TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of November 22, 2009
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members Don Duhaime and Douglas Hill and Ex-officio David Woodbury. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Board Assistant Shannon Silver and Recording Clerk Valerie Diaz.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, Jon Willard, Jay Marden, Ian McSweeney, Jim Dodge, Matt Conway, and Albert Lachance.
Discussion, re: Zoning Ordinance Amendments for 2010
Present in the audience were Workforce Housing Committee members Jay Marden and Jon Willard, and Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
The Chairman asked Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, if he was present to discuss any specific recommendations. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, responded that he was making himself available for any questions the Board had on his recommendations from the previous meeting. He added that he had provided the Coordinator an additional proposed zoning ordinance amendment. The Coordinator pointed out that the Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer’s amendments concerned Accessory Dwelling Units and the Building Code. The Chairman invited Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, to comment on his proposed amendments.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, noted that the current New Boston Building Code referenced the year 2000 IRC, as amended, and there was no reference that applied to multi-family or industrial/commercial properties. He offered the following suggestion as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, “The Town, by this ordinance, shall adopt the ‘New Hampshire Building Code’, as defined in RSA 155-A:1, IV. In addition, amendments to the referenced codes adopted by the State building code review board shall apply.” He further explained that the State Building Code included the IBC, the Plumbing Code, and the Electrical Code. He added that the Town of New Boston could add specific language to the Town Building Code incorporating the State Building Code
and its subsequent amendments.
The Chairman asked Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, if any downside existed with the proposed change. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, answered that he did not believe a downside existed. He pointed out that the IRC was updated every three years and that the Town of New Boston still had the IRC year 2000 referenced in the Building Code. He believed that adoption of the proposed amendment would create positive effects including housekeeping and issues regarding building in the Town of New Boston whether it was residential or commercial. David Woodbury commented that certain codes were not included in the New Hampshire Building Code, for example, the International Property Maintenance Code. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer,
confirmed that the International Property Maintenance Code was not included in the State Building Code. David Woodbury asked if the Town would have any interest in adopting a code that included the Property Maintenance Code. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, replied that the Town may have an interest in adopting such a code but noted that he had not reviewed it. David Woodbury commented that he believed the Property Maintenance Code was applicable to urban areas rather than rural areas. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, explained that an appendix in the code was not adopted by a state or a town unless there was a specific intent to do so. David Woodbury asked if the Town would be dropping established codes with the adoption of the State of New Hampshire Building Code. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer answered no.
The Chairman inquired if future changes in the statute regarding the Building Code would become effective immediately in the Town’s Building Code. The Coordinator responded yes. David Woodbury commented that upon adoption the statutes pertaining to the New Hampshire Building Code would change the Town’s Building Code. He added that trouble could arise should the Board feel that the proposed code was not stringent enough. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, pointed out that the Board had the ability to make necessary changes to the code. David Woodbury asked if someone might believe established provisions in the New Boston Building Code would be considered abandoned (for example, the sprinkler provision) by the adoption of the New Hampshire Building Code.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, answered that the code would not really be any different than it is currently because it is not in the adopted State Code but we have it in the New Boston Building Code. David Woodbury asked how the Town adopted the New Boston Building Code. The Coordinator answered that it was a stand alone document adopted the same way as zoning and was adopted in 1985. She stated that the code previously referenced BOCA and CABO and was updated to include the IRC as well as reference NFPA 13R and 13D for the multi-family and one and two-family sprinklers. David Woodbury stated that no matter what the Board decided to do with the Zoning Ordinance it would not affect the New Boston Building Code. The Coordinator confirmed David Woodbury’s statement.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if there was one remaining meeting to discuss Zoning Ordinance amendments. The Coordinator answered that the final discussion was taking place at the current meeting because at the next meeting a public input session was scheduled to discuss the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments. The Chairman asked Jon Willard if he would be available for the upcoming meetings. Jon Willard responded that he would be available.
The Chairman stated that he would be reviewing each proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment for the Board for the purpose of making a decision on whether to move forward on it or not.
David Woodbury asked if Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer or the Coordinator were aware of any points of conflict between the New Hampshire Building Code and the New Boston Building Code. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer answered that he was not aware of any conflicts. He also noted that the confusion regarding the IRC year 2000 as referenced in the New Boston Building Code would be clarified by referencing the most up-to-date State Building Code. The Chairman noted that the New Hampshire Building Code would replace the New Boston Building Code. David Woodbury was not sure if the Chairman’s statement was accurate.
The Chairman clarified that the discussion was about the Building Code document not about the Zoning. The Coordinator confirmed that the changes currently being discussed were to the Building Code. She further stated that the Building Code currently was up to date because it referenced the IRC 2000 “as amended”. The proposal before the Board was to refer to the IBC instead. She added that by adopting the proposed changes, the Town Building Code would always be referenced as defined by statue, therefore, always updated. David Woodbury asked if the Coordinator foresaw any internal inconsistencies. The Coordinator responded that she did not.
The Chairman asked if Don Duhaime had any comments or questions; he did not. The Chairman’s opinion was that the Board move forward with the proposed amendment to replace the IRC with the New Hampshire Building Code. Don Duhaime and David Woodbury agreed with the Chairman.
The Chairman referenced the New Boston Building Code, Section NB-2.8, with regard to Plans. He stated that the proposed amendment would require wetlands to be shown on any plans that the Building Inspector required for submittal. The Chairman, Don Duhaime and David Woodbury agreed to move forward with the proposed amendment.
The Chairman asked the Building Inspector to briefly explain his proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance with regard to the changes in the definitions of Building and Structure. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, explained that he proposed striking the words, “permanently located”, from the definition of Building. The Chairman asked if this change would be applicable to property owners that chose to place sheds on their property. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, clarified that the change would encompass anything that was not attached to a foundation. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she believed there were any issues with the proposed amendment. The Coordinator did not believe there were any
issues with the proposed changes. The Chairman, Don Duhaime, and David Woodbury agreed to move forward with the proposed changes to the definition of Building in the Zoning Ordinance.
The Chairman asked for clarification on the difference between the word Building and Structure. David Woodbury offered the example of a swimming pool or a fence to represent the meaning of Structure in addition to buildings. The Chairman indicated that he was in favor of moving forward on the proposed amendment for the definition of Structure found in the Zoning Ordinance. David Woodbury and Don Duhaime agreed with the Chairman.
The Chairman referenced the proposed change to Accessory Dwelling Units. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, recommended striking the word “living” from Section 404.3,9, and replacing it with “conditioned.” The Chairman asked for the definition of the word conditioned. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, responded that the word conditioned referred to areas that were heated or air conditioned. The Chairman asked if the word “conditioned” was a standard term. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, answered that conditioned was a standard term and could be explained easily should there be confusion. David Woodbury added that the word conditioned referred to climate
controlled areas. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, further
stated that conditioned space was not necessarily an attic or a basement. The Chairman asked if
there was an issue in the past where an attic and/or basement were considered living space. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, answered that an attic or a basement could easily become conditioned living space in which case the space would be subject to the limitations of an Accessory Dwelling Unit. He continued by offering an example of an open mezzanine area in a house that was conditioned living space but was being used for storage only. He went on to say that he could easily see the storage space as conditioned living space under the current definition but storage space was not part of an Accessory Dwelling Unit. The Chairman, David Woodbury, and Don Duhaime agreed to move forward with the proposed amendment to Accessory Dwelling Units.
The Chairman referenced Section 404.2, definition of Dwelling Unit, Accessory and noted the proposed change would add the following language, “In the event that an existing dwelling unit on a lot meets the requirements and limitations of an accessory dwelling unit, a second dwelling of any size, meeting all other zoning and building code requirements, may be built on the same lot to be considered thereafter the principal dwelling unit.” The Chairman also indicated that the Board had been interested in how other towns handled the situation of an existing dwelling unit meeting the requirements of an Accessory Dwelling Unit and a new principal dwelling unit being built on the property. The Coordinator was unable to find any information in this regard. The Chairman, Don Duhaime, and David
Woodbury agreed to move forward on the proposed amendment to the definition of Dwelling Unit, Accessory.
The Chairman indicated that the discussion for Building Code amendments was concluded, and he would be continuing with Zoning Ordinance amendments.
The Chairman stated that the first recommendation of the Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Committee was with regard to adding a Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Overlay District. The Chairman asked if Jon Willard had anything to add to the discussion; he did not. The Chairman, David Woodbury, and Don Duhaime agreed to move forward with the proposed amendment of adding a Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Overlay District to the Zoning Ordinance.
The Chairman continued that the second recommendation from the Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Committee was to delete the Special Exception requirement for Accessory Dwelling Units. The Chairman asked the Coordinator for confirmation that the Special Exception requirement for Accessory Dwelling Units as currently practiced by the Town of New Boston was consistent with other towns. The Coordinator confirmed the Chairman’s statement but added that at the time of her research she did not investigate how the other towns handled duplexes. She noted that some towns increased the lot size for duplexes but currently New Boston allows one-and two-family homes to be on the same size lot in the R-A District. The Chairman asked if any issues had arisen in the application of the current regulations.
The Coordinator answered that the two applications she was aware of had gone through the ZBA without any issues with regard to the Special Exceptions. She continued that the Committee highlighted this issue as a potential slow down in the production of workforce housing. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if this recommendation could be reviewed in one year should the Board decide to not move forward. The Coordinator answered that the Board could revisit this at a later time. Jon Willard commented that a single family home could be converted to a two family home under current regulations without going through the same process. He continued that the Committee was unclear why there was a different standard for an Accessory Dwelling Unit. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, commented that the following requirement existed: “a secondary dwelling is developed in a manner that does not alter the character or appearance
of the principal dwelling unit as a single family residence.” He explained that the ADU was supposed to be consistent with the existing residence and that it would be up to the Building Inspector to determine the consistency without the Planning Board’s review. Jon Willard asked if this was something that would be addressed at the ZBA. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, answered that the Special Exception was currently addressed by the ZBA and noted that without the Special Exception the consistency would continue to require approval but would be his responsibility instead.
The Chairman’s opinion was to not delete the Special Exception citing that there had not been any issues to date. David Woodbury commented that he was somewhat persuaded by Jon Willard’s argument that if a duplex could be constructed without the Special Exception process then why should workforce housing construction have to jump through hoops. He noted that he did not believe the deletion of the Special Exception was an important issue as a practical matter either way and suggested moving forward with the Committee’s recommendation. The Chairman asked for Don Duhaime’s position on the matter. Don Duhaime stated that he did not have an opinion either way. The Chairman asked David Woodbury for confirmation that he would be comfortable deleting the Special Exception
requirement. David Woodbury confirmed that he would be and asked for Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer’s and the Coordinator’s thoughts on the matter. Jon Willard commented that the Committee viewed the requirement as a potential barrier to workforce housing. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if the process for adoption would proceed as follows: public input, public hearing, and vote again on each of the recommendations. The Coordinator answered that the Board would need to make changes to the recommendations they would like to move forward on at the first public hearing and at the second public hearing a vote would be held as to which recommendations would be placed on the ballot. The Chairman changed his opinion and decided he would like to move forward with the recommendation to delete the Special Exception requirement for Accessory Dwelling Units. Don Duhaime agreed with the Chairman.
Regular Planning Board member Douglas Hill arrived.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, asked the Chairman if he would also delete the Special Exception requirement from the section about the character and appearance of the principal dwelling. The Chairman asked for clarification of what was required. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, read Section 404.3 as follows, “In granting a special exception the Board of Adjustment must find that the secondary dwelling unit is developed in a manner which does not alter the character or appearance of the principal dwelling unit as a single-family residence.” The Chairman indicated that the deletion of the Special Exceptions requirement for the Accessory Dwelling Units would also eliminate
that requirement. The Coordinator agreed with the Chairman and further stated that the Board
could leave that language in and, in the same fashion, the workforce housing overlay states that the architecture should match the Town of New Boston’s rural character. She noted that the requirement that the Accessory Dwelling Unit or the principal dwelling was occupied by the owner of the property more likely than not would keep things in character with their lot.
The Chairman moved on to the third recommendation of the Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Committee concerning the corner lot front yard setback requirements. He stated that a corner lot had two frontages, therefore, reducing the land available for development. It was the Chairman’s opinion that this recommendation should not be moved forward because he believed that a setback was necessary for lot frontage on a road for safety reasons. Jon Willard commented that the Committee was concerned with changes to a lot as a result of a road being constructed adjacent to the lot. The Chairman understood Jon Willard’s position but stated he was concerned with safety aspects. David Woodbury commented that he was skeptical as to why two 50’ setbacks were required. He continued
that the consensus from the previous meeting was that the Board was comfortable with the current requirement. He added that he was having a difficult time trying to envision what a corner lot might look like if a house was built 50’ one way and 20’ the other way. The Chairman noted that he was not concerned with the aesthetics of the lot. He stated that he was concerned that a corner lot was not held to the same standards as all other lots simply because of its classification being a corner lot. David Woodbury inquired as to the reasons why the Town required a 50’ setback other than for aesthetics. He believed that a snowplow was not an issue. He asked if children playing near the road was a concern. The Chairman answered that children playing too close to the road could be a potential problem. He also stated that should a car drive off the road he felt that a 20’ setback was too close. Don Duhaime agreed
with the Chairman that the setbacks should remain at 50’ for both sides.
Douglas Hill asked if the 200’ squares were still required for each side of the lot for frontage. The Coordinator answered that currently two 200’ squares were required. She added that should the setbacks be changed one 200’ square would no longer be required. It was Douglas Hill’s opinion that as long as a lot could retain a 200’ box on one side he was not concerned with the setbacks. Don Duhaime asked which side would be chosen. Douglas Hill answered that the setback on both roads would be 50’ but as long as you could get 200’ box on one of the roads it should be a lot. He continued that the current regulations require a 200’ box on both sides of the corner lot. Douglas Hill indicated that he believed the 50’ setbacks
were fine. He continued that he was taking issue with the 200’ box requirement.
The Chairman reminded the Board that the current discussion was about the Committee’s recommendation for corner lots setbacks.
Jon Willard asked the Board if a road was cut after the fact would all structures that were not outside of the 50’ setback become grandfathered. The Chairman believed that to be true. The Coordinator added that the road would need to be designed so that the lot remained conforming. Jon Willard stated that should a situation arise where a road was proposed to be built after the fact the builder of the road should have the burden of keeping the lot conforming not the homeowner. The Coordinator explained that if the road would not keep the lot conforming by being built, the builder would need to apply for a variance to be allowed to build the road and make the lot non-conforming. Jon Willard stated that he believed the road would need to be at least 30’ from the property line to
maintain the 50’ setback. He asked the Board if a setback requirement for a road from a property line existed. The Coordinator responded no, with the exception of drainage issues. She noted the road right-of-way needed to be 50’ and within that requirement one side may be closer than the other.
David Woodbury asked the Coordinator what the practical result would be for a decision one way or the other on the proposed recommendations and amendments. She noted that decisions that were made to not move recommendations and amendments forward would be dropped from the discussion and not be seen again. David Woodbury stated that he did not want to foreclose the discussion on the 50’ setbacks without more discussion either at the public hearing or another forum. The Chairman commented that the recommendation with regard to 50’ setbacks could be moved forward to gain public input and make a decision at that point. He noted that he did not have a problem with David Woodbury’s suggestion. Douglas Hill and Don Duhaime also agreed to move the recommendation forward for public
input.
The Chairman addressed the Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Committee’s fourth recommendation, off-street parking requirements. The Coordinator stated that the Commercial Committee had completed extensive work in the design guidelines that led them to the suggestion that parking should not be permitted at the front of buildings. The Commercial Committee recommended that parking should be located to the side or the rear of commercial buildings. She continued that the current Zoning Ordinance allowed for parking to take place within 50% of a lot’s setbacks. She advised the Board that if their intent was to have zoning match the design guidelines they could consider the following options: (1) prohibit parking in any setback; (2) prohibit parking in the front setback, allowing for parking
within 50% of the side and rear setbacks.
Don Duhaime commented that he would recommend that the Board move forward with the second option of prohibiting parking in the front setback and allow for parking in the side and rear setbacks.
David Woodbury noted that when considering parking space area the size of a stationary vehicle would be taken into account as well as the amount of space that a vehicle required to maneuver in and out of a parking space. He asked the Coordinator how the Town defined parking area. The Coordinator replied that the Town did not define parking area. She explained that the Town counted spaces in accordance with the requirements and noted that the driveways were not included. Don Duhaime pointed out that maneuvering of a vehicle in and out of a parking space was taken into consideration during the design process. The Chairman asked Douglas Hill for any additional comments; he did not have anything to add. The Chairman agreed with Don Duhaime with regard to recommending that the Board move
forward with prohibiting parking in the front setback and allowing parking in the side and rear setbacks. David Woodbury agreed with the Chairman.
The Coordinator stated that the Commercial Committee suggested that the Board review
the number of spaces required for different uses. She continued that the Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Committee recommended reviewing the parking requirements for multi-family developments. She noted that the Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Committee believed that requiring a certain number of parking spaces per dwelling unit could increase the cost of development and create a barrier to workforce housing production. She advised that through research of local towns’ multi-family parking requirements it was determined that most towns require 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. She added that Derry requires 1.25 spaces per bedroom. She explained to the Board that through a random Google search of towns across the country it was determined that the majority of towns require 2 spaces per dwelling unit. She also pointed out that some towns require a parking space on a per bedroom basis. She indicated that most towns refer to standards created by the American Planning Association,
the Urban Land Institute, or the Institute of Traffic Engineers when considering the number of required parking spaces. She stated that she could not find information relative to parking associated with multi-family housing. She explained that the available information was geared toward urban development. She did note that surface parking lots typically cost between $2,000 and $3,000 per space. She advised that the Board could decide to require parking spaces based on number of bedrooms per dwelling unit or leave the requirement as is and amend the site plan regulations to require that multi-family parking lots have landscaping and screening requirements. She acknowledged that the latter option would also increase the cost of the development. The Chairman commented that in the interest of keeping costs down the requirement for 2 spaces per dwelling unit may be the best option.
Don Duhaime asked how the aforementioned parking space requirement discussion related to the commercial district. The Coordinator clarified that the discussion only pertained to multi-family housing.
David Woodbury asked if the Town envisioned future development of one-and two- bedroom apartments. The Coordinator answered that should the Workforce Housing Overlay District be adopted the possibility for different sized units in New Boston could be created. She added that the Workforce Housing Overlay District could create the opportunity for conversions of older farmhouses into multi-unit dwellings. It was David Woodbury’s opinion that most likely a family would not require more than 2 spaces. Don Duhaime entertained the possibility that a family would need for more than 2 spaces due to teenage drivers in the home. David Woodbury agreed with Don Duhaime’s hypothetical scenario and believed that 2 spaces per dwelling unit was an appropriate minimum. Douglas Hill agreed
with David Woodbury’s statement. Don Duhaime asked for the Board’s opinion on requiring parking spaces on a per bedroom basis. The Coordinator addressed a possible issue with requiring parking spaces based on a per bedroom basis by posing a hypothetical situation in which a married couple living in a one bedroom dwelling may require more than one parking space. Don Duhaime acknowledged the Coordinator’s position. Jon Willard commented that visitor spaces would not be available.
The Chairman believed that the current requirement of 2 spaces per dwelling unit was appropriate and would like to leave the requirement as is. It was Don Duhaime’s opinion that the requirement should be changed to allow for 1 parking space per bedroom. The Chairman asked if defining a bedroom in a dwelling could become problematic. Don Duhaime answered that the building permit would clearly identify the number of bedrooms in a dwelling. The Chairman asked Don Duhaime if his intention was to provide 3 parking spaces for a 3 bedroom dwelling. Don Duhaime confirmed that his intention was to provide a parking space for each bedroom. Jon Willard noted that Don Duhaime was looking to increase the required amount of spaces per dwelling. Don Duhaime commented that due to the
current state of the economy there was an increase of children moving back home with their parents and allowing for additional parking spaces could alleviate potential issues of on-street parking. The Chairman asked for David Woodbury’s opinion on the matter. David Woodbury believed that the current requirement of 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit was appropriate. Douglas Hill expressed that the current requirement should stay as is. The Board decided to leave the parking requirement that allows for 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit as is.
The Chairman addressed the Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Committee’s fifth recommendation that sought to permit Accessory Dwelling Units in Open Space Subdivisions. The Chairman asked the Coordinator to explain the recommendation. The Coordinator advised that Open Space Subdivisions do not currently permit Accessory Dwelling Units. She referred the Board’s attention to the December 9, 2008, Planning Board meeting minutes. The Chairman noted that these minutes indicated that the Board had decided not to move forward with the recommendation. He asked the Board if they believed the recommendation should be moved forward at this time. Jon Willard commented that the Town currently allowed duplexes and two-family dwellings in Open Space developments. Douglas Hill stated
that development on a one acre lot was tight and it was his opinion not to move forward with the Committee’s recommendation. Jon Willard questioned if there was enough room for a two-family dwelling in an Open Space Subdivision. Douglas Hill replied that he did not think there was enough room for a two-family dwelling and he believed that the requirement should be changed. The Chairman inquired if the issue was relative to the footprint of the detached structure. Douglas Hill’s opinion was that it was a challenge to construct a duplex. Don Duhaime inquired as to how the construction of duplexes was completed at the Salisbury Road development. Douglas Hill pointed out that the Salisbury Road development was not an Open Space Subdivision. The Chairman asked David Woodbury for any comments or questions. David Woodbury stated that if duplexes were permitted in Open Space Subdivisions he believed that Accessory Dwelling Units
should be permitted as well. Douglas Hill commented that he did not realize that duplexes were permitted in Open Space Subdivisions and agreed with David Woodbury. David Woodbury added that alternatively perhaps duplexes should be prohibited from being developed in Open Space Subdivisions. The Chairman agreed with David Woodbury. David Woodbury inquired if there have been problems in the past with duplexes in an Open Space Subdivision. The Coordinator was unsure if a request had ever been made to construct a duplex in an Open Space Subdivision. The Chairman commented that it may not be a practical matter. Jon Willard commented that Accessory Dwelling Units would be smaller than duplexes. He continued that the intent for allowing the Accessory Dwelling Units was to bring relatives together and eliminate potential barriers to affordable housing. David Woodbury commented that it may be easier to create an Accessory Dwelling Unit in
an Open Space Subdivision rather than a duplex.
The Chairman asked the Board for their opinions on whether or not to move forward with the recommendation. Don Duhaime was in favor of permitting Accessory Dwelling Units in Open Space Subdivisions. He suggested creating a minimum size for the Accessory Dwelling Units. The Coordinator noted that the current size requirements for an Accessory Dwelling Unit were between 300 square feet and 1,000 square feet. Don Duhaime suggested that for Open Space Subdivisions the size requirement be changed to be between 500 square feet and 600 square feet. Douglas Hill stated that he did not believe the square footage was an issue. He continued that he believed there would be issues with parking, frontage and driveways.
The Board agreed to move forward with the Committee’s recommendation to permit Accessory Dwelling Units in Open Space Subdivisions.
The Chairman addressed the Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Committee’s final recommendation to review Non-Residential Site Plan Review Regulations with regard to language that classified business versus certain types of residential. The Coordinator noted that the recommendation did not need to be decided upon as part of the Zoning Ordinance and could be addressed at a later time.
The Chairman suspended the discussion of Zoning Ordinance amendments for 2010.
VISTA ROAD, LLC Adjourned from 10/13/09
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: Wilson Hill Road
Tax/Map Lot #6/33
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He noted that the applicant was previously before the Board with regard to frontage on a Class VI road. He continued that the applicants were advised that a variance from the ZBA needed to be granted prior to the Planning Board acting on the approval of the subdivision. He stated that the ZBA denied the applicant’s request for a variance and subsequently the applicant had requested an adjournment to January 26, 2010, pending an appeal of the ZBA’s decision.
The Chairman invited questions or comments from the Board. David Woodbury asked if the subdivision was created and a cell tower was never constructed what would need to happen if the applicant decided to construct a house on the approved subdivision. The Coordinator advised that a variance from the ZBA would run with the land creating frontage for the lot regardless of what was built. She indicated that notes on the Plan stated the lot was only to be used for a cell tower. She explained that if the applicant wanted to change the use of the land they would need to come before the Planning Board to have the note removed from the Plan. David Woodbury asked what obstacles existed should the applicant decide to come before the Planning Board and request approval for the construction of a
house on a Class VI road. The Coordinator noted that
any obstacles would have been alleviated as the applicant would have needed to complete a release of liability and received a variance prior to the subdivision.
The Chairman asked if the Board could determine not to remove the note from the Plan.
The Coordinator stated that the lot was zoned R-A and that the applicant voluntarily placed the restriction on themselves. She indicated that for purposes of recording the Plan at the Registry of Deeds the applicant would need to come before the Planning Board to request removal of the note.
Ian McSweeney of Tucker Mill Road asked if the ZBA could grant a variance with conditions that the subdivision only be permitted to have a cell tower or other non-residential use. The Coordinator answered no because variances run with the land and the Town of New Boston does not allow a non-buildable lot to be created. David Woodbury added that a Special Exception situation would allow for certain conditions to be placed on an approval.
The Chairman asked for further comments or questions. David Woodbury stated that the Board of Selectmen recently received a request for a house to be constructed on Laurel Lane which is a Class VI road. He asked what changes occur to addresses when more than three homes are built on a Class VI road. The Coordinator answered that she believed the changes to addresses only occurred on private roads. She added that a Class VI that is not maintained may need to have clustered mailboxes. David Woodbury inquired if the Board of Selectmen could grant ten houses on a Class VI road if such a request was made. The Coordinator confirmed that the Selectmen could grant such a request.
The Chairman invited any further comments or questions; there were no further comments or questions.
David Woodbury MOVED to approve the requested adjournment of the Submission of
Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/2 Lots, Location: Wilson Hill Road,
Tax/Map Lot #6/33, Residential–Agricultural “R-A” District, to January 26, 2010, at 7:30
p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Discussion, re: Zoning Ordinance Amendments for 2010, Cont.
The Chairman stated that the Board had previously agreed to make the following changes in the Site Plan Review Regulations, Section 3.9, with regard to an RF Engineer, “The applicant shall provide a signed and stamped certificate by an RF Engineer certification stating that the maximum radio frequency radiation of the proposed facility and cumulative RFR of any existing facilities at the site will not exceed the FCC Guidelines. The FCC Guidelines shall be incorporated as part of this certification.”
The Coordinator asked if the Board had intended to leave the definition of RF Engineer in Zoning as it stood. The Chairman answered yes. The Board agreed to change the Site Plan Review Regulations, Section 3.9, as previously addressed and leave the definition of RF Engineer in the Zoning Ordinance as is.
The Chairman indicated that he had not gathered the antenna array information as previously discussed at the November 10, 2009, Planning Board meeting. He noted that he did
not have any further information to add. He continued that the antenna arrays’ diameter would not change. The Coordinator added that the current diameter of the antenna arrays was 4’ and
the last applicants requested 14’. The Board decided not to change the diameter of the antenna arrays and use the waiver or variance process if needed.
The Chairman stated that the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 403.12, with regard to Timing of Operation would be revised as follows, “Operation of a personal wireless service facility shall commence no later than nine (9) twelve (12) months from the date the application was approved. If the personal wireless service facility is not operating and providing the citizens of the Town with personal wireless services, as defined, within this time period, the applicant shall report to the Planning Board in writing stating the reasons why the personal wireless service facility is not operating. The applicant may request an extension to the deadline for operation and the Planning Board may consider same or, at its discretion, may revoke its the approval.
The Chairman indicated that the reason for the time period of 12 months was to avoid an applicant from receiving approval and failing to ever deploy the facilities.
The Chairman stated that he was in favor of the proposed amendments. He asked the Board for any comments or questions. David Woodbury stated that he was okay with the amendment but asked why there was a problem with granting a permit and allowing the applicant to not act on it indefinitely or for a long period of time. The Chairman stated that another applicant might be willing to complete the project immediately but would not be able to do so because they were blocked out. He added that subsequently the Town would suffer because of lack of coverage.
The Board agreed to move forward with the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 403.12, Timing Operation.
The Chairman stated that the Conservation Commission wanted to add the following language to the Wetlands and Stream Corridor Conservation District, Section 204.6, C, 4, c, 1, “removal of trees or limbs that present an imminent threat to safety or property.”
The Chairman stated that he did not have an issue with the proposed amendment. David Woodbury asked for clarification on the amount that was intended by phrase “some shrubs”. Douglas Hill commented that he believed that intention was most likely to prevent clear cutting. The Chairman pointed out that the ordinance required that any shrubs that were removed needed to be replaced. The Chairman asked if David Woodbury had a suggested change. David Woodbury did not.
The Chairman invited any further comments or questions; there were none. The Board agreed to move forward with the proposed amendment to Section 204.6, C, 4, c, 1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Chairman noted that the following proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance were housekeeping items:
Section 204.1 Industrial
- Change the Permitted Use “Newspaper and Printing” to two separate uses as
redefined during the work on the commercial district: “Newspaper” and “Printing/Copying”.
- Change the Special Exception use “Vehicular Sales and Repair Facility” to two
separate uses as redefined during the work on the commercial district: “Vehicular Sales Facility” and “Vehicular Repair Facility”.
- Change the Special Exception use “Research and /or testing laboratory” to the definition as redefined during the work on the commercial district: “Research & Development Facility”.
Section 204.3 R-1
- Add a Permitted Use: “Open Space Development in accordance with the provisions of Article IV”. Section 401 allows Open Space Developments in the R-1 but this was never added to the list of uses in the district itself.
Section 204.3 R-A
- In the “Objectives and Characteristics” paragraph, delete the words “some land having slopes of over 15%”. With the Steep Slopes District permitting development anywhere with an Individual Stormwater Management Plan, this can no longer be said to be said a “…factor limiting development…”.
- Change Permitted Use “Cluster Residential Development…” to “Open Space Development…”. This was never changed when the Section was revised in 2007.
- Change the Note that reads: “Home business shall not be permitted to occur in cluster residential developments.” to read “Home business as defined in this ordinance shall not be permitted to occur in Open Space Developments. However, Home Occupations are permitted as defined in Article IV, Section 401, Open Space Development Standards”.
Section 309 Location of Driveways
- Change reference to “Selectmen” in this section to “Road Agent and/or Planning Board” since the Selectmen no longer deal with Driveway Permits.
Section 602 Definitions
The Coordinator noted that the only new proposed amendment was with regard to agricultural section. She continued that based on the Board’s discussion on the cordwood business it was determined that the Town’s definition of “agriculture” did not mirror the State’s definition. She indicated that by adding the language, “all operations of a farm”, the issue would be remedied.
- The definition would read as follows:
Agriculture, Farm & Farming: 1. The word “farm” means any land, buildings, or structures on or in which agriculture and farming activities are carried out or conducted and shall include the residence or residences of owners, occupants, or employees located on such land. Structures shall include all farm outbuildings used in the care of livestock, and in the
production and storage of fruit, vegetables, or nursery stock; in the production of maple syrup; greenhouses for the production of annual or perennial plants; and any other structures used in operations as listed in Number 2 below:
2. The words “agriculture” and “farming” shall mean those items all
operations of a farm as listed in RSA 21:34-a, as amended, and shall also include the practice of veterinary medicine. (Amended March 13, 2001.)
Douglas Hill asked if an applicant decided to operate both a “Vehicular Sales” and “Repair Facility” would it be necessary to apply for both. The Coordinator confirmed that the applicant would need to apply for both as part of their Site Plan Review.
The Board agreed to move forward on all of the aforementioned housekeeping amendments.
The Chairman noted that the Small Scale Planned Commercial District Design Guidelines would be revised in-house and adopted at a public hearing in the future.
The Chairman advised that the Board would be waiting until 2011 to address proposed amendments for the rezoning of lots.
The Chairman moved on to discuss proposed signage and parking amendments. The Coordinator advised the Board had already discussed the parking amendments with regard to permitted parking in setbacks. She continued that with regard to signage, Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, had voiced his concern relative to signage advertisement requirements. She believed that the Board was out of time to review the signage ordinance in a meaningful way for 2010. The Board agreed to postpone any signage amendments to 2010. Don Duhaime asked if the parking amendments would also be postponed until 2010. The Coordinator answered that the Board could decide to add a review of the parking ordinance to their list of goals for 2010. The Board decided to postpone review of the
parking amendments until 2010.
The Chairman stated that final Zoning Ordinance amendments were suggestions from the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission regarding Groundwater Resources. He asked the Coordinator to review the suggestions. The Coordinator commented that the Commission had reviewed the Town’s existing Groundwater Resources Conservation District and suggested amendments according to the 2006 DES Model Ordinance. She specifically noted that an update of the aquifer maps would be necessary. She also indicated that the addition of a Conditional Use Permit process would be added to address issues that are permitted and require performance standards. She pointed out that the Commission referred to the outdated Stormwater Management Handbook. She questioned why the Exemptions section mentioned
one-and two-family residential developments but not multi-family developments. She also advised that the title of the Town’s gravel regulations needed to be updated. Douglas Hill asked for clarification if it was the Board’s intention to add these amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. The Coordinator clarified that these were updates to the existing Groundwater Resources Conservation District Ordinance based on the DES model. She noted that the Board could choose to move the amendments forward and further discuss at the public input hearing. The Board agreed to move the proposed amendments forward to the public input session. The Chairman asked everyone to be sure to read the proposal thoroughly prior to that input session.
The Chairman concluded the discussion on Zoning Ordinance amendments.
The Board took a five minute recess.
LACHANCE, A J & C S
Compliance Hearing/Major Subdivision/9 Lots
Location: NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Lull Road & Middle Branch Roads
Tax/Map Lot #2/112-2
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Albert LaChance was present in the audience. The Chairman advised that the application and plans were approved with conditions on March 27, 2007, with a deadline for compliance on June 26, 2010. He continued that a site walk was held on Saturday, November 7, 2009. He pointed out that fees for certified letters in the amount of $119.00 remained outstanding. Albert LaChance stated that he had mailed the fees as of November 23, 2009. The Chairman continued that this subdivision did not require a submission of a maintenance bond as part of the approval.
The Chairman invited the Board to share comments or questions; there were no comments or questions.
The Chairman set a deadline of December 1, 2009, for the Conditions Precedent.
David Woodbury MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the Major Subdivision/8 Lots of Tax Map/Lot #2/112-2, N.H. Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Lull Road and Middle Branch Road and to release the financial security being held for road construction, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1.Submission of certified letter fees in the amount of $119.00.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be December 01, 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.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 24, 2009
1.Approval of minutes of October 27, 2009, distributed by email.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of October 27, 2009, as written. Don
Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED: Douglas Hill, Don Duhaime, Stu Lewin – AYE. David Woodbury abstained.
5.Article from New Hampshire Town & City Magazine, November/December 2009, titled Land Use Decisions, Expert Opinions and the Board’s Personal Knowledge, by David R. Connell, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter. No discussion
occurred.
6.Copy of the Meeting Notes and the SWOT analysis results from the Regional Economic Development Plan Public Workshop, November 16, 2009, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman noted that the next meeting was scheduled for January 2010. He asked if
the Coordinator received an e-mail of this information and noted that she was supposed to
complete this analysis also. The Coordinator acknowledged receipt and advised that she would
complete.
The Chairman stated that it was unclear after speaking with a representative from Weare
how small towns like New Boston would benefit from the Regional Economic Plan.
4a.Letter dated November 18, 2009, from Ruth R. Trussell, Trustee, Clark Hill Trust, to Mr. Stuart Lewin, Chair, New Boston Planning Board, re: Clark Hill Trust Subdivision Agreement, for the Board’s review and discussion.
4b.Copy of Clark Hill Trust Subdivision Agreement.
The Chairman stated that he would address 4a and 4b together as they were related. He
could understand the applicant’s point of view regarding the Subdivision Agreement but noted that it was the Board’s standard agreement. He referenced item number #3 of the above-referenced agreement and noted that if what was represented to be shown on the subdivision plan could not be found on the plan then the section would not apply. He went on to the applicant's concern with paragraph #6, noting that the paragraph had the notation “N/A” with regard to the bond which he thought was sufficient.
The Chairman noted that the applicant sought to have the letter attached to the
Subdivision Agreement. Douglas Hill commented that it appeared the applicant was asking for
clarification. The Coordinator stated that the applicant had previously been given clarification
and suggested that a letter from the Planning Board was appropriate. David Woodbury asked if
crossing out paragraph six would satisfy the applicant. Douglas Hill commented that he
agreed with David Woodbury’s suggestion. The Board agreed to cross out number six and sign
the copy.
TWIN BRIDGE LAND MANAGEMENT, LLC
Compliance Hearing/Major Subdivision/23 Lots
Location: Twin Bridge Road – new road (Page Lane)
Tax/Map Lot #2/62 & 3/3
Manufactured Housing Park “MHP” (single family per R-1 District)
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He stated that the application and plans were approved with conditions on April 26, 2005, and the deadline for compliance was December 1, 2009. He continued that a memo from Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint
Engineering, dated October 26, 2009, had been received. He added that a letter dated November 9, 2009, was received from Ken Clinton, LLS, Meridian Land Services, Inc., certifying the setting of the bounds for the subdivision. He noted that the Board held a site walk on Saturday, November 7, 2009. He pointed out that fees for certified letters for this compliance hearing remained outstanding in the amount of $266.00. He also stated that the condition to submit a warranty deed for the road remained outstanding. The Coordinator clarified that a warranty deed had been submitted, however, it had not been executed. The Chairman continued that a maintenance bond was required in the amount of $30,000.00.
The Chairman noted that guardrails at the end of the property that go over the culvert appeared to have significant holes by the posts. He was unclear if the damage had been caused because the guardrails had been struck or because of erosion. He believed that the holes should be filled in. The Coordinator and David Woodbury noted that they did not see any damage during the site walk. The Chairman asked if the Board could require as a condition subsequent that the holes been filled in. The Coordinator stated that they could.
The Chairman stated that it appeared that a couple of the driveways were not at a negative slope off the road. He was unsure how the driveways currently under construction would be able to retain a negative slope after paving. The Coordinator advised that the driveways were approved and signed off by the Road Agent. She added that in the past that if the Road Agent feels that the slope will not impact roadside drainage he would sign off on the driveway. The Chairman reiterated that he did not believe that the driveways were at a negative slope.
The Chairman asked for any questions or comments from the Board. David Woodbury asked the Coordinator for clarification on why the road he believed to be Page Lane did not appear to be Page Lane on map presented at the Selectmen meeting. The Coordinator explained to that he was not looking at the correct plan. David Woodbury sought clarification that the Selectmen had not seen Page Lane. The Coordinator confirmed that the Selectmen had not seen Page Lane which was to the east of the proposed roads which had been indicated on the plan to which David Woodbury was referring.
The Chairman asked for any questions or comments from the public.
Matt Conway of 189 Twin Bridge Road, Weare, asked if an additional road would be constructed perpendicular to Twin Bridge Road for access to the development. Douglas Hill noted that the only access would be from the New Boston side. The Coordinator stated that the point of access to the second phase of the Subdivision would be located near the red cistern.
The Chairman asked the public for further questions or comments; there were no
questions. The Chairman asked the Board for further questions or comments; there were no questions.
The Chairman stated that the Date Certain would be January 24, 2010. He also indicated that he would like to add a condition that the applicant would fill in and stabilize the damaged guardrail post. He stated that he would check the property to ensure the repairs were completed.
David Woodbury MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of Twin Bridge Land Management, LLC's Major Subdivision of 22 lots with one remainder on Tax Map/Lot #2/62 & 3/3, Twin Bridge Road (new road Page Lane), and to release the financial security being held for road construction, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a maintenance security in the amount of $30,000.00, to be held by the Town for two years. Said security may require review and approval by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant. The Selectmen shall not act to accept Page Lane as a town road until the maintenance security is in place.
2 .Submission of certified letter fees in the amount of $266.00.
3. Submission of executed Warranty Deed for Page Lane. The Selectmen shall not act to accept Page Lane as a town road until the deed has been submitted and is recorded at the HCRD.
4. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD.
5. Investigate, repair and stabilization as necessary of holes by the guardrail posts. Repair to be inspected by members of the Planning Board for satisfactory completion.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be January 24, 2010, 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.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Jay Marden asked why the $30,00.00 maintenance fee was required. The Chairman
responded that the maintenance fee was required for any potential problems. Jay Marden asked
if the road was accepted. The Coordinator clarified that the road was currently approved and that
the Selectmen would need to accept the road. Jay Marden asked when the Board of Selectmen
would accept the road. The Coordinator responded that the road could be accepted when all the
required conditions were met and an acceptance hearing was held.
The Chairman asked Jim Dodge if he was present for a particular matter. Jim Dodge asked if the compliance hearing on Lull Road had already taken place. The Chairman responded that it had. Jim Dodge commented that he believed the hearing was scheduled for 8:00 p.m.. The Chairman confirmed that it was and added that the hearing took place at 8:00 p.m. Jim Dodge questioned why the Lull Road subdivision did not appear to be tarred to the last lot. The Coordinator explained that recent case law stated that as long as the Planning Board discussed the issue and the road extends far enough to get access to the lot the entire frontage does not have to have the paving. She noted that following the court’s decision the Board had discussions regarding this issue and determined how far
the paving would need to be completed.
Jim Dodge noted that he was not aware of the site walk for Lull Road but would have liked to have been present. He stated that an additional culvert was constructed on Lull Road. He explained that when the road was being constructed a wall was opened at the left hand ditch to drain onto his property. He continued that he requested that the property owner install a culvert; the property owner subsequently installed a culvert. He noted that the culvert ran through August and if the culvert had not been installed the water would have drained onto his property. He wanted the Board to be aware of the aforementioned matter for future
consideration. Douglas Hill commented that the matter had been discussed in the field by the Road Agent and Town Engineer.
2. Request dated November 13, 2009, from Douglas Wilkins, Anderson & Kreiger, LLP, to
Mr. Stuart Lewin, Chair, Planning Board, re: request for an extension on conditions
precedent deadline, submission of required documentation and request for clarification
regarding conditions subsequent, Old Coach Road, Tax/Map Lot #8/132, for the Board’s
action.
3. Request dated November 13, 2009, from Douglas Wilkins, Anderson & Kreiger, LLP, to
Mr. Stuart Lewin, Chair, Planning Board, re: request for an extension on conditions
precedent deadline, submission of required documentation and request for clarification
regarding conditions subsequent, Wilson Hill Road, Tax/Map Lot #6/33, for the Board’s
action.
The Chairman noted that he would address 2 and 3 together as they were related. He stated that the above-referenced matter was with regard to extending the conditions precedent for the cell towers as well as requests for clarification on the conditions subsequent.
The Chairman referenced item number 2 of the miscellaneous and informed the Board that applicant sought to extend the conditions precedent due to a delay in easement negotiations until June 8, 2010. He noted that the extension would be for 6 months as the current conditions precedent deadline was December 8, 2009.
The Chairman stated that the applicant wanted to extend the duration of the approval of the facility until December 8, 2011. He pointed out the regulations require that the applicant be operational within 9 months otherwise the Board could remove approval of the plan. He
continued that the applicant argued that because the conditions subsequent deadline was set later than the 9 months the operation date should also reflect that time frame. The Chairman maintained that having a site operational was not the same as meeting the conditions subsequent. He added that he would entertain a 3 month extension. Don Duhaime suggested extending the deadline to 2010. Douglas Hill asked the Chairman why he did not wish to grant the extension for the requested 2011 date. The Chairman answered that the applicant had approval to provide cellular coverage to New Boston and they were not doing that. David Woodbury pointed out that the situation would be different if the applicant was delaying because they were simply “sitting on it”, however, the applicant was delayed because
of easement negotiations. The Chairman noted that he did not have an issue granting an extension for the conditions precedent until June 8, 2010. David Woodbury suggested granting the extension for June 8, 2010, and granting an equivalent 6 month extension for the operational requirement.
David Woodbury MOVED to extend the conditions precedent deadline for Old Coach Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/132, to June 8, 2010, and to extend the conditions subsequent deadline to December 8, 2010. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill MOVED to extend the conditions precedent deadline for Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/33, to June 8, 2010, and to extend the conditions subsequent deadline to December 8, 2010. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
7a. Discussion, re: Compliance for Driveway Permit for Kevin D’Amelio, Jr., Byam Road,
Tax/Map Lot #6/41-2.
7b. Memorandum copy dated November 19, 2009, from Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code
Enforcement Officer, to Whom it may concern, re: 52 Byam Road, Tax/Map Lot #6/41-2,
for the Board’s information.
7c. Letter dated January 02, 2009, from Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Kevin
D’Amelio, Jr., re: Driveway to Lot #6/41-2, Byam Road, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman indicated that he would address 7a, 7b, and 7c together as they were related. He stated that the Board had denied compliance. He continued that the applicant had installed a guardrail. He added that he had observed that large rocks had been placed in the parking area. The Coordinator informed the Board that Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, had advised that the applicant had completed the requirements. David Woodbury asked if the above-referenced property was the same property that the Board had viewed following the 2008 ice storm. The Chairman confirmed that it was the same property.
The Chairman noted that discussion had taken place with regard to stabilization. He continued that it was the consensus of the Board that the property should be seeded, however, the applicant had chosen to spray bark mulch. The Chairman indicated that he had taken a class offered by the State of New Hampshire that addressed stabilization. He informed the Board that the instructor confirmed that spraying bark mulch was not a viable option to obtain stabilization. The Coordinator commented that a response to the Board’s January 02, 2009, letter was never received from the applicant.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if the Board was looking to revisit compliance. The Coordinator replied that the applicant would need to have compliance in order to gain anything other than the temporary CO.
It was Douglas Hill’s opinion that if Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, reported that the applicant had completed the requirements then the Board should move to confirm compliance. The Planning Board Assistant added that Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, had confirmed that the applicant was in compliance. The Chairman disagreed that the stabilization requirement had been completed. David Woodbury agreed with Douglas Hill.
The Chairman asked for further comments or questions from the Board; there were no further comments or questions.
David Woodbury MOVED to confirm compliance for the driveway permit #07-059 to lot #6/41-2, Byam Road. DISCUSSION: Don Duhaime asked if the Planning Board was responsible for conducting a final check of the requirements because the Board had issued the denial. Douglas Hill commented that it was the responsibility of the Code Enforcement Officer. The Coordinator indicated that the Planning Board was not responsible for checking for compliance. Douglas Hill seconded the motion. David Woodbury, Don Duhaime, and Douglas Hill – AYE. Stu Lewin – NAY. The motion PASSED.
8. Letter dated November 17, 2009, to Douglas Hill Construction, LLC, from New Boston
Board of Selectmen, re: Christian Farm Drive, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above referenced matter. No discussion occurred.
Don Duhaime MOVED to adjourn at 8:45 p.m. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,:
Valerie Diaz, Recording Clerk
Minutes Approved
01/12/2010
|