TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of October 27, 2009
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular member Peter Hogan, alternate Mark Suennen and Ex-officio Rodney Towne. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Valerie Diaz.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Jon Willard, Jay Marden, Ellen Kambol, Ruth Trussell, John Ashworth, Jonathan Markey, P.E., Charles Cleary, Esq., Katherine Kachavos, Gloria Chandler, Betsy Whitman, and David Elliot.
Discussion, re: Workforce & Multi-Family Housing
Present in the audience were Workforce Housing Committee members Jon Willard, Jay Marden, and Ellen Kambol.
The Chairman acknowledged the Workforce Housing Committee members and asked them to begin the discussion on Workforce Housing in New Boston.
Jon Willard stated that he would present an overview of the assessments, studies, and exercises that had been completed by the Committee with regard to new workforce housing legislation and its impact on the Town of New Boston.
Jon Willard stated that the Committee reviewed the existing housing stock and land in New Boston. He continued that a review of assessed values was conducted to determine the percentage of homes that currently met the affordability requirement to be workforce housing. It was determined that approximately 28% of homes in New Boston met the definition of workforce housing based on the assessed values. He then noted that a review of homes for sale was also conducted to determine what percentage of homes on the market met the definition of workforce housing. It was determined that approximately 30% of homes for sale met the definition of workforce housing. He noted that a review of physical characteristics of approximately twelve undeveloped parcels of land of sufficient size had been completed
to determine if the land could be subdivided to support workforce housing. It was determined that because of current zoning and land use regulations it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to develop workforce housing, for single family ownership, in the open market without some sort of subsidy. He stated that a review of one lot that had been recently subdivided as a major subdivision was conducted to determine if the lot was a good candidate for workforce housing, i.e., good road access, slopes less than 15%, soil conditions, etc.. He continued that it was determined that the lot was a good candidate for workforce housing and the Committee used the proposed overlay district to conduct a feasibility analysis. It was determined that the lot would have made a good candidate for the workforce housing using the overlay district.
Jon Willard stated that the Coordinator conducted an audit of New Boston’s ordinances and regulations with regard to Workforce/Multi-Family Housing opportunities. He noted that as a result of the audit, barriers to Workforce/Multi-Family Housing were found in the Master Plan, Zoning Ordinances, and Subdivision Regulations. He stated that the Committee made recommendations to alleviate the barriers that would be addressed later in the presentation.
Jon Willard stated that the Committee reviewed the income characteristics of occupations that fell under workforce. He explained that the Committee found that individuals who worked in their communities as firefighters, police officers, municipal employees, and teachers were locked out of homeownership as a result of the high costs associated with living in New Boston.
Jon Willard stated that a review of statute requirements was conducted, more specifically, a review of R-1 zoning. He noted that R-1 zoning allows for 3-12 units per structure and that the legislation required allowing 5 or more units. It was determined that the R-1 district satisfied the legislative requirements for multi-family housing.
Jon Willard went on to discuss the Committee’s review of permanent affordability models. He stated that there were three options available for long term affordability retention; (1) home ownership affordability retention lien (self-administered); (2) home ownership affordability retention lien (third-party administered); and (3) restrictive covenant.
Jon Willard explained that homeownership affordability retention lien (self-administered) would require the Town to create a housing authority or some other entity that would administer the program. He added that the program would need to be funded by the Town. He stated that this is not a viable option for New Boston.
Jon Willard explained that a home ownership affordability retention lien (third-party administered) could be overseen by the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority or another organization involved in affordable housing. He noted that a third-party administrator would dictate what ordinances the Town would need to be adopted with regard to workforce housing. Having studied examples of these ordinances, it was the Committee’s opinion that a third-party administrator option was not viable for New Boston.
Jon Willard stated that the Committee believed that the restrictive covenant option was viable for New Boston. He explained that the restrictive covenant would be in effect for certain periods of time but not in perpetuity.
Jon Willard noted that most, if not all, multi-family/workforce housing developments in New Hampshire were subsidized which meant that those projects had affordability retention built into them. He explained that if there was a subsidy attached to a project, the organizations that provide for the subsidy will require retention within those projects and as such the Planning Board’s involvement was not necessary.
Jon Willard stated that the Committee believed that it was very difficult, if not impossible, to create single-family detached workforce housing under current market conditions without some form of subsidy. He continued that the most significant barrier to workforce housing in New Boston was the cost of land. He recognized that the cost of land was not something that could be controlled by the Board. He noted that the statues governing workforce housing clearly stated that it was not the responsibility of the Town to control market conditions.
Jon Willard stated that it was Committee’s recommendation to adopt a Workforce Housing Overlay District and apply same to all residential districts. He continued that the model for the proposed district was the R-1 District with minor modifications. He added that the characteristics of the land would guide the Board to make a decision of whether or not to apply the overlay district on top of the R-A or R-1 Districts. He noted that home occupations as defined in the Open Space Development Standards would be permitted in multi-family dwellings. He continued that the Committee created a limitation of six bedrooms with regard to two family dwellings in Workforce Housing Overlays. He added that the lot size would need to be a minimum of 1.5 acres in accordance with the R-1 requirements. He stated that multi-family development would be allowed in R-A Districts as long as it was being used for workforce housing. He added that all lots shall meet all other local, state, and federal
requirements including those of the DES Subsurface Bureau.
Jon Willard explained that for construction of workforce housing to begin a conditional use permit would be required and only approved if the following conditions were found to exist: (1) the Workforce Housing Overlay District shall apply an overlay in the R-1 and R-A Districts; (2) at least 50% of the residential units that were created as part of the development shall meet the affordability criteria as defined by statute; (3) architecture shall be consistent with the rural character of the town; (4) the minimum living space per workforce housing unit for sale shall be a minimum of 850 square feet.
Jon Willard stated that the Committee in an effort to maintain affordability applied the following: (1) living space for workforce housing units for sale shall not be increased by 20% in any ten year period; (2) all workforce housing shall be sold with deed restrictions to remain in effect for at least 15 years; (3) an applicant that applies to the Board for approval of a Workforce Housing Overlay District development shall notify the Board in writing of the intention to provide workforce housing as required and notification shall occur within 30 days of the application; (4) the applicant shall provide evidence to the Board that the parcel has good road access, slopes less than 15% on at least 50% of the parcel, and the parcel contains soil conditions suitable for the level of development.
Jon Willard noted that the Committee added the following to the R-1 District: the applicant shall provide a feasibility study and assessment by a New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority approved vendor to verify that the proposed development could support the construction of workforce housing units at the current market affordability criteria.
Jon Willard stated that upon approval of a development under the Workforce Housing Overlay District the applicant would have 30 days from the date of approval to review the conditions and the approval. He continued that one 30 day extension by the Planning Board could be approved.
Jon Willard asked the Board if they had any questions with regard to the Overlay District. The Board did not comment.
Jon Willard noted that as a result of the regulation audit the Committee had made recommendations with regard to the Master Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, Site Plan Review Regulations, and the Building Code.
Jon Willard stated that the Committee’s recommendations for the Master Plan were as follows: (1) continue to review the Master Plan’s goals and objectives in reference to housing to ensure that barriers are not artificially placed in the Plan that will prohibit workforce housing development; (2) consider older residential buildings for office or multi-family use; (3) consider transfer of development rights programs that could allow development rights to be sold from historic buildings to areas of higher density; (4) encourage Open Space subdivisions; (5) consider performance standards for higher density development, re: access, soils, slopes, and wetlands; (6) consider the Village District concept to encourage a mix of commercial and residential uses; (7) consider the
Residential, Agricultural Open Space District as suggested in the Future Land Use chapter; (8) consider including multi-family residential development in the Small Scale Planned Commercial District.
Jon Willard went on to list the following recommendations for changes to the Zoning Ordinance: (1) consider allowing multi-family residential development in the Small Scale Planned Commercial District; (2) investigate the possibility of zoning more land in town R-1; (3) review front setback distances with an eye to reducing same if appropriate; (4) consider permitting home businesses (or home occupations) in multi-family in R-1; (5) change the setback requirement in the R-1 to 75’ to septic system and appurtenances and 50’ to buildings or consider removing altogether; (6) consider deleting special exceptions for accessory dwelling units; (7) review the 2 acre minimum lot size in the R-A District; (8) consider the frontage reduction in the R-A District; (9) investigate rezoning
land to manufactured housing park; (10) consider revising the 15 acre minimum tract size for manufactured housing parks; (11) delete the requirement for manufactured housing parks’ parking spaces to be paved; (12) delete the requirement for paved walkways in manufactured housing parks; (13) review 150’ setback requirement to structure, manufactured housing units, septic tank, leach field and piping; (14) specify landscaping that would be required in the 30’ strip around the park; (15) review the 30% impervious lot coverage; (16) review the requirement for corner lots to have two front yards and therefore two 50’ setbacks; (17) review off-street parking requirements particularly with regard to multi-family dwellings; (18) consider allowing multi-family dwellings in Open Space subdivisions; (19) review the 15 acre minimum tract size for Open Space subdivisions; and, (20) consider permitting accessory dwelling units for workforce housing in Open Space
subdivision.
Jon Willard stated the following recommendations for changes to the Subdivision Regulations: (1) update the waiver section following recent statutory changes; (2) consider removing sidewalk dimensions from the table of geometric and other standards; (3) review the benefit of impact studies and consider a corridor approach to traffic issues; and, (4) add details regarding the calculation of offsite road improvement fees.
Jon Willard stated the following recommendations for changes to the Non-Residential Site Plan Review Regulations: (1) consider combining Site Plan Review and Subdivision Regulations into Land Use Regulations to avoid duplication of statutorily required items; (2) review the language of the regulations to differentiate between business application of the regulations and residential applications; (3) detail whether a major or minor site plan would be required for the residential uses under the Site Plan Review Regulations; (4) create checklists specifically for residential uses under the Site Plan Review Regulations; (5) review Section 6, Phasing, as it may relate to residential versus business use; and, (6) review definitions for accuracy and currency.
Jon Willard listed the following recommendations for changes to the Building Code: (1) consider the scope of this document and whether or not multi-family has to be included; and, (2) consider rehabilitation code for older buildings.
Jon Willard asked the Board if they had any questions or comments.
Peter Hogan asked what towns have done to impede workforce housing. Jon Willard answered that towns can include onerous things in their Land Use Regulations that can increase the cost of development and in turn create a situation where workforce housing would was difficult to create. Peter Hogan asked what specifically was the Town of New Boston doing to make workforce housing difficult to implement. Jon Willard explained that New Boston was doing well with respect to creating opportunities for workforce housing. Ellen Kambol added that she was appointed by the Governor’s office to the Housing and Planning Conservation Partnership and during her meetings she frequently heard all of the good things that New Boston has done with respect to regulations. She
continued that the recommendations that were generated from the audit served the purpose to remove any barriers to workforce housing in an effort avoid any lawsuits against the Town.
Rodney Towne referenced the Committee’s data that 28% of New Boston’s property met the requirements for workforce housing and 30% of the housing on the market also met the requirements. He believed that the only area that would have an issue would be multi-family and did not believe that the Town would want more than 30%. Ellen Kambol stated that the statute required 50% of land to provide reasonable opportunity. She continued that a performance standard was not set in the statute. Jon Willard noted that the statute allowed for a town to go through a fair share analysis to determine a specific town’s fair share. He indicated that three towns would go through the fair share process.
Ellen Kambol noted that the basis of the workforce housing legislation was that land use regulatory practices over time have created the workforce un-affordability. She continued that New Boston had a consistent land use pattern dating back a couple of centuries. She explained that New Boston’s land use patterns precede regulatory statutes because of topography and wetlands.
The Chairman asked what recommendations made by the Committee would satisfy the statutory requirements. Jon Willard answered that he believed 90% of the overlay district recommendations would satisfy the statutory requirements. Ellen Kambol stated that the Board should refer to the Coordinator regarding which recommendations would remain actionable if not implemented. Jon Willard clarified that the list contained identifiable barriers to workforce housing. The Chairman suggested that the Committee prioritize the list of recommendations. Jon Willard agreed to compile a prioritized the list of have it ready for the next Planning Board meeting on November 10, 2009, at 6:30 p.m.
Miscellaneous Business
2. Letter received October 21, 2009, from Mark Leblanc, to New Boston Planning Board,
re: Indian Falls Repairs, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter. No discussion occurred.
3. Letter copy dated October 15, 2009, from Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant, to Board of Selectman and Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, re: letter of resignation, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter. No discussion occurred.
4. Letter dated October 15, 2009, from Kevin Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Planning Board Coordinator, re: Twin Bridge Estates – As-Built Review Comments, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter. No discussion occurred.
5a. Letter copy received October 7, 2009, from Douglas Hill, Douglas Hill Construction, to Board of Selectmen, re: plowing of Christian Farm Drive, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter. No discussion occurred.
5b. Letter copy dated October 21, 2009, from New Boston Board of Selectmen, to Douglas Hill, Douglas Hill Construction, re: Christian Farm Drive, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter. No discussion occurred.
6. October 2009, revision to the Planning Board Handbook from Office of Energy and Planning.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter. No discussion occurred.
7. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing from the Town of Bedford, re: installation of a wireless telecommunications facility.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter. No discussion occurred.
8. Distribution of the October 13, 2009, meeting minutes via email for approval at the meeting of November 10, 2009.
The Chairman noted that he had not seen the meeting minutes. The Coordinator stated her computer was not working and she was unable email the meeting minutes. She added that the minutes would be emailed prior to the next meeting.
11. Notice of Public Hearing from the Town of Marlborough Planning and Zoning Boards, re: installation of a cellular communications facility, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter. No discussion occurred.
1. Letter received October 20, 2009, from Albert Lachance, to New Boston Planning Board, re: request for final compliance, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman addressed 1, 10a, and 10b together as they were related. The Coordinator noted that at a site walk needed to be scheduled prior to the compliance hearing. The Board agreed to conduct a site walk on November 7, 2009, at 12:00 p.m.
10a. As-Built Plan Review Comments from Kevin Leonard of Northpoint Engineering, re: Albert LaChance, Lull Road upgrades, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman addressed the above-referenced matter under number 1 of Miscellaneous Business.
10b. Letter dated October 26, 2009, from Kevin Leonard of Northpoint Engineering, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: recommendation to consider roadway for acceptance for Lull Road, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman addressed the above-referenced matter under number 1 of Miscellaneous Business.
CLARK HILL TRUST By RR & JH TRUSSELL, TRUSTEES
Adjourned from 09/27/09
Public Hearing/Major Subdvision/12 Lots
Location: Clark Hill & Dennison Roads
Tax Map/Lot #8/1 & 4/62
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
Present in the audience for all or part of the hearing were Ruth Trussell, John Ashworth, Jonathan Markey, P.E., Charles Cleary, Esq., Katherine Kachavos, Gloria Chandler and Betsy Whitman.
The Chairman read the hearing notice. He seated Mark Suennen as a full voting member. The Chairman noted that the application was accepted as complete at the February 24, 2009, meeting. He added that the deadline for Board action was April 30, 2009. He noted that a number of extensions had been granted including one from the last meeting. He continued that if the application was not approved at the October 27, 2009, meeting an additional extension for the Board’s action would be required.
The Chairman stated that an informational session was held on this application on November 13, 2007, a hearing was held on August 26, 2008, and a site walk was held on September 13, 2008. He noted that four hearings were held on this application in 2008. He also noted that at the December 9, 2009, meeting, the applicant requested to withdraw the application and subsequently the application was re-filed and accepted as complete at the February 24, 2009, hearing. He stated that recently there had been a series of correspondence between Kevin Leonard, P.E., and Jonathan Markey, P.E. He continued that the Stormwater Analysis Calculations were updated and revised. He pointed out that an issue with the Stormwater Management Infrastructure needed to be addressed.
He noted that the waiver requests had all been acted upon. He stated that the conditional use permit and driveway permits needed to be addressed. The Chairman asked the applicant to present their plan to the Board.
Jonathan Markey, P.E., introduced himself to the Board and stated that he was hired by the applicant to mitigate the stormwater onsite. He stated that he tried to incorporate as many low impact development designs and concepts as possible to reduce the amount of maintenance. He added that he accomplished this by breaking up the subcatchments and having the water collect in smaller areas. He continued that the infiltration trenches he designed require far less maintenance than the structures on the previous plan. He also indicated that the proposed design had an infiltration pond with an outlet structure that would allow for vegetation to grow back that would assist with evapo-transpiration. He continued that the trenches were similar to stone lined trenches
that had added freeboard above the top of the storm for the purpose of creating larger storm vents. He also noted that most of the culverts that were previously proposed in the plan had been eliminated with the exception of a couple of culverts under the driveways. He stated that he was able to decrease the rate of runoff for all the design 10 year and 50 year storms. He noted that he had spoken with Kevin Leonard, P.E., on a number of occasions and that they had come to a decision on a Stormwater Management system that satisfied all the bylaws.
Jonathan Markey, P.E., asked the Board if they had any questions with regard to the Stormwater Management Plan. Peter Hogan commented that the presented plan had virtually no maintenance. Jonathan Markey, P.E., agreed that there was little maintenance. He added that he recommended mowing the side banks, however, if the applicant were to allow the areas to grow to a wooden meadow it would assist with evapo-transpiration.
Mark Suennen asked which lots continued to be dependent each other. Jonathan Markey, P.E., answered that stormwater from driveways would be collected on different lots. He added that because of the low impact design and low maintenance he did not foresee any problems with the proposed Stormwater Management Plan.
Peter Hogan read the following from the proposed Stormwater Management Plan, “If any of the infiltration systems do not drain within 72 hours following a rain fall event the homeowner should assess the condition of the facility to see if professional maintenance is necessary to restore proper infiltration”. He then asked who would be responsible for the aforementioned maintenance. Jonathan Markey, P.E., responded that the cost of maintenance would be the responsibility of the homeowner. Peter Hogan asked where this situation could occur. Jonathan Markey, P.E., responded that the situation could occur with regard to the infiltration trenches. Peter Hogan asked if the public road would be impacted should the infiltration system fail to
drain. Jonathan Markey, P.E., answered that the road would not be impacted. He explained that the proposed design used the infiltration rate of the percolation tested over the entire bottom area of the structure and provided freeboard for the 50 year storm. Ruth Trussell asked what the term freeboard meant. Jonathan Markey, P.E., explained that if a pail of water were to be filled halfway the freeboard would be the top part of the pail that did not contain water. He stated that infiltration trenches were designed so that in the event that they did clog to the point that the infiltration rate slowed down the evapo-transpiration would assist with draining within 72 hours.
Peter Hogan stated that he was concerned with the impact on the Town should a situation occur where the ground is frozen with snow upon it with potential for rainfall to collect and saturate the infiltration trenches but not be able to percolate into the ground. Jonathan Markey, P.E., stated that the infiltration trenches had been designed approximately a foot above the groundwater. He continued that the groundwater was approximately 50 degrees and would aid in keeping the trenches frost free.
The Chairman asked for any questions from the audience.
Katherine Kachavos of 200 Clark Hill Road asked if only one of the lots were sold but depended upon another lot for drainage who would be responsible for the construction and maintenance. Charles Cleary, Esq., attorney for the applicant, answered the first owner of the shared facility would be responsible for building the entire system to ensure that it worked. He added that by legal document the lot owner would be able to recover and seek reimbursement from the future homeowners who did not contribute initially. Katherine Kachavos asked who from the Town would be responsible for ensuring that the system would be built according to the plan set forth. Charles Cleary, Esq., answered that a thorough protection system was set-up through the subdivision regulations that
allowed for review of the building permit, denial of occupancy, and inspection. He further added that the regulations required a written certification, under oath, from the homeowner that everything was built to the standards. Katherine Kachavos asked if the Town Engineer would be responsible for signing off on the completed project. The Coordinator responded that during construction there were requirements for inspection as well at the end completion of the project that would be conducted by the design engineer and additionally the Building Inspector would look at things as he did building inspections. Charles Cleary, Esq., added that following site approval should any condition on the site change the Planning Board would require the homeowner to present a revised plan.
Betsy Whitman of 304 Cochran Hill Road stated that her property contained a swamp that was designated as conservation land. She continued that the swamp was home to beaver, heron, ducks, and other woodland creatures. She pointed out the location of her property on the displayed map. She was concerned that runoff from the driveways would affect the swamp on her property and she wanted to know where the runoff would be directed. The Chairman stated that it was his belief that no more water was coming off the site after construction than had been before. Jonathan Markey, P.E., pointed out the locations of the proposed driveways and explained that a series of culverts cross under the road and contribute to her swamp. He noted that all of the proposed culverts
would be evaluated to ensure that no more water would go there than what went there now.
Katherine Kachavos commented that earlier this month she had witnessed a snapping turtle that she believed to be 50 years old heading to the wetland area. She stated that she would like people to be aware of the possibility of turtles crossing.
The Chairman asked for any other questions or comments from the audience. No further discussion occurred.
The Chairman asked Charles Cleary, Esq., if he had been in contact with the Town attorney with regard to adding specific wording to the Stormwater Management Plan. Charles Cleary, Esq., explained that he had spoken with the Town attorney and the proposed wording was an acceptable addition to the Stormwater Management Plan.
The Chairman asked the applicant for a date for when the monuments were going to be set. Ruth Trussell indicated that upon approval work could begin the following week and take one to two weeks to complete. Mark Suennen asked if the work included any of the stonewalls that needed to be dismantled in order to build driveway access points and if so could some of those the stones be relocated and used on site. Ruth Trussell stated that the plan was to use drill holes where there were stonewalls and use rebar pipes where there were markers. She continued that the only reason stone would be moved from the stonewalls would be if there was not a big enough stone. She noted that she was not looking to disturb stonewalls if she did not have to.
Mark Suennen asked if Jonathan Markey, P.E., could specifically verify if the following lots shared drainage facilities; lots 1 and 2; lots 2 and 3; lots 4, 5, and 6; lots 6 and 7; and lots 8, 9, 10, and 11. Jonathan Markey, P.E., agreed that all of the lots were interdependent. Mark Suennen stated that one of the lots seemed to have more infrastructure on it than any other lot and subsequently the highest cost burden. He continued that because of the cost associated with the lot that contained the most infrastructure it may be one of the last lots to sell. He wanted to know if in order for any of the other lots to function, all of the infrastructure on the more burdened lot needed to be constructed by the first homeowner in the subdivision. Jonathan Markey,
P.E., stated that lot 8 and 9 worked together and lot 10 and 11 worked together. Mark Suennen asked if lot 9 and 10 worked together. Jonathan Markey, P.E., stated that lot 9 and 10 did not work together.
The Planning Assistant asked how the homeowner would recover the costs for constructing the stormwater systems on other lots. Charles Cleary, Esq., stated that the homeowner who funded the construction of the stormwater system would have a lien on the adjoining lot(s). He added that Ruth Trussell would be the initial owner of all the lots and consent to the lien and the second buyer in to clear the lien would have to pay it off.
The Chairman asked the applicants if they had seen the conditions precedent and conditions subsequent. Ruth Trussell stated that she had not seen the conditions precedent or conditions subsequent. The Chairman explained dates for completion of the conditions precedent and conditions subsequent needed to be chosen. He noted that if the conditions were not able to be met than an extension in writing was required.
Peter Hogan asked how long Charles Cleary, Esq., had been the applicant’s attorney. Charles Cleary, Esq., answered he had been retained on April 15, 2009. Peter Hogan stated that he had constant concern with this subdivision because the owner frequently represented the property as being protected from future development beyond the proposed plan based on current use. He contended that current use offered no protection and he wondered if this issue had been discussed with her. He continued that he believed the owner was doing a disservice to herself by not incorporating legal language for protection purposes. Ruth Trussell stated that legal language was in the covenants that prohibited further subdivision. Charles Cleary, Esq., acknowledged Peter Hogan’s concern and stated
that he and the applicant should discuss the issue further.
The Chairman asked the applicant for a date for the conditions precedent. Charles Cleary, Esq., responded 90 days. The Chairman noted the date for the conditions precedent would be January 30, 2010. The Coordinator advised that a date for the conditions subsequent was not required as this was an ongoing project. The Chairman stated that an item number three would be added to the conditions subsequent that states, “No building permit shall be issued to a building permittee unless and until a building permittee has received all easements necessary to construct and maintain any shared ISWMP facilities on any abutting lots.” Charles Cleary, Esq., indicated that the applicant did not object to the addition to the conditions subsequent.
The Chairman asked the Board for any further comments or questions.
Mark Suennen inquired if it was necessary to address the CUP prior to the vote on the conditions precedent and conditions subsequent. The Coordinator responded that the CUP could be addressed separately.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the subdivision plan of Clark Hill Trust By RR & JR Trussell, Trustees, Tax Map/Lot # 8/1, Clark Hill Road, for the subdivision of 12 lots, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of five (5) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections, waivers 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 the executed Access Easement, Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for Clark Hill Trust Subdivision, Declaration of Stormwater Management Installation and Maintenance and Trustee's Certificate. The cost of recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
5. Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set, and the appropriate fee for recording same with the HCRD.
6. Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.
7. Approved Pre-Engineered Individual Stormwater Management Plans may be resubmitted as the final Individual Stormwater Management Plans at the time of application for a building permit provided the builder complies with those plans. If critical areas are to be disturbed beyond those shown on the Pre-Engineered Individual Stormwater Management Plans, revised Individual Stormwater Management Plans shall be prepared and submitted for approval. If the Pre-Engineered Stormwater Management Plans are not to be used at the time of application for a building permit new Individual Stormwater Management Plans shall be submitted for approval. In any event, the bonds for the Individual Stormwater Management Plans
must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. Additionally, any revised or new Individual Stormwater Management Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Board for review, as well as to the Town Engineer, if necessary, at the applicant's expense.
8. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
9. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be January 30, 2010, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
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. No building permit shall be issued to a Building Permittee unless and until Building Permittee has received all easements necessary to construct and maintain any shared ISWMP facilities on any abutting lot(s).
4. 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. Should an ISWMP be required, the plan will be submitted to the Planning Board for review, as well as to the Town Engineer, if necessary, at the applicant's expense.
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. DISCUSSION: Mark Suennen asked if it
was reasonable to request a condition that stated, “substantive changes to the legal documents shall be reviewed by town counsel.” The Coordinator responded that she believed the applicant had been referring to different legal documents when the discussion took place about current use. The applicant’s attorney confirmed this to be the case. The Coordinator continued that there would be no changes to the legal documents listed in the motion. The motion PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked the applicant for a submittal date for the $11,800 bond for the wetland crossing as well as the form in which it would be submitted. Charles Cleary, Esq., inquired of the length of time that the Town would permit for submittal of the bond. The Coordinator responded she had never seen one longer than one year. She added that the wetland crossing installation could not begin until the bond was submitted. The Chairman stated that the deadline for the conditions precedent would be October 27, 2010, and the conditions subsequent deadline would be June 1, 2012.
Mark Suennen MOVED to accept the Conditional Use Permit application as complete, and to grant the Conditional Use Permit and approve the plans of Clark Hill Trust, by RR & JH Trussell, Trustees to effect one (1) wetland crossing on Dennison Road, known as Tax Map/Lot #8/1, as the four conditions for granting the Permit have been found to exist, subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of the financial security for the wetland crossing installation in the amount of $11,800.00 and in the form of a letter of credit or cash.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be October 27, 2010, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should the conditions to approval not be fulfilled by the deadline date, and a written request for extension is not submitted prior to that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. Completion of the site improvements as related to the one (1) wetland crossing, as shown on the approved construction design plan. The financial security shall not be released until the site has been inspected upon notification to the Planning Department by the applicants that the project has been completed, and a compliance hearing is held and confirms that the project has been satisfactorily completed by no later than June 1, 2012.
Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve driveway permits 08-16, 08-17, 08-18, 08-19, 08-20, 08-21, and 08-22. Mark Suennen seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Mark Suennen stated that he wanted to remove lot 12 from consideration until such a time as the conditions precedent regarding the wetland crossing were met. After discussion with the Coordinator, Mark Suennen withdrew his request. The motion PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, CONT.
9a. As-Built Plan Review Comments from Kevin Leonard of Northpoint Engineering, re: Twin Bridge Estates, for the Board’s review.
9b. Letter dated October 26, 2009, from Kevin Leonard of Northpoint Engineering, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: recommendation to consider roadway for acceptance for Twin Bridge Road, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman stated that he would address 9a and 9b together as they were related.
A site walk was scheduled for November 7, 2009, at 12:30 p.m. David Elliot was present for the discussion and explained Kevin Leonard, P.E.’s, concerns with the as-built plans showing the access easement driveway encroaching on neighboring lots. He noted that while the existing tire tracks may in fact have gone over lines the area set aside for the access was more than ample and
further use of the driveway would not have to be on private property. The Chairman noted one other issue as being setting of bounds and noted that this should be taken care of and the surveyor’s certification of bounds set submitted prior to the compliance hearing. David Elliot indicated that would not be a problem. He inquired after the Lull Road subdivision and was informed that the site walk would be November 7, 2009, at 12:00 p.m.
3. Letter copy dated October 15, 2009, from Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant, to Board of Selectmen and Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, re: letter of resignation, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman revisited the above-referenced matter. He stated that on behalf of the Board he would like to thank Michele for her work at the Planning Board and wished her luck at her new job.
Dave Elliot stated that the idea of saving stone from stonewalls when a driveway was being constructed sounded good but as an excavating contractor he found it to be a horrible idea. He continued that although material in a stonewall appeared to be able to be handled by a man that is not the case and large piles of huge boulders ended up being left at a property to the detriment of the land and aesthetics of the site.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn at 8:30 p.m. Rodney Towne seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Minutes Approved: 11/24/09
Valerie Diaz, Recording Clerk
| 
