TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of January 27, 2009
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members, Peter Hogan, Douglas Hill, Don Duhaime, alternate, Mark Suennen, and; ex-officio Dave Woodbury. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Michele Brown and Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Dwight Sowerby, Esq., Steven LaBranche and Kevin D’Amelio.
Discussion, re: Driveway Regulations.
Dwight Sowerby, Esq. (Town Counsel) was present for this discussion. The Chairman noted that according to RSA 91-A, consultations with counsel were not considered meetings, therefore, no public would be attending this session. Dave Woodbury noted that some of the Miscellaneous Business items should be engaged with Town Counsel as they were related to the driveway discussion. The Chairman noted that the set of questions the Board had for Town Counsel did have specific topics based on the Inkberry Driveway issue which the Board might consider discussing first, followed by more generalized discussion.
Following a lengthy discussion with Town Counsel it was determined that he would draft a letter to the owners of the Inkberry driveway informing them that emergency services may not be able to access the property due to the construction of the driveway; and also informing them that any future damage to the Town infrastructure resulting from runoff and erosion from this property would be the property owners’ responsibility.
With regard to lot #6/41-2 on Byam Road, the Board determined based on discussion with Town Counsel, to request that the Building Inspector and Fire Chief review the lot and driveway to see if a CO would be issued. The Planning Board would have no further involvement in the driveway compliance for this lot.
With regard to other matters, Dwight Sowerby, Esq., asked if the Board had done any work on Small Wind Energy Sytems or Work Force Housing. The Coordinator replied that they had worked on Small Wind Energy Systems and only on the accessory dwellings unit portion of Work Force Housing. Dwight Sowerby, Esq., noted that the Work Force Housing Statute was a messy piece of legislation, badly worded, and vague, therefore, needed to be reworked, and if any Board members had any pull with members of the legislature it would be worthwhile to ask them to hold off the effective date (July 2009).
The Board thanked Dwight Sowerby, Esq., for his input. Dwight Sowerby, Esq., stated that if anyone had any further questions they should feel free to email him.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 27, 2009
1. Approval of minutes of December 30, 2008, distributed by email.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of December 30, 2008, as written.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3a. A copy of New Boston Zoning Board of Adjustment Notice of Decision, re: 42 Mason Drive, was distributed for the Board’s information.
3b. A copy of New Boston Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting minutes of January 20, 2009, was distributed for the Board’s information.
4. A copy of an email received January 26, 2009, from Steve Young to the Planning Dept., re: relocation of New Boston Hardware, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion. (see attached supporting date)
Steve Young and his father John Young were present for this item to discuss with the Board the possibility of operating the New Boston Hardware Store from the Apple Barn Building. Steve Young stated that he would be basing his plan on the existing Site Plan approved for the prior applicant (Katz) for the Apple Barn lot and garden center lot, but sought the Board’s input before investing in any engineering/design. Peter Hogan stated that it was his recollection that the existing Site Plan approval was a broad one where it allowed virtually any type of business without subsequent Site Plan Review being required. The Coordinator clarified that Retail, Personal Service Establishment or Office were listed on the existing approval. Peter Hogan stated that his feeling
was that the Board did not have to do anything. The Coordinator clarified that the Board, in such a case, would usually check that existing parking spots were adequate for the new proposal and also review hours of operation. Douglas Hill asked if the Youngs were thinking of using the upstairs section of the Apple Barn as storage for the hardware store. Steve and John Young replied that was correct. John Young noted that they did not anticipate any changes to the site and would just move the hardware store into the building. Douglas Hill asked about the garden center on the front lot. John Young replied that the garden center was on a lease plan and they intended to have that continue. Peter Hogan stated that the only thing he could think of was that it would be important for the Youngs to be aware that the lower part of the Apple Barn lot was a flood zone and did flood, therefore, chemicals and fertilizers should not be stored in that
location and should also not be stored anywhere along the river’s edge where a malicious person could push such items into the river, which he assumed were best management practices.
John Young stated that he might consider double doors at the entrance way. Steve Young added that he was considering reconfiguring the parking as he felt it was a little tight which was why they were purchasing both lots. The Chairman asked if the hours of operation would be Monday to Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m as they were listed on the approved Apple Barn Site Plan. Steve Young replied that they would be. He asked the Board if he should be aware of any other points before moving forward with the plan. The Chairman stated that he could move forward as long as he abided by what was approved on the existing Site Plan for the lots. John Young asked if there would be a notation in the minutes to the points stated by the Board. The Planning Assistant
replied that they would send the Youngs a letter to that effect. John Young
noted that he asked the question in case anything of that nature was required for the Purchase and Sale Agreement. The Youngs thanked the Board for their time.
5. Discussion, re: 52 Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-2, bond estimate, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion. (Steve LaBranche and Kevin D’Amelio to be present)
The Chairman explained to Steven LaBranche and Kevin D’Amelio that the Board would
not be asking for a bond. He added that Steve LaBranche and Kevin D’Amelio may want to do something about the culvert at the top of the driveway that had caused erosion issues to the Town’s right-of-way as any damage incurred to the Town’s infrastructure as a result would be the land owner’s responsibility. The Chairman stated that in regard to emergency vehicle access the Town would do its best to access the house in an emergency situation but the land owner was being put on notice that there may be issues due to the width of the driveway. Lastly the Chairman stated that the CO issuance came under the authority of the Building Inspector and the Fire Chief and due to some of the issues mentioned they still may not issue the CO. Steve LaBranche noted that the Building Inspector had told him
that he needed to approach the Board before a CO could be issued. The Coordinator clarified that the Board would not be signing off on the driveway and that this was for the Building Inspector/Fire Chief issue to sign off on. The Chairman stated that this discussion/information would be communicated to the Building Inspector and the applicant should check in with him later in the day on Thursday. Peter Hogan noted that the Building Inspector would likely be enforcing the same stipulations as the Board even though the Board would no longer be handling this issue. Steven LaBranche asked if the Board was now turning over driveway reviews to the Building Inspector going forward. The Chairman replied that they were not going that far yet, in general, but in this case, that was correct. The Planning Assistant asked if the Driveway Applications would have to now be restructured as a result of the Board not signing off. The Coordinator replied that
they would need to wait a bit and see what came of the new procedure.
2. Discussion, re: Bedford Road Traffic Study and traffic studies in general.
The Coordinator stated that Tim White, SNHPC, who performed the study, needed more specifics on what the Board was displeased with as a result of the study. Peter Hogan felt that the outstanding question was whether Traffic Studies sought to explain not if a road could handle certain traffic flows but if those flows would adversely change the character of the communities off such roads and is that a question the Board had a right to ask. The Chairman did not agree with the assessment that Bedford Road could not handle the traffic predictions assumed. Mark Suennen noted that from a traffic engineer’s point a road had a practical and theoretical capacity. The Chairman stated that he still wondered if Tim White was addressing the right question as he did not
think, for example, that Bedford Road could handle one car every two seconds. Mark Suennen asked what the Chairman based his presumption upon. The Chairman replied that he based it on reality. Mark Suennen noted that this was perception. The Coordinator noted that Tim White could only base his answers on theory as the Town could not pay him enough to analyze Bedford Road section by section, grades, widths, etc. The Chairman felt that Tim White should have informed the Board that he could not prepare a realistic answer with the funding that was provided as it seemed no better than any of the standard studies the Board received from applicants except, in this case, they had to pay for it. Don Duhaime noted that each item highlighted by Tim White had already been known to the Board. Mark Suennen added that some of the improvement topics were gotten directly from the Road Agent, therefore, the Board paid
Tim White and also fed him the information for the report. The Coordinator stated that she was concerned that the Board was blaming SNHPC for things beyond the commission’s control. Mark Suennen wished to note that he did not think there was anything categorically wrong with the study as it took the available data, which was limited, and developed some conclusions based on information they received from the Town, therefore, from an engineer’s conclusions, the results were factual. He added that for the road as a whole, the theoretical capacity of two cars per second worked and when the study is saying that 20 years ahead the volume would still be 60% less than the capacity that point was not arguable. Mark Suennen felt that the Board was more concerned
with the intersections along Bedford Road than the road as a whole. The Chairman stated that he drove Bedford Road every day and he did not see the volume increases working in the future from a safety and practicality point of view. Peter Hogan asked Mark Suennen if he could name a road that was beyond its capacity. Mark Suennen replied that NH Route 114 in the area between New Boston Road and Mast Road was beyond its capacity due to the intersection and signal backup. He noted that the intersection at Bedford Road and Chestnut Hill Road seemed to him, no worse than 0.7 or 0.8 where a volume over capacity ratio of 1 or greater was at capacity. The Chairman asked what the case would be when years into the future new subdivisions contributed more traffic along with through traffic from other towns. Mark Suennen thought that the problem that would occur would be if Chestnut Hill grew in volume and one could not make a left turn onto New Boston Road
where the average of each vehicle wait was 40-50 seconds. He noted that, realistically, there may be peak flows of traffic but not continuous ones, much like rain events where flows tapered off. Douglas Hill asked how roads were rated and if they were rated for peak traffic flow. Mark Suennen replied that roads were rated at peaks depending on their purpose, i.e., residential roads, shopping mall roads, office roads, etc. Dave Woodbury stated that the Board needed to decide how they were going to use the Bedford Road Traffic Study and also cautioned against shooting the messenger. The Chairman felt that the Board needed to come to an understanding on the disconnects of what they thought they asked for and what they received in the report. The Board determined that they would continue this discussion at a future meeting.
Don Duhaime MOVED to adjourn at 8:30 p.m. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk
| 
