TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of January 13, 2009
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members, Douglas Hill, Don Duhaime, alternate, Mark Suennen, and; ex-officio Dave Woodbury. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong and Planning Assistant Michele Brown.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Ray Shea, Jim Bath and Brandy Mitroff.
Public Hearing on the changes and additions to the proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as effected by the first public hearing.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He stated that at the meeting of December 30, 2008, the Board had gone over several changes and had a lot of discussion. The Chairman noted that as this was last public hearing on the amendments the Board was limited to minor grammatical changes.
The first item regarded definitions and the Chairman added that there was no one from the public present at that point, therefore, the Board could proceed section by section with the first item being definitions. He noted that for the definition of restaurant on page 7 he wondered if the word “and” should be deleted, grammatically from “…an establishment that serves food and beverages and desserts.” So that it would read: “…an establishment that serves food, beverages and desserts”. The Board agreed.
The next item for discussion was Proposed Amendment #4, Special Provisions. The Coordinator explained that Town Counsel had made the suggestion to add reference to RSA 674:16, II, as well as 674:21, IV (b), noting that he had missed this point during his first review. She noted that she had questioned if it was Ok to add that at this hearing and he had replied that it was as the State statute already referenced the grant of power to adopt Zoning Ordinances statute, therefore it was not like adding anything new but instead referencing a different part of the same statute. Douglas Hill clarified that the Town already allowed attached versus the detached term being referenced for this amendment. The Coordinator replied that was correct and that the Town referred to
attached dwellings, as two families, currently. Don Duhaime asked if an apartment in an attached garage was called a two family and could be any size. The Coordinator replied that was correct and noted that the square footage stipulations that had been discussed for detached accessory dwelling units at a previous meeting did not apply to the attached dwelling scenario. Don Duhaime clarified that Proposed Amendment #4 was basically dealing with detached and not attached dwellings. The Coordinator replied that was the case. The Chairman asked if there was a reference for point number 10 of the amendment which read: “A septic system shall be provided in accordance with State regulations.” Douglas Hill noted that a State approval of a septic design involved all kinds of comprehensive State approvals which was why the statement had been simply worded.
The Chairman asked if for Proposed Amendment #5 Special Provisions, Small Wind Energy Systems, system height (page 11) should read: “The height above grade of the tip of the wind turbine blade when it is at its highest point” so as to read in similar context as the Tower Height phrasing that followed. The Board agreed. Douglas Hill wished to note that there had been cases documented where ice flying off the blades of small wind energy systems in cold climates had killed people.
The Chairman noted that in Proposed amendment #6 there had been a wording change to General Provisions regarding Temporary Uses and Structures, which eliminated the second sentence: “Such permit may be issued by the Building Inspector and shall be subject to the provisions of the International Building Code and International Residential Code as it relates to temporary structures and uses.” He noted that the Building Inspector had been in agreement with this sentence being eliminated.
Public Hearing on the changes and additions to the proposed Building Code as effected by the first public hearing.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. No public was present in the audience. He stated that for Amendments to the Building Code, Proposed Amendment #1, the same change was proposed for Temporary Uses and Structures as proposed in Zoning Ordinance Amendment #6 and there were no changes in proposed Amendment #2.
The Chairman stated that in regard to Amendments to the Floodplain Development Ordinance there were no changes from the first hearing but it was included, procedurally, in the Proposed Amendments since it was missed the last time these were addressed.
The Chairman asked if there were any comments or questions from the Board and there were none. Since there were no public attendees the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the proceedings.
Douglas Hill MOVED to propose the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code as presented at this public hearing for a ballot vote in March, 2009. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked if there would be press regarding what the Board proposed for amendments. The Coordinator replied that there had been an article in the New Boston Bulletin about what the Board was thinking about putting on the ballot, therefore, there could now be an article about what was going on the ballot. The Chairman thought this would be a good idea.
Planning Board discussion, re: Goals for 2009
The Coordinator noted that because there were likely to be few subdivision applications for the first half of the year the Board may be able to address a fair number of the goals listed on the handout. She added that many of these topics were items that had already been reviewed, were underway and/or had a good start already and the remainder were suggestions or things that the Board could reference from the Master Plan. The Coordinator stated that one remaining issue to deal with regarding road standards was the grate for outlet structures which the Road Agent and Town Engineer were addressing currently. She added that the Small Scale Commercial Committee was meeting on January 26, 2009, and that she would work to get the design guidelines document revised and
updated along with some sketches that were forthcoming. The Coordinator noted that once completed these items could be adopted as part of the Site Plan Regulations when the Board wished to do so. She further noted that the Committee would, at that meeting, continue to work on where they might suggest new Commercial sites be proposed which the Board would have the year to review. The Coordinator added that the Small Scale Commercial Committee asked that the Planning Board review the signage and parking sections of the Zoning Ordinance as they pertained to setbacks versus the design guidelines. Douglas Hill asked if the Committee would be considering not just Commercial sites but sites that could have that overlay added to it while continuing a residential use in the meantime. The Coordinator noted that such mixed uses had been shot down by entities like the Fire Department when first proposed, however, looking into that option which would involve
changing the Zoning Ordinance could be looked at. She added that Jack Munn, SNHPC, had also brought up this point. Douglas Hill thought this would be a natural progression for a town like New Boston where, for example, an old barn in an R-A District could evolve into a store.
The Coordinator stated that in regard to Sourcewater Protection they were still waiting for a final revised plan from SNHPC. She added that any changes to Zoning as a result would have to wait until next year. She noted that the Board had previously thought that the Multi-Family Overlay District was something the Board could work on addressing in 2009. Douglas Hill asked if this could be considered similar to what the R-1 District was considered as currently. The Coordinator replied that it could be and noted that the State law had just been changed to say that towns had to offer a large amount of area for Multi-Family Housing. She stated that Cistern Regulations were being addressed by the Town Engineer and the Fire Department as they could pertain to the
multi-chamber cistern option offered by Michie Corporation which was also under review. The Chairman noted that the Fire Chief was to find out some information about the Michie product and get back to the Board. The Coordinator replied that she knew Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, had sent these questions to Michie Corporation but did not think he had heard back from them yet.
The Coordinator stated that the remaining items from the Master Plan included districts suggested, an economic development committee, scenic corridor overlay district (A Scenic Byway Committee had been formed with Goffstown, Weare and Dunbarton and the Board may want to see what came of that before looking at such an overlay). She noted that in regard to the suggested Limited Light Industrial District there was one Industrial zoned parcel that was currently used for this purpose and there was no other land available for such uses that were slightly different than Commercial Districts for manufacturing-type businesses. The Coordinator noted that the Master Plan’s suggested Conservation District would take the place of, and expand, the current Forestry and Conservation
District if employed, but the only land in that right now was the tracking station. The Chairman asked if the Zoning districts had descriptions as to what could be done on certain pieces of land. The Coordinator replied that was correct and that overlay districts such as Groundwater Resources, Wetland and Commercial were examples of what could be overlay districts as long as the stipulations for both the underlying and overlays were met.
The Coordinator suggested that the Planning Board may want to re-visit the Driveway Regulations in the coming year. Don Duhaime stated that he felt the Board overstepped their bounds in what they stipulated for driveways, i.e., the recent issue with Joseph Cabral’s driveway on Inkberry Road. The Chairman stated that he had reviewed the Regulations and found certain parts confusing but did not think it clear upon reading through the language that the Board was overstepping its authority. Don Duhaime stated that he agreed with the 10% maximum grade for emergency vehicle safety but felt that going through a lot owner’s property and stipulating what should be done, unless the Town’s property was threatened, was going overboard. Douglas Hill agreed as
the Board had no enforcement. The Coordinator noted that the only time the Board had enforcement in such issues was on a subdivision plan since the plan could be revoked, while the Driveway Regulations for lots of record dealt with curb cuts only in contrast to a proposed subdivision lot where constructed driveway might be sloping down to a newly built Town road. The Coordinator noted that the Inkberry lot was subdivided in 2005 and was not part of the Hutchinson subdivision although it had been subdivided to facilitate that development. Douglas Hill thought this was very enlightening since he had thought the lot was part of the old Inkberry/Byam Road development.
The Coordinator asked if there were any Board members with thoughts on other goals for the Board for 2009. Douglas Hill stated that he would like to go on record as saying that he was not for making regulations for the sake of doing do. The Coordinator agreed but noted that a point that came out of the Master Plan process was that an economic downturn was the perfect time to plan for an upturn so that certain things were in place and ready to go. The Chairman clarified that the “recommendations” versus “objectives” sections in the Master Plan were the place to go for guidance on goals. The Coordinator replied that both were good sources. Dave Woodbury asked about the Senate bill suggestion to add a paragraph to the Master Plan to address
energy conservation resources. The Coordinator noted that the Master Plan was most often updated with several sections at a time but a section could be added on its own with a goal statement and a chapter on a subject. Mark Suennen clarified that there was a community group in the Town that was looking at energy and climate. Dave Woodbury replied that there was and that they were likely to ask for some minor funding to do an energy audit on some of the Town buildings. He added that he was not sure that this group was as good a resource or forum as the Board as they likely did not have the same level of experience in Master Plan issues. The Chairman noted that they probably had a lot of belief in their cause and added that he had attended one of their meetings and witnessed their enthusiasm along with receiving emails from Susan Carr. Dave Woodbury agreed that the group had enthusiasm but did not have a lot of experience in the way towns operate
as of yet although that would be forthcoming. He noted that the group was now, better calculating their work in relation to the timing of Warrant Articles. The Chairman stated that he had suggested the same to them and noted that the Board was always looking for volunteers to subcommittees, etc. Mark Suennen thought that it would be better to give such a group guidance versus duplicating their efforts. The Chairman clarified that he had meant that such a group with a planning type of spin would have a better chance at progression in their work, procedurally and to be engaged by the Town. Dave Woodbury asked if the group had expressed interest in the Town adopting an ordinance similar to one that was adopted by the town of Epping, New Hampshire. The Coordinator recalled that the Planning Department had given them some guidance as to how the process worked and to return with an update mid-year but had never heard back from them. Dave Woodbury
thought that as a new committee they might presently have their hands full with their energy audit issue but that they should become involved as suggested as that was where their strength would lie. The Chairman noted that the last Master Plan update was in 2006 and asked the time frame for Master Plan updates. The Coordinator replied that 5 years was typical with census information, etc., and could be a dry kind of an update unless there was a need for another community profile to be conducted. The Chairman clarified that if the energy section was worked on now it could then be “shelved” until needed. The Coordinator noted that any section of the Master Plan could be updated through a public hearing any time and there were no rules to the contrary. Dave Woodbury noted that Susan Carr who was on the committee had attended several recent Selectmen meetings as well.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator her thoughts on what the Planning Board should tackle first. The Coordinator thought that tidying up the list of smaller items was a good idea. The Chairman clarified that he meant things in addition to what was on the list. The Coordinator thought the Multi-Family Overlay District would take some time as many things would come into play like soil types for the right size septic system, etc. She added that the Board could work through their current list and if they finished it mid-year they could come up with additional items. She asked what the Board would like to start with at the next meeting for their initial discussion before hearings. The Board determined that they would address Driveway Regulations at the start of
the next meeting. Douglas Hill asked that the Planning Department come up with a list of the top ten issues that were a problem within the Driveway Regulations so that they could discuss them also.
The Chairman asked if the topic regarding the transition aspect of zoning (mixed use district) was a topic for a future meeting. The Coordinator clarified that it was not so much transitioning but exploring whether or not to put a mixed use district in place. Douglas Hill noted that the key was to convince certain land owners of this Zoning overlay and added that the survey that went out to the Town had yielded that the Town was in favor of some type of Commercial additions (although not big-box).
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 13, 2009
1. Approval of minutes of December 9, 2008, distributed by email.
There being no comment, Don Duhaime MOVED to approve the minutes of December 9, 2008, as written. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked if the minutes of December 30, 2008, had been distributed by email. The Coordinator replied that there was an issue with the recording as a 110 minute tape was used and copied onto a 90 minute tape that resulted in some missing areas that she needed to fill in.
2. A copy of a letter dated December 31, 2008, from Keith F. Diaz, to the New Boston Planning Board, re: request for extension on conditions precedent, was distributed for the Board’s action.
Douglas Hill clarified that this was the new letter of request by Keith Diaz which was discussed at the previous meeting. The Coordinator replied that was correct.
Douglas Hill MOVED to extend the conditions precedent for Keith Diaz, 23 Arrowwood Road, re: posting of CUP Bond, Tax Map/Lot #12/35-10, to June 26, 2011. Dave Woodbury seconded and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman appointed Mark Suennen as a full voting member since Peter Hogan was not in attendance or arriving later.
3. A copy of an email received January 5, 2009, from Stuart Lewin, Planning Board Chairman, to New Boston Planning Board Department, re: the RETScreen Clean Energy Project Analysis Software, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman stated that he had received this information from Susan Carr and that it was a product from Canada and that it was used in 33 countries collectively saving approximately $200M, but basically was able to analyze/calculate savings from using renewable energy methods. He added that there were 30 different technologies that could be modeled, for example, wind turbines, solar panels, and other new energy technologies. The Chairman thought that Susan Carr was planning to run the information by the Selectmen as well. Dave Woodbury replied that she had been to the Selectmen’s meeting the week prior.
4. Copies of SB 422-Final Version and RSA Section 674:2, were distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman stated that this was what had begun the discussion of adding an energy section to the Master Plan and noted that it referenced the Master Plan stating that such things could be added, but were not, as had been previously assumed from email correspondence, a requirement.
5. A copy of a memorandum dated December 26, 2008, from David J. Preece, AICP, Executive Director/CEO, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, to Planning board Chairs, re: Southern New Hampshire Planning Foundation, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman explained that SNHPC was looking to form a non-profit organization so that they could get charity contributions and tax benefits and was looking for volunteers to show interest by January 16, 2009.
6 Endorsement of a Subdivision Agreement for Christine and Thomas Quirk, Clark Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/10, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman signed the Subdivision Agreement.
7. Endorsement of a Subdivision Agreement for Christine and Thomas Quirk, Clark Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/70, by the Planning board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman determined that in the interest of time this endorsement could be addressed later in the meeting.
8. Reminder of meeting with the Board of Selectmen, Tuesday, January 20, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the Bedford Road Traffic Study.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she had copies of the comments he had made to the meeting notes when this topic had been discussed for which he had been absent in case he could not locate his set. The Coordinator replied that she did. She added that the meeting was actually scheduled for 7:30 p.m., not 7:00 p.m. The Chairman asked if everyone was planning on attending. Douglas Hill replied that he would be in attendance and everyone else nodded. The Chairman asked if this meeting was a regular Board of Selectmen meeting. The Coordinator replied that it was and that while such meetings were normally on Mondays, this one was moved up a day since January 19, 2009, was Martin Luther King Day and the Town Hall was closed.
9. A copy of a memo dated January 2, 2009, from the Board of Selectmen to the Department Managers, re: 2009 Initiatives, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that there was also a second memo that went with the above from the Town Administrator. The Coordinator explained that the Selectmen were asking that Department Managers and employees, and, if they worked with boards and commissions, also those members could brainstorm ways to provide better services to the public from their departments whatever they may be and if they could be funded, done with no money, schedule changes, etc., therefore, if the Board had any ideas they should let them know. The Chairman asked how the exchange of ideas would take place. The Coordinator replied that she believed they would occur at the monthly Department Managers Meeting with information forwarded on to the Selectmen but that ideas would generate from the individual
departments and not originate with the Selectmen. Dave Woodbury noted that he felt the Planning Board was better at analyzing their process which was not true of every department. The Coordinator noted that she and the Planning Assistant had heard at a training session that some planning boards held an open mike night on occasion where people could come in and discuss any topic. Douglas Hill thought that an advertised suggestion box might also be a good idea. Dave Woodbury noted that the suggestion box that was available never seemed to “fill up” which was not a bad thing and he did not see a lot of disgruntled residents come to the Town. Douglas Hill thought that it was good PR in the economic time they were in and could generate some good ideas.
9. A copy of the NH Citizen Planner Training Collaborative Winter/Spring 2009 schedule was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that she had received a scholarship to attend the first two classes and hoped also to get scholarship to the second two classes. The Chairman asked if the Town might fund his attendance as he would consider going. The Coordinator stated that she would look into the Planning Department budget.
10. Copies of Abutter Notifications from the Town of Bow, re: construction of a 29,250 SF flue gas desulfurization building, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that the above was considered one of the worst contributors to green house gases in the northeast and the cost to operate had doubled since origination. The Coordinator noted that she assumed New Boston received the notice due to the height of the structure and its location in relation to the Town.
11. Copies of Abutter Notice from the Town of Weare, re: three lot subdivision, Twin Bridge Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that the Town had likely received this notice as a courtesy given the subdivision’s close proximity to New Boston.
McCURDY DEVELOPMENT, LLC Adjourned from 12/09/08
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/42 Lots
Location: McCurdy Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/19 & 96
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He noted that the applicant had requested by letter that the hearing be rescheduled to the February 24, 2009, meeting, as they were still working on their plan revisions. He added that the Fire Wards had submitted a letter to the Board with their justifications for recommending that the proposed subdivision install a fire cistern.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the application of McCurdy Development, LLC, Major Subdivision, 42 Lots, Location: McCurdy Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/19 & 96, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, and to extend the deadline for Board action on the application to February 24, 2009, at 7:30 p.m.. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion.
Dave Woodbury noted that at the last meeting with the applicant it did not seem to be difficult for the Board to approve a -1.5% slope and thought it perplexing that they now needed another month to revise their plans to it. He wondered if there was a fundamental flaw present to the point where the Board should ask the applicant to withdraw their application and return when they were ready similar to the Clark Hill Road application. The Coordinator noted that it was the delay in getting answers/resolutions from the Board on the slope issue that put their other design issues on hold and now that this was resolved they could move forward with the subsequent designs and all the outstanding engineering that needed review by the Town Engineer, phasing, temporary cul-de-sacs and the
remaining coversheet items. Don Duhaime noted that the Susan Road lot that they did not have ownership to had also held up the applicant. The Coordinator replied that the applicant now owned the land (originally owned by Dupuis Family Trust) and would be submitting a subdivision application for it, therefore, their initial subdivision approval would be conditional on the other getting approved, i.e., before any work could be done to the land. From the audience Brandy Mitroff thought that years ago the Board at the time had made it known that they were not going to hear applications until applicants had their completed application work done at their first meeting and it seemed to her over the years, although she may be perceiving things incorrectly, that the Board had wandered away from that procedure somewhat. The Coordinator noted that the McCurdy application had been accepted as complete quickly and the issue they had experienced had come up after the
Board had assumed jurisdiction of the application. She noted that usually the only issue that hung up completeness was the required studies (Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact) and sometimes that decision could not be made until a site walk took place. Dave Woodbury noted that there had been concerns expressed over the years that the Planning Department had done more hand holding for developers with their resources overly tapped versus the developer tapping their own resources to do their homework. He added that it was a debatable question where the Planning Department strived to deliver a high level of service but the question remained, was it such a high level of service that Developers were taking advantage. Brandy Mitroff thought the only one that could answer that question would be the Coordinator.
The motion PASSED unanimously.
At 7:53 p.m. the Planning Board took a 7 minute break.
SHAKY POND DEVELOPMENT, LLC Adjourned from 12/09/08
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/17 Lots
and one open space lot
Location: Susan Road
Tax Map/Lot #15/15
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering who represented the applicant, Al Bell who was also present. The Chairman noted that the application would require an extension for action if no decision was granted this evening. He noted that the Coordinator had just submitted copies of a fax from the Town Engineer that was just received today in addition to the other correspondence the Board had.
Ray Shea stated that this was a continuation of a hearing on a 108 acre parcel proposed for subdivision off Susan Road and was continued so that the applicant could address the Town Engineer’s points contained in their second review letter. He added that a note had since been included on the plans stating that construction of “Shaky Pond Lane” would not begin until there was a connection established with Susan Road and Indian Falls Road and a base coat of pavement laid. Ray Shea noted that some minor language revisions had been made to the legal documents as requested and resubmitted for review by Town Counsel. He added that he thought the Town Engineer’s review submitted today was a good one and hoped that after the Board reviewed their points they
would consider final conditional approval. He stated that in the letter Town Engineer reiterated that conservation land should be marked and although this had not been resolved the applicant intended to stake the back of the lots involved that backed up to it and setting the monuments but would not offer any more than that. The Chairman clarified that permanent markers were intended. Ray Shea replied that was correct and that the lines could be cut out from point to point so that there was evidence of the line location. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if there was a policy or precedence. The Coordinator replied that for Kettle Lane conservation placards were placed around the kettle hole and the Conservation Commission had placards that they placed on trees for things they requested but nothing had been done for large pieces of land as in this case.
Ray Shea stated that they had been requested to design two detention ponds with access for Town maintenance and the Town Engineer in item #2 of their letter had requested that the access drive be shown as a 10’ wide gravel area. He added that they had graded the 10’ wide area but had not labeled it as “gravel”, however, this could be added to the plan. Douglas Hill clarified that the gravel layer would likely be covered with loam and grass to prevent erosion issues. Ray Shea replied that he could not be sure from the Town Engineer’s notes but could revise the plans for gravel, grassed over and run it by Northpoint. The Coordinator noted that except for Twin Bridge Management, LLC and Christian Farm Estates other applicants’
detention pond access’ had been gravel access roads with no grass. Ray Shea explained that the proposed access roads were located within easements on the plan and basically improvements to berms not near any of the house lots. Dave Woodbury asked if there was any validity to the point that access to these detention ponds may be needed during rainy weather, and, therefore, gravel access would be helpful. Douglas Hill clarified that he would keep the gravel but seed over it. Ray Shea stated that he would show gravel with 3” of topsoil over it and this should not inhibit access in rainy weather. Douglas Hill thought this would look better for the neighborhood and noted that it was not an access that would be used on a daily basis. The Chairman asked Dave Woodbury if the Road Agent was satisfied with a grass overlay if that would satisfy his concerns. Dave Woodbury replied that he was not sure that it was a concern but had raised
the question without knowing the answer and if others felt it was a workable solution then he would go along with it. Mark Suennen noted that no one would claim that it was a trouble-free system, but if gravel it would always look like a construction entrance and in his opinion, grass would look better. Don Duhaime had no issues with a grass overlay.
Ray Shea stated that item #3 of the Town Engineer’s review letter dealt with an incorrect number on a chart on the plan that needed correcting. He added that item #4 required a section being added to one of the cross sections. Ray Shea noted that sheets #15 and 16 referred to the cistern design initially submitted as fiberglass but had since been asked to convert to the Michie Corporation pre-cast concrete design. He noted that it did not appear that the specifications had yet been worked out by the Town Engineer and Fire Wards and that it had been indicated that a meeting between the two was forthcoming, therefore, the applicant submitted what they felt fit what was desired and would adhere to the specifications that were established in the future. Ray Shea
asked that this be considered for conditional approval given the circumstances.
Ray Shea stated that item #5 referred to the maximum 1,000’ road length and noted that a waiver request for that had been submitted at the last meeting with the Board. He added that item #s 6-10 dealt with cost estimate details and were bond related with #10 asking for a bond estimate on the cistern and assumed this number would be revised once the specifications were established.
Ray Shea stated that item #11 dealt with vernal pools on some of the lots and a no cut buffer being placed around them which was agreed to at the last meeting. The Chairman asked if markings would be involved on site. Ray Shea replied that it could be noted on the plan and similar to an example deed for cisterns. He felt that everything else was addressed except for the Board acting on the waiver request for exceeding the 1,000’ cul-de-sac, otherwise he felt they were ready for conditional approval.
Dave Woodbury noted that he had a few questions since he rotated on and off the Board and had not been present for some of the earlier meeting for the application He asked if the stub road noted on the plan would ever be constructed. Ray Shea stated that it would not and noted that it had resulted when the initial loop design was changed to a cul-de-sac. He added that the applicant’s subdivision, Bussiere and LeBlanc last phase were all approved conditionally upon the roads being connected and the applicant’s plan stated that Shaky Pond Lane cannot be started until that occurred. Dave Woodbury asked how the death of Emile Bussiere affected the Bussiere plan. Ray Shea replied it had no effect because the plan was in the names of his children. Dave
Woodbury asked the proposed length of Shaky Pond Lane. Ray Shea replied that it was approximately 2,000’ and the applicant had agreed to cistern and fire sprinkler systems for the lots because of the length. Dave Woodbury asked the Chairman why the doubling of the maximum length of the cul-de-sac was being considered. The Chairman replied that because there were many issues with the initial loop design, the alternative design which included a waiver request for the cul-de-sac length seemed the best solution with all the other factors taken into account. Dave Woodbury wondered if this had been an agreement of swapping cul-de-sac length for conservation land versus the merits of extending the maximum cul-de-sac length. The Chairman replied that there had been many meetings on the subject and the trade-offs between the designs. Ray Shea offered that 26 lots were originally proposed with a 10 acre conservation lot and 2,000’ of loop road
with 4 wetland crossings versus 17 lots, 55 acres of conservation land and two wetland crossings with the elimination of the extra stretch of loop road. Dave Woodbury asked if there had been a discussion and answer provided as to why the cul-de-sac length should be twice as long as the regulations stated. Douglas Hill stated that the original loop road design met all the regulations, however, through discussion, the Board had come to the agreement that extending the cul-de-sac, with fire sprinklers and cistern, losing 9 lots and gaining a lot of conservation land seemed a good trade off. Brandy Mitroff noted that the site was in a very sensitive area that backed up to the Tracking Station land and the cul-de-sac design seemed a better trade off to add 55 acres of open space. Dave Woodbury clarified that it could be assumed the Conservation Commission favored the cul-de-sac design. Douglas Hill replied that they did and the Fire Department felt better
about the cul-de-sac length once a cistern and fire sprinklers were proposed. The Chairman added that the cistern location was proposed almost at a half-way point on the road along with underground utilities. Dave Woodbury stated that the Town had established the 1,000’ length and seemed to waive it quite often. Douglas Hill noted this was a great argument and in this case a lot of research had been done on the issue. The Chairman stated that he realized Dave Woodbury was not seated on the Board at the time of the discussions on the matter but stressed that it was not handled lightly. Dave Woodbury did not think that it would have been handled lightly and stated that he would base his approval on the waiver for the cul-de-sac length given the Conservation Commission’s favoring of it being a better deal than anything else they could get. The Chairman noted that the Conservation Commission was much more satisfied with the cul-de-sac
design. Brandy Mitroff felt that going beyond the 1,000’ length would require serious discussion, as was done with this applicant, and on a case by case basis, not just because an applicant did not want to build a loop road. Al Bell stated that the Conservation Commission had been unhappy with the loop road design due to the wetland crossings and had accompanied them to meetings with the State several times. He added that given the outcome of these meetings they had come up with a list of items that might work with a design that could benefit and better satisfy the Town and the Board had weighed these differences over many meetings.
Mark Suennen returned to the meeting of December 9, 2009, where one of the items in Sandford Surveying and Engineering’s reply to the Town Engineer’s memo of November 21, 2009, #33: “The approach of the island is tear drop shaped although not officially adopted. The Town has a typical offset cul-de-sac detail which would depict the desired layout. We request that the applicant revise their layout to conform to the pending Town design.” He stated that Sandford’s reply was: “The cul-de-sac island has been revised to a circular shape and conforms to the newly adopted detail. The new detail specifies an edge of pavement radius with an offset of 50’. The plans submitted show a centerline radius of 50’ at the
cul-de-sac offset resulting in an edge of pavement radius of 39’. Strict conformance to the detail at this point would require the adjustment of lot lines, lot areas, shoulder grading and we respectfully request relief from the offset radius specification only”. The revised cul-de-sac design conforms in all other aspects of the Town’s new detail.” Mark Suennen noted that the “revised circular shape” appeared to be a circular tear drop. Ray Shea replied that it met the proposed regulations except for the inside of the radius noted. Mark Suennen asked of the Board would need to approve the 39’ offset. The Chairman clarified that when the application was submitted a certain set of specifications were in place and with the Town specifications changes mid way through the process, technically it did not apply. The Coordinator replied that was correct. She added that the fact that this
item had dropped off the Town Engineer’s letter spoke to that. Mark Suennen stated that he was better satisfied by seeing more detail on a plan sheet pointed out by Ray Shea versus the cover sheet.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to grant the waiver request in a letter dated December 9, 2008, by Ray Shea, Sandford Surveying and Engineering for the maximum length of the cul-de-sac length from 1,000’ to approximately 2,000’, for Shaky Pond Development, LLC, Major Subdivision, 17 Lots and one open space lot, Location: Susan Road, Tax Map/Lot #15/15, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as shown on the plans and based on the discussions and alternative design offered. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the Road Entry permit for Shaky Pond Development, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #15/15, Susan Road, with the standard Planning Board requirements: the driveway shall have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft) from the centerline of the road; the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of ten foot (10’) radii minimum; and, the driveways shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees. Mark Suennen seconded the motion.
Mark Suennen asked if this was before or after the Susan Road connection, i.e., will the road entry be built even if the rest of Shaky Pond Lane was not built prior to the completion of Susan Road. Ray Shea noted that driveway locations needed to be submitted and this motion meant that they were in the proper place, sight distance and an approvable place to put a road intersection.
The motion PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman noted that the Board was still waiting for numbers from the Town Engineer for the bond amount and construction monitoring estimates. He asked if the applicant was OK with those numbers to be determined at a later date. Ray Shea stated that the applicant was ready for a conditional approval and would accept the numbers submitted by the Town Engineer.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plan, Prepared for Shaky Pond Development, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #15/15, Susan Road, for the subdivision of 17 lots with one conservation lot, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of five (5) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing, and including Individual Stormwater Management Plans.
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
- Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F,
3.
4. Receipt of Northpoint Engineering, LLC's approval of the road plans and profiles and the cistern design plans.
5. Submission of the language of the form of the security for review and approval by Town Counsel, the cost of which review shall be borne by the applicant.
6. Submission of the security, in the amount determined by Northpoint Engineering, based on the applicant’s bond estimate form and in the form of a letter of credit, for the construction of Shaky Pond Lane as shown on the approved plans and profiles.
7. Submission of the estimated construction inspection fees regarding the construction of Shaky Pond Lane in the amount determined by Northpoint Engineering. A mandatory pre-construction meeting is required to be held with the developer/agent, road contractor, Town's Road Agent, and representatives of the Planning Board, and Board of Selectmen, as well as the Fire Inspector/Fire Wards and the Town's consulting engineer, prior to the start of the road and cistern construction project.
8. Submission of a performance bond for the construction of the cistern per Subdivision Regulations Section IX-I, a), 5, d.
9. Submission of $3,500.00 for the cistern construction inspection (if this is not included in Northpoint's construction inspection estimate.)
10.Submission of the off-site improvement fees according to the Town of New Boston's off-site road improvement formula in the amount of $10,000.00.
11.Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.
12. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
13. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
14.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.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be January 13, 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.
2. A 30,000 gallon underground precast cistern shall be installed per the approved design plans and inspected in accordance with the Job Inspection Sheet by the Town's consulting engineer. The cistern shall be approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards and the Town's consulting engineer before the occupancy of any dwelling in the approved subdivision.
3. Shaky Pond Lane is to be constructed in accordance with the Application for Inspection and in accordance with the approved plans and profiles. After the base (binder) course of pavement is approved by the Road Agent/town's engineer, the developer will allow the road to set over one winter, during which time the developer will be liable for the roads, including, but not limited to, winter maintenance thereof. The wearing (finish) course of pavement shall be applied no later than one (1) year from the date of application of the binder course. The Application for Inspection must be turned into the Planning Department after the road is 100% complete, in order to initiate final inspection and acceptance of the road, and the release
of the security for same after a compliance inspection and hearing is held.
4. Driveway locations shall be approved at sub-grade and driveways shall be installed through binder to the satisfaction of the Road Agent/town engineer and in conformance with the Application for Inspection and approved driveway permits.
5. Per Subdivision Regulations Section V-S, 1, J), As-Built plans shall be submitted for review by the Town's consulting engineer after all infrastructure improvements have been completed and at least the binder course of pavement has been placed.
6. Submission of an executed Warranty Deed for Shaky Pond Lane, Cistern Easement Deed, Slope and Easement Deed for Shaky Pond Lane, Declaration of Protective Covenants and Declaration of Covenants regarding sprinkler systems, and Declaration of Common Driveway Easement and Maintenance Agreement. The cost of recording any of the Deeds and other legal documents at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
7. Submission of an executed Conservation Easement Deed for Lot #15/15. The cost of recording the Deed at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
8. Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set, and the appropriate fee for recording same with the HCRD.
9. The applicant shall install road identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) to the satisfaction of the Road Agent.
10.Driveway permits must be approved for completed acceptable installation by the Road Agent and Planning Board prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy (CO's) for the related lots.
11.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, the cistern has been installed, inspected and approved by the town's consulting engineer and tested satisfactorily by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee and the driveways are installed and approved by the Road Agent and the Planning Board and the subdivision roads, Shaky Pond Lane and Susan Road (as well as the off-site section of Susan Road [previously named Smith Road]) are installed through binder pavement and the road identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) are installed to the satisfaction of the Road Agent/town's engineer, guard rails are installed,
if necessary.
12.Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD.
The deadline for complying with the conditions subsequent shall be January 13, 2011, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing to be held on the application. Prior to the acceptance of the completed road by the Town, an acceptable two year maintenance bond must be submitted by the applicant for the road in the amount of 10% of the performance bond value.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
AND;
- Douglas Hill MOVED to accept the application as complete, and to grant the Conditional Use Permit and approve the plans of Shaky Pond Development, LLC, to effect two wetland crossings on property on Shaky Pond Lane, known as Tax Map/Lot #15/15 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 installation as included in the road bond to be submitted as Condition Precedent #6 of the subdivision approval above.
2. Submission of revised plans to include any checklist corrections and any revisions to the site plan as decided by the Board at the hearing.
3. Upon completion of the conditions precedent and the conditions precedent as listed above for the subdivision approval, the final subdivision plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be January 13, 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 wetland crossings, 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 applicant 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 January 13, 2011.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 8:40 p.m. Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted, Suzanne O’Brien, Recording Clerk
| 
