soil characteristics and needed to contain specific vegetation.
The Chairman questioned the accuracy of the date August 2008 stated on the Subdivisions Wetlands Bureau Standard Dredge and Fill Application. Brian Pratt, PE, clarified that it was a typing error and should be August 2009.
The Chairman stated that a site walk needed to be scheduled. He asked Brian Pratt, PE, and Tim LeClair if they were aware of the regulations with regard to what need to be staked for the site walk. Tim LeClair confirmed that he was aware and stated that Bob Todd, LLS, was the surveyor. Douglas Hill requested that the driveways in question also be marked. The Board scheduled the site walk for Thursday September 10, 2009, at 6:30 p.m..
Sylvia Chancey of 64 Wilson Hill Road asked the Board if she and her husband could be included in the site walk. The Chairman answered that anyone wishing to participate in the site walk needed to receive permission from the landowner. Douglas Hill asked Brian Pratt, PE, and Tim LeClair if they would allow abutters and neighbors to join in the site walk. Tim LeClair asked the Board what their thoughts were on having abutters attend site walks. The Chairman indicated that the site walks worked more effectively when abutters were permitted to attend. Tim LeClair agreed to allow the abutters to attend the site walk. Peter Hogan noted that abutters attend site walks at their own risk and the Board would not slow down or wait for anyone.
Elaine Tostevin of 101 Wilson Hill Road asked if the proposed road would have a stop sign where it intersected with Wilson Hill Road. The Chairman answered there would be a stop sign.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the application of Lemay, Victor and Lise S., Major Subdivision, 9 Lots, Location: Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/21-5, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to September 22, 2009, at 8:00 p.m. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Steve Hughes of 92 Wilson Hill Road asked the Board if the impact of new construction on wells and water tables was taken into consideration when approving subdivisions. The Chairman responded that they were not. Peter Hogan added that a previous member of the Board who did drilling and blasting professionally was of the opinion that it had no effect.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JULY 28, 2009
1. Approval of minutes of July 28, 2009 distributed by email. (No Copies)
The Chairman referenced page 6 of the meeting minutes and read the following: “The Chairman seated Mark Suennen and Dean Mehlhorn as full voting members. Douglas Hill recused himself because he was an abutter to the next hearing.” The Chairman wanted to clarify that Mark Suennen was seated as a full voting member, Douglas Hill recused himself and Dean Mehlhorn was seated in his place.
The Coordinator referenced page 14 of the meeting minutes. She wanted to clarify the section with regard to the abatement for the Plourdes so that it reflected that the value of the assessment of the property was reduced by $26,800.00.
Mark Suennen MOVED to approve the minutes of July 28, 2009, as amended. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED. Peter Hogan abstained.
2. Letter received July 30, 2009, from Kristine A. Filteau, Manager, Kristine Filteau
Contracting, LLC, to Town of New Boston Planning Board, re: request for extension on conditions for Phase 2 of Rising Generation Daycare site plan, for the Board’s approval.
The Chairman noted the request for a two year extension of the completion deadline. The Coordinator advised that the current deadline was September 30, 2009. The Chairman asked the Board for any concerns. There being none, the Board agreed to extend the completion deadline two years.
Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the request for extension on the conditions of Phase 2 of the Rising Generation Daycare site plan, to September 30, 2011. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. Memo dated August 13, 2009 from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator , to the Planning Board, re: Eisenhaure Subdivision follow-up, for the Board’s discussion.
Dean Mehlhorn asked if any improvements had been made on the above-referenced subdivision. The Coordinator stated that no improvements had been made to date and that the lots were vacant. She continued that it was a frontage subdivision with no road construction required. She also informed the Board that this subdivision was affected by new legislation that had been passed to allow for 6 years for completion. The Coordinator recommended that for future subdivision approvals the Board should specify what requirements need to be done to meet the regulations. David Woodbury added that to prevent the question of whether or not enough work had been done on a subdivision some sort of definition should be formed. The Coordinator pointed out that a standard
definition could pose future problems with unfinished infrastructure.
The Chairman clarified that David Woodbury suggested that he thought the Board
should consider adding a definition to the regulations with regard to substantial improvements. The Coordinator suggested that an alternative would be to assess each subdivision on a case by case basis and specifically define what each individual plan needed to have completed to meet the substantial improvement requirement.
The Chairman asked the Board if they should modify the regulations or should each subdivision be looked at on a case by case basis with regard to the conditions subsequent. David Woodbury stated that he would not be in favor of the case by case approach because of the issue of favoring one applicant over another. He recommended a minimum standard to be applied to all applicants. Mark Suennen offered that the Board should use the case by case approach until an appropriate minimum could be determined to add to regulations at a future date.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator to compile a template that could be used with an eye toward a case by case approach and to put together something for the Board to review with regard to this matter.
4. Discussion, re: Planning Board representatives for CIP Committee, 2009.
The Chairman advised that the CIP Committee needed two volunteers from the Planning Board to serve on the Committee. Douglas Hill stated that he was retiring from his position on the Committee. David Woodbury noted that he was volunteering as the Selectmen representative. Mark Suennen asked what the time commitment requirements were and when they began. The Coordinator responded that there would be three to four meetings beginning in September. Mark Suennen believed it may conflict with other subcommittee obligations. The Coordinator acknowledged that Don Duhaime would most likely continue to serve on the committee. Peter Hogan noted he was not interested in volunteering for this committee. The Chairman offered that if he could remove himself
from the Economic Development Committee that he had recently made a commitment to he would volunteer for the CIP Committee. Dean Mehlhorn volunteered to serve on the CIP committee.
5. Preliminary discussion, re: the Open Space Plan distributed at the meeting of July 28, 2009.
The Chairman stated that he had many comments but had not finished reading the plan.
The Coordinator asked the Board if they had anything to add or ask, to come prepared for the upcoming meeting on September 8, 2009, at 6:30 p.m.
6. Copies of construction services reports for Twin Bridge Lane Management, LLC (Page Lane), Christian Farm Estates (Christian Farm Drive), Indian Falls, LLC (Indian Falls Road) and Albert LaChance (Lull Road) for the Board’s information.
The Chairman noted that some of the above-referenced matters were five months old and the Board was only now receiving copies of them. Peter Hogan suggested looking through the Christian Farm Estates construction report to determine where the inspector was standing when the road base was not properly compacted. Peter Hogan asked if the Town was paying the inspector to make sure the road base was compacted properly to avoid these problems. The Coordinator answered that there was no dispute that the road in question was not inspected correctly. She continued that something unknown was occurring that needed further investigation. She further stated that the Board did not believe that Douglas Hill had bad plans drawn, that D&S built the road improperly, or that
Kevin Leonard, PE, inspected it badly. She stated that there was an issue and it needed to be fixed.
7. Copies of the Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Committee minutes of July 14th and August 4th, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman noted that this item was addressed earlier in the meeting.
8. Copy of letter dated August 13, 2009, from Ed Hunter, Code Enforcement Officer, to Richard Renshaw, re: Renshaw Auto, Mast Road, Route 114, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter. No discussion occurred.
9. Copy of NHDES Restoration Plan Approval for Stephen and Patricia Henault, 192 Byam Road, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman inquired if the Board had received a copy of the Restoration Plan in the above-referenced matter. The Coordinator was not sure.
10. Public Meeting Notice Site Inspection from the Town of Francestown for August 29, 2009, re: a site inspection and balloon test and a Public Notice for September 1, 2009, for New Cingular Wireless (AT&T), for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter. No discussion occurred.
11. Abutter Notification for Receipt of Application from the Town of Bow for September 2, 2009, re: personal wireless service facility, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter. No discussion occurred.
12. Announcement of the 34th Annual Municipal Law Lecture Series, for the Board’s Information.
The Chairman stated that he was interested in attending and would like to be advised of the dates.
13. Announcement of the Annual Fall Planning & Zoning Conference for October 17, 2009, in Lincoln, NH for the Board’s information.
The Chairman noted Dean Mehlhorn was required to attend either the Manchester conference being held in the spring or the Lincoln conference. Dean Mehlhorn stated that he would most likely attend the conference being held in Manchester.
14. Discussion, re: Popple Road, repair of the sinkhole.
The Chairman inquired if R. J. Moreau reported how they repaired the sinkhole. The Coordinator advised that R.J. Moreau did not explain how they repaired the sinkhole. She further informed the Board that the bonding company for this subdivision did not advise the Board that the bond was coming up for expiration and to what degree it was complete and subsequently the bond expired. The Chairman stated that should the sinkhole collapse in the future it would be the Town’s responsibility to repair the same. The Coordinator advised that in the future she wanted to make sure that all companies give notice regarding how complete they are and specify if the Board is ready to let the bond go.
15. Discussion, re: Bilodeau, cordwood business, 229 Joe English Road.
The Chairman referred the Board to the outline he had compiled with regard to the Bilodeau Site Plan. He highlighted the following topics that were included in the outline: information about a recent abatement, a chronology of events, the Board’s options, zoning information, and the issue of the verbal details that are not in the plan. The Chairman noted that he had listed possible clarifications or changes that needed to be made to the plan such as: capping the number of employees because there is currently an issue with more than one person working there; capping the number of hours per week for sawing and splitting; capping the amount of raw wood supply and constraining bucking logs to the upper area and splitting and drying to the lower area.
The Chairman asked the Board for their comments and suggestions.
Peter Hogan wanted to confirm that there was a set number of hours of operation on the Site Plan. The Chairman confirmed that there was a set number of hours. Peter Hogan stated that the hours of operation were only daylight hours and excluded Sundays. He asked if Mark Bilodeau was operating outside of the aforementioned Plan . The Chairman stated that he did not believe Mark Bilodeau was operating outside the hours set forth in the Plan. The Chairman continued that he was concerned that Board had approved sixty hours a week for the Site Plan and Mark Bilodeau was cutting sixty hours a week and the Board was under the impression that he would only be cutting part-time. The Chairman stated Mark Bilodeau represented to the Board that he would only be working after he arrived home from
work at 4:00 p.m. and occasionally on a Saturday. The Chairman further stated that the problem was that Mark Bilodeau had expanded full-time and that the Plan did not offer enough constraint. David Woodbury asked if the Board was stuck with the current Site Plan. The Chairman stated that after review of past meeting minutes it was clear Mark Bilodeau was doing things that may not be reflected on the actual Plan but had verbal approval from the Board. David Woodbury asked for examples. The Chairman answered that Mr. Bilodeau was cutting full-time and cutting year round when he had explicitly said he only cut in the fall and winter. Peter Hogan asked if Mark Bilodeau was cutting all this time, when does he split the wood. The Chairman answered that Mark Bilodeau could be splitting when he was not cutting or he could have employees. Peter Hogan stated that if Mark Bilodeau did have employees then he would be in violation of the site plan
and suggested that an enforcement agent should be sent to the Bilodeau property and have any violation properly documented. The Chairman noted that the Assessor had been to the property on several occasions and made similar observations.
The Chairman asked for suggestions on what to do about things that were clarified verbally but were not reflected on the Plan. David Woodbury asked why such things did not make it onto the Plan. He also stated that he believed Mark Bilodeau had the right to come before the Board and put responsibility on the Board for what had been promulgated before him. He suggested that the Board decide exactly what it was that they gave Mark Bilodeau permission to do from the Site Plan as well as the meeting minutes. The Chairman stated that his biggest concerns were the representations that were made to the Board and were taken into consideration when they were making their decisions that were not described specifically in the Plan. David Woodbury thought the Board should synthesize the written Plan and
the minutes with a comprehensive package of what Mark Bilodeau was supposed to be doing and then find out where he is outside of the Plan. Peter Hogan wanted clarification that David Woodbury meant to have the Building Inspector verify that Mark Bilodeau was in violation of the Site Plan. David Woodbury said he agreed that whoever the appropriate enforcement agent would be, in this case he believed that to be the Building Inspector, the inspector should verify that Mark Bilodeau was in violation of the Site Plan. He also added that clear direction needed to be given to the Building Inspector. Peter Hogan and the Chairman agreed.
Peter Hogan asked what type of log splitter Mark Bilodeau was using. The Chairman replied that he did not know. Dean Mehlhorn added that he believed he had conveyor log splitter set-up. Peter Hogan added that at the point Mark Bilodeau had a processor he would be in violation of the Site Plan. The Chairman stated that Mark Bilodeau made representations that he operated a six horsepower splitter.
The Chairman noted that on June 26, 2007, Mark Bilodeau was asked about employees and he specifically stated that he was the sole employee. The Chairman stated that having any other employees would be a violation of the Site Plan; however, he was unsure if the written Plan explicitly reflected that Mark Bilodeau and his wife were the only employees.
The Chairman noted that he had compiled a comprehensive list as David Woodbury had earlier suggested with all matters that related to Mark Bilodeau’s Site Plan.
The Coordinator stated that a letter was sent to Bill Drescher, Esq., to get his legal opinion on this matter. The Coordinator pointed out that sending an enforcement agency to the Bilodeau property may run concurrent with receiving documentation back from Bill Drescher, Esq. She advised that it may be premature to send the Chairman’s outline to the Bilodeaus. The Chairman agreed and noted that his intention was to send Mark Bilodeau something similar to his outline prior to him coming before the Board so that everyone would be on the same page.
The Chairman noted his concern for the issue of representations that were made by Mark Bilodeau that did not make it on the Site Plan. Mark Suennen stated that he was not concerned with the things Mark Bilodeau said, what mattered were the things that he wrote. The Coordinator stated that the Plan was approved and then Mark Bilodeau was called back in by the Planning Board. She continued that ordinarily a copy of the minutes would get attached to the Plan and whatever was said becomes part of Plan. Mark Suennen wanted to clarify that once the Site Plan was approved any discussions held in a public forum, minutes of those discussions become appended to those Site Plan. The Coordinator stated that Mark Bilodeau came before the Board to clarify parts of the Site Plan that the Board did not feel
he was doing correctly. She continued that he made representations to the Board of how he was operating his business at the time. Mark Suennen stated that he would like to get Town Counsel’s opinion on how legally defendable this was.
The Board decided to have the Building Inspector visit the Bilodeau property with the Site Plan to observe for violations.
16. Discussion, re: New Boston Tavern.
The Chairman advised that the owners of New Boston Tavern wanted to add an entry vestibule to the bar. The Chairman asked what the future plan was for the New Boston Tavern. The Coordinator replied that the owner planned on having a restaurant as well as other undetermined things. She asked if the Board wanted the owners to appear for a hearing to amend the site plan or if the proposed amendment could be approved and placed in the file. The Chairman asked the Coordinator what was usually done. The Coordinator advised that the Board needed to consider the issue and address whether it would affect traffic, abutters, noise and things of that nature. Peter Hogan asked what the zoning on the Tavern was. The Coordinator answered Commercial. David
Woodbury was concerned that if “little things” were approved frequently then that would change nature of the plan. He suggested that the Board should have the applicant decide what it is they want to do and amend the site plan accordingly and get it all done at once. Peter Hogan added that he was not concerned with any changes they wanted to make inside. He continued that from an aesthetics standpoint he agreed with David Woodbury and wanted to know what the owners' plan was for any outside changes to the building. Mark Suennen stated that he was conflicted. He explained that he was not necessarily concerned with the improvements to the door but because of the history with the previous owners of the property with approval matters, he believed that it made sense to make any changes or updates to be made public. The Chairman added that the proposed approval site faced the road. Dean Mehlhorn and Douglas Hill also agreed that the
owners should appear before the Board to explain the proposed changes.
This matter was scheduled to be heard on September 8, 2009, at 7:15 p.m..
17. Discussion, re: Christian Farm Estates, pavement cracking.
Douglas Hill recused himself.
Peter Hogan stated that he believed that there was an engineering problem that was responsible for causing the road to crack. Dean Mehlhorn asked if the area of pavement that was cracked was a cut or a fill. Douglas Hill answered that it was in a cut section. Peter Hogan asked for the location of the crack to be identified. Douglas Hill replied that there were three areas all of which were cut areas. Peter Hogan asked if it was cut down to rock. Douglas Hill believed that one area was ledge and another area had nothing. Dean Mehlhorn asked if the area had fabric under the gravel. Douglas Hill was unsure. Dean Mehlhorn questioned if the next step was to perform cores. Douglas Hill stated that he preferred that the cores were not
performed. He stated that when the underdrains were installed the engineer was present to see what was in the ground.
David Woodbury asked what the Planning Board was specifically asked to do. Mark Suennen replied that the Planning Board needed to determine if and who would pay for the repairs to the cracked pavement. Peter Hogan asked what the warranty was on the engineering. Dean Mehlhorn inquired what company performed the original road engineering. Douglas Hill replied Bedford Design. He added that the Town engineer did not warranty the work. Mark Suennen stated that he believed there was not an expressed warranty on design rather an implied warranty that the design is to the standard of care required of the profession. He noted that if there was an unknown site condition and it could be proved that the design engineer should have known about it there may be a
case for omission and error. He noted that cores might disclose these details but might not. He said that the issue could be because of a change in condition occurring miles away from the site on adjoining properties
Peter Hogan asked if the core evaluation would establish if the cracked pavement was a result of engineering or application. Mark Suennen responded that the core evaluation could establish the root of the problem, however, it may not produce any results in which case a deeper ten foot core evaluation may be necessary. The Chairman asked if the second core evaluation would produce definite results. Mark Suennen explained that there still may not be conclusive result. He continued that the purpose for the core evaluations was to confirm that the road was constructed correctly according to the approved data. He further stated that if the results from the core samples could not or did not provide conclusive results the next step would be to perform deeper core
evaluations that go down to subsurface and groundwater. The purpose of the deeper core evaluation was to investigate a condition under the surface of the roadway that might be causing the uplift. The Chairman inquired that if the core evaluation resulted in identifying an issue with the groundwater was there someone who should have anticipated this problem at the onset. Mark Suennen was unsure if the second core evaluation would be able to determine who would have been responsible for causing the problem. He further stated that by identifying what the problem was the engineer should be able to formulate a remedy that could fix the problem. The Coordinator offered that simply fixing the pavement may be enough and it may never happen again. Mark Suennen agreed that a binder course could be applied to the pavement and a crack may never be seen again.
The Chairman asked for clarification on why the Board was reviewing this issue. Mark Suennen responded that the engineer saw cracks and alerted the Planning Board. He continued that the Planning Board then asked the engineer what needed to be done and the engineer recommended have a geotech done. Mark Suennen stated that the Board inquired as to the cost of the geotech which the engineer provided. He further stated that the Board was tasked with making a decision of whether to perform the geotech. Peter Hogan stated that he was inclined to ask the engineer if he would cover the cost of the project or wait to see if the crack progressed. He continued with suggesting the crack be sealed to keep out water and observe if the crack opened any farther.
Douglas Hill stated that Peter Hogan’s suggestion had previously been done.
David Woodbury added that it was his opinion that this issue was for the Developer to decide. He further stated that the Board could decide to do nothing or decide that the crack needed to be remedied. He continued that the Board would most likely decide to remedy the issue and then it would be the Developer's decision as to what course of action he would take whether it be the inexpensive remedy or the more expensive core evaluations. David Woodbury stated that he did not know how the Developer would be able to avoid paying the cost for the remedies unless the results of the core evaluation indicated that professional negligence had occurred. Douglas Hill questioned that if the Developer was going to be responsible for the road after he paid the Town $60,000.00 for the Town Engineer to watch the process and go through
all the steps to build a road to all the Town specifications why then would the Developer be liable for the road. Peter
Hogan added that the Town Engineer was responsible for protecting the Town’s interests and the Board was making sure that the road was installed to the Town’s specifications. Peter Hogan was of the opinion that some diagnostics needed to be performed to find out why the road was failing. He added that he believed the Engineer would not place blame on the installation because that would place blame on himself. Douglas Hill asked what the point was of having the Town Engineer spend $60,000.00 to watch a road be built. Peter Hogan answered that the point is to make sure that the road is going to last the expected amount of time and that the road is installed to the Town’s specifications. Douglas Hill questioned that if the Engineer said that road was installed to the Town’s
specifications then what would the additional testing show. The Chairman stated that the Town needed confirmation that the crack was fixed prior to the Town accepting the road. Mark Suennen responded that a determination by the Selectmen would be made on whether the Town would accept the road.
Mark Suennen attributed the cracks in the pavement to possible settlement of the road. He continued that what needed to be determined was if the cracks would lead to further degradation of the road. Douglas Hill commented that the Town’s road specifications had changed after the road was constructed. Mark Suennen questioned if the specification regarding the thickness of the pavement or base had changed. Douglas Hill replied that the specifications of both the thickness of the pavement and base had changed. Dean Mehlhorn asked what the specifications changed to. Douglas Hill responded that he was unsure. He continued that perhaps the prior Town specifications were not up to snuff.
David Woodbury stated that no matter how this situation is assessed it was the responsibility of the Developer. He continued that Mark Suennen was correct when he stated that the road will go to the Selectmen for acceptance. He noted that most likely the road would not be accepted if they do not have confidence. He further stated that the Selectmen will look for passage by the Planning Board. He noted that to have the Selectmen and Planning Board accept the road was ultimately up to the Developer.
The Chairman pointed out the end of result of acceptance of the road by the Town did not need to happen until the development was done and the Developer was looking to give ownership to the Town. Mark Suennen stated that the Developer could keep the road for as long as he wanted to maintain it. The Chairman added that the development also needed to be completed. Mark Suennen disagreed and stated that it was not necessary for the development to be complete because the lots were lots of record. The Coordinator added that there was a deadline for completion of the subdivision which was followed by a compliance hearing. Mark Suennen asked for clarification of what the Developer needed to have completed prior to gaining acceptance of the road by the Town. The Coordinator clarified that the
subdivision needed to be complete according to the plan. She stated that completion of the subdivision did not mean that houses needed to be on every lot, however, the roads had to be done through top coat, and cisterns, sprinklers, driveway aprons, culverts and anything else listed in the Plan had to be completed.
Mark Suennen suggested that rather than spending money on tests perhaps the Road Committee could assess the cracks and provide input. David Woodbury pointed out that the members of the Road Committee may hesitate in giving their opinions for liability reasons. Mark Suennen acknowledged David Woodbury’s point.
Peter Hogan stated that he would not authorize the engineer to perform the test cores because he was not willing to pay for them. He also noted the Developer was not willing to pay for the tests. He continued that how this issue was handled was up to the Developer stating that if he would like the road to be accepted by the Town he would need to demonstrate that the problem was resolved. The Chairman agreed that this issue was the Developer's responsibility in the end.
The Chairman asked if the purpose of the maintenance bond was to be available should unforeseen problems arise with the road that were not present at the time of acceptance. The Coordinator confirmed the Chairman’s question.
The Chairman stated that he agreed with Peter Hogan’s opinion that at this point any decisions that needed to be made were up to the Developer and he did not feel that the core evaluation was something for the Board to authorize now. David Woodbury agreed with the Chairman. Mark Suennen offered that he would put a top coat on the crack and leave it for the next two years until the development was finished and at that point if it had not cracked then try to sell it to the Town. Dean Mehlhorn noted that the Engineer may continue to check on the status of the crack for which subsequently the Developer would be billed. Peter Hogan agreed that the Engineer should not continue with inspections.
The Chairman asked the Board if they should thought the Road Committee should be asked for their opinion on the crack. Peter Hogan advised against asking the Road Committee for their opinion.
The Coordinator advised that because the top coat has not been applied a punch list had yet to be prepared as noted in a letter from the Town Engineer. Douglas Hill said he was not ready for a punch list to be done and asked what the total amount that had been paid for inspections. The Coordinator responded that she was unsure. The Chairman stated that given the Board was not going to do anything with the cracking at this point he thought the Engineer should be able to come up with a punch list as it stood now except for the crack and also be able to calculate an estimate. Mark Suennen pointed out that the Chairman was describing a punch list and suggested that the Board simply ask the Engineer to develop a punch list. The Chairman noted that the Engineer had a remaining $1,653.33 from
the Developer. He added that there should not be anything else for the Engineer to do until the Developer was ready to turn the road in. Mark Suennen asked if there was any reason to believe that the Board needed further feedback from the Engineer. The Coordinator stated that the Engineer may follow-up with any outstanding issues. Douglas Hill stated that all of the outstanding issues would be completed when he requests acceptance of the road. Mark Suennen surmised that the Christian Farm Estate subdivision was in essence shut down to work from the Town until further notice. Douglas Hill agreed. Mark Suennen stated subsequently there was nothing for the Engineer to do until further notice. The Coordinator noted that the Engineer usually would check the status of ongoing subdivisions after heavy rainstorms for erosion control issues.
18. Discussion, re: Announcement of a Kick-Off Meeting to develop a Land Conservation Plan for the Piscataquog River Watershed on September 11, 2009, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter. No discussion occurred.
19. PSNH
The Coordinator advised that PSNH had contacted the Planning Board to request placing a temporary trailer with a generator on Route 77 near Sizemore’s Truck Repair Facility, for the purpose of providing power during power outages. She noted that she had no other details and asked the Board if they had any issues with the placement of such a trailer. Mark Suennen was concerned if the trailer would cause a noise disturbance and he also inquired as to when it would be running. The Coordinator stated that she would get more details and follow-up with the Board at a future meeting.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn at 11:15 p.m. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Valerie Diaz, Recording Clerk
| 
