Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Minutes 05/26/2009
TOWN OF NEW BOSTON              
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Minutes of May 26, 2009

        Because there was some time available the Chairman, Christine Quirk and Dean Mehlhorn drove to Joe English Road and looked at the Bilodeau site which would be discussed later in the meeting.
        The meeting was called to order at 6:50 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin.  Present were regular member Douglas Hill, Don Duhaime, alternate Dean Mehlhorn; and ex-officio Christine Quirk.  Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
        Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Ruth Trussell, John Ashworth, Jonathan Markey, PE, Gordon Russell, Katie Kachavos, Gloria Chandler, Stephen Anderson, Esq., Shannon McManus and Bob Lindgren from the Francestown Planning Board.

Discussion, re: Affordable Multi Family Housing.

        The Chairman explained that the need for the Board’s discussion of this topic was driven by a law passed at the State level to require that towns have areas zoned for multi-family housing.  The Coordinator explained that this law had been made effective as of July, 2009, and required that towns have the majority of their land area that was zoned Residential be available for Work Force housing and also needed to allow for multi-family housing also.  She noted that while the current regulation in Town stated that 3 units qualified as multi-family housing the State law stated 5 or more units.  Don Duhaime asked if this was to be considered a guideline or a requirement.  The Coordinator replied that this was a requirement.  Douglas Hill thought that this would be difficult in New Boston given the soil types required to support what would be larger septic systems for units of 5 or more.  The Coordinator noted that the Board could allow a multi-family overlay district based on performance which would cover the requirement.  She added that multi-family and Work Force housing had been a goal stated in the Master Plan since 2006 and it contained a blueprint of ideas on what could be done to work on an ordinance.  The Coordinator stated that, unfortunately, no money was available for assistance to the Town on this and added that a subcommittee would likely be needed for the task.  She added that this might enable the Board to tap into Town resources for some assistance.  Don Duhaime felt that the Town had clearly voted that they did not want to see manufactured housing parks.  The Coordinator recalled that an applicant had petitioned the “R-1” allowance for a site which was not the same as the Town voting down manufactured housing.  
Don Duhaime did not think developers would want to spend the money to build affordable housing.  He recalled the example of the Salisbury Road subdivision which was done very well but he did not consider them “affordable”.  The Coordinator noted that these were condexes.  She noted that she was not saying that multi-family and/or affordable housing would happen in the Town, however, by law, they were required to offer it as an option by Zoning.  The Coordinator added that the Town could also consider lot size averaging.  Douglas Hill noted that he had considered an affordable project in Bedford for his business where they would have proposed 3 buildings with 4 attached units on 5 to 6 acres that would have had one septic and one or two wells.  He noted that this was an example of how a developer could offer an affordable housing development and still make a profit and he thought this could be done in Town.  Don Duhaime was uncertain that this would be attractive to, for example, young couples looking to move into the Town.  The Chairman added that the whole transportation infrastructure tended to make it a less likely option, i.e., some things may be better suited for higher density communities.  Douglas Hill still felt that a nice affordable housing project could be very popular.  The Coordinator explained that the whole idea behind this topic was to consider Work Force Housing which was geared for buyers who could not afford $312K housing prices (the median housing price in Town in 2006).  She added that this could involve inclusionary zoning that mandated a percentage of work force housing in a subdivision and kept that affordability long term.  Don Duhaime asked who would mandate this.  The Coordinator replied that there were various ways it could be accomplished.  She noted that NH Housing and Finance often ran this for towns but they required their model ordinance be used.  The Coordinator stated that the Town currently had no organization set up to do this.  She offered the example of New London, NH, that set up their own workforce housing overlay.  She noted that there were provisions in an inclusionary ordinance that stated work force housing must be spread throughout a subdivision, not clustered in one area.  The Chairman asked if an overlay needed to go over the entire Town.  The Coordinator replied that she did not think it would need to but could overlay certain districts based on the soils and lot sizes, i.e., how big would a lot need to be to support septic systems for multi-family homes.  The Chairman asked if the State law referred to land left to be developed or to the whole Town.  The Coordinator replied that it applied to land left to be developed which in new Boston totaled approximately 10,000 acres.  She noted that she was not sure if the entire portion of open land was zoned Residential-Agricultural.  
        Douglas Hill thought that a committee would be needed to address this task.  The Coordinator agreed and noted that the effective date of 7/01/09 had been bumped forward to January of 2010, therefore, it was likely that by that point the Town would have at least held some public hearings on potential zoning amendments.  Don Duhaime thought that a committee would be helpful to the cause, especially since the Board would only meet once each month in July and August 2009.  The Coordinator thought that it would be helpful to a committee if the Board narrowed down the options for them to consider as there was a lot of information they would need to go over if not given any direction.  The Chairman asked if surrounding towns were addressing multi-family housing.  Douglas Hill stated  that he knew of similar projects in Milford, NH.  Christine Quirk noted that she had seen examples in Amherst, NH.  The Coordinator pointed out that Amherst, NH’s ordinance had been in place for a while and used to state that their Planning Board had to review financial data for purchases but the Board had not wanted to do this.  She added that a mechanism needed to be in place to keep Work Force Housing affordable.
        The Coordinator stated that she would start advertising for the committee which would likely come together mid- to late-June, however, with the summer season coming up they would likely not have anything conclusive to report on until at least September, 2009.  Douglas Hill thought that an overlay was a good option as soils types would be an important consideration for septic systems when planning multi-family housing.  He added that the presence of wetlands in certain areas would dictate where you could and could not propose multi-family housing.  The Chairman asked what the case would be if the majority of land was not available for this overlay once the calculations were made.  The Coordinator felt that a good faith effort would suffice as meeting the requirement and if this were documented she thought there was no way the State could impose anything different.  Douglas Hill noted that any area in Town Zoned as “R-1” could be an option.  The Coordinator stated that the only “R-1” property was that which SHB Properties had subdivided and an area at the top of Clark Hill Road.  Douglas Hill felt that the overlay option was best.  The Coordinator stated that the Future Land Use Chapter of the Master Plan mentioned overlay districts and performance standards along with incentives noted in the Cluster Ordinance.  Don Duhaime asked how the Clark Hill subdivision that had proposed a multi-family structure was progressing.  The Planning Assistant replied that the site was still owned by the applicant but so far nothing more had been done.
        The Chairman asked the Board members their opinion on the overlay district for multi-family/work force housing.  Dean Mehlhorn replied that he liked the idea but was unsure how it would be mandated according to buyer income.  The Chairman wondered if the Town should work off the New London, NH, overlay model.  The Coordinator felt that the committee assigned to the task would benefit from having such a model from which to work.  Christine Quirk and Douglas Hill agreed.  The Chairman noted on page 15, #2 of the New London ordinance called for administration of the affordable aspect by the Selectmen.  Christine Quirk added that page 10 noted that application fees to the entire development for multi-family/work force housing were waivable.  The Coordinator noted that compared to other Towns New Boston erred on the side of not charging excessive application fees.    
        Douglas Hill volunteered to be a Planning Board representative for the committee.  Don Duhaime asked if mixed-use zoning could also be considered to attract developers.  The Coordinator was not sure that the Town had the time or the backing to go out into the community to develop such an idea this year.  Douglas Hill added that when commercial development was considered next to residential properties it could become more involved.  The Coordinator noted that mixed use ideas in the Master Plan included looking at the Village area for continuance of the prevailing character and planned unit developments with mixed uses although this would require new and different Zoning.  She added that it was hard to fathom how much commercial development the Town would entertain as it was not seen as a commercial destination.
        The Chairman summarized that a selective reach-out along with an ad in the newspaper would be accomplished and the objective would be that the committee would come back to the Board after considering the overlay model, by a certain date such as the beginning of October, 2009.  He asked that the Board read through the New London model template for the next meeting so that they could decide on a basis of direction for the committee.  The Coordinator was also asked to provide information from Amherst, Milford and Wilton, NH.

        The Chairman seated Dean Mehlhorn as a full voting member of the Board.

HENAULT, STEPHEN & PATRICIA
Public Hearing/CUP/to install one wetland crossing to access back of lot
Location: 129 Byam Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/41-33
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  No applicant, abutters or interested parties were present.
        The Chairman stated that the delineated plan was not complete.  He noted that the applicants had received DES approval to seed and mulch and that there was grass growing on site.  The Chairman added that a site walk had been held with members of the Board.  He stated that the applicant had requested an adjournment to June 9, 2009, but this concerned him as that date was only two weeks away.  The Coordinator noted that the applicants had to submit their restoration plan to DES by June 26, 2009, and that a qualified wetland scientist stamp was required.  She added that the Board had seen restoration plans before, such as for a Clark Hill Road subdivision, so this was not unusual.  The Chairman looked at the DES letter submitted.  Douglas Hill did not think the site appeared to be filled but rather stumped and cleared.  Don Duhaime thought that the front of the site looked filled.  The Chairman thought in light of the dealings the applicant would have with NHDES that an adjournment to June 23, 2009, would be more appropriate.

Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the application of Stephen and Patricia Henault, Public Hearing, CUP, to install one wetland crossing to access back of lot, Location: 129 Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-33, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to June 23, 2009, at 7:30 p.m.  Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

There being time before the first scheduled hearing, the Planning Board addressed Miscellaneous Business.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 26, 2009.

  • Approval of minutes of April 28, 2009, distributed by email.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of April 28, 2009, as written.  Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

  • Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Daniel Lee Hodgkins & Donna Marie Hodgkins, Tax Map/Lot #3/46 & 135, Parker Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
There being multiple signature sheets the Chairman determined that he would endorse the above noted subdivision plan at the end of the meeting.

3.      Discussion, re: Mark R. & Christine A. Bilodeau, cordwood home business, 229 Joe English Road.

The Chairman stated that an abutter had received a property tax abatement as a result of the Bilodeau’s cordwood business.  The Coordinator replied that an abatement had been filed but she had not yet seen a copy.  Christine Quirk clarified that the abatement had not processed through the Selectmen’s office as of yet.  
Don Duhaime asked if the Bilodeau plan had noted dimensions for storing wood.  The Coordinator replied that it did.  The Chairman stated that the front dimensions proposed had been 165’ X 30’ and the back of the site looked as though it was storing 169’ in length.  Don Duhaime added that the width appeared to be 200’ of wood in the back.  Douglas Hill added that the 30’ width in the front of the site storage well exceeded that measure.  Don Duhaime asked if the abutter who had filed for the abatement would be receiving a tax cut.  The Coordinator replied that the abatement had not yet been processed but she had been informed that the assessor would be recommending it to the Selectmen.  The Chairman clarified that the Board had been under the impression at the time of the Bilodeau application that he would be receiving one grapple load at a time, splitting it and selling off the cordwood, however, he apparently kept receiving deliveries on a frequent basis.  Christine Quirk stated that she would like to return to the site and go down the shared driveway to get a better feel of the storage issue.  She added that she would like copies of the meeting minutes on the Bilodeau’s application so that she could familiarize herself with it again.  Don Duhaime thought that given the current storage dimensions on site the Board had justification to shut down the operation.  Christine Quirk thought that Town Counsel should be consulted on the issue also and that the Board should have their homework done on this topic before approaching the Bilodeaus.  Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator if the minutes from the Bilodeau hearings could be emailed so that Board members could review them at their leisure.  The Coordinator replied that this could be done.  The Chairman asked the name of the abutter who had requested the abatement.  The Coordinator replied that it was Cliff Plourde who shared the driveway with the Bilodeaus.  She noted that as of late the chainsaw had been running all the time on site and she was not sure if it was being operated just by Mr. Bilodeau or if someone was now working with him.  Douglas Hill thought that the Board should determine the definition of “part time” as it applied to the plan, i.e., if Mr. Bilodeau was cutting cordwood during his approved range of hours, for example, 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. but it was now in this entire range then that was not part time.  The Chairman agreed that perhaps a percentage of the available hours should be determined as being “part time”
The Coordinator stated that the Board’s options in this matter were to do nothing, amend Mr. Bilodeau’s understanding of how to operate within the plan or revoke the plan based on him not following it.  Don Duhaime stated that Mr. Bilodeau now had twice the amount of wood on site as he did when he had last come in to speak to the Board.  Christine Quirk asked the Coordinator if she could have a copy of the Bilodeau plan for reference and noted that she would also speak with Cliff Plourde whom she knew.  Douglas Hill felt that the key term to consider in this case was “part time” and what a reasonable person would assume.  The Chairman requested a hard copy of the plan and the Coordinator replied that she would provide these to those who needed them.

  • Discussion, re: Joann Albertini, 117 Byam Road, secondary driveway.
The Chairman stated that he had met with Joann Albertini on site and sent notes to the Planning Board after their discussion.  He added that she had told him she was concerned over the money she had already spent on the driveway and wanted to avoid spending more money to pay an application fee again and have to cut trees for sight distance.  The Chairman noted that this was why he had suggested to Joann Albertini that she get her plan completed and approved.  Douglas Hill asked if the plan met the regulations.  The Chairman replied that it did not currently but Joann Albertini had told him told him that it would.  He noted that she had mentioned to him that the neighbors who lived across the street and on the down hill side of the road were willing to come before the Board to state that they had no issues with the proposed driveway.  The Chairman suggested that the Board schedule her hearing or miscellaneous business item regarding the driveway at a fixed time as Ms. Albertini was a single parent and would need a baby sitter.

  • A copy of a letter dated May 18, 2009, from Kevin M. Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, LLS, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Twin Bridge Estates, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that there was one outstanding item that needed the Board’s input and decision.  She noted that it the Board looked at the pictures attached to the copy of the above noted letter they would see that there was an access road loop around to a detention basin in the back that was intended to have a thin coating of loam and not look like a road, however, it did look like a road with clearly defined tire tracks.  The Coordinator stated that contractor for the project, Dave Elliot, had suggested that posts with brackets be placed at either end with a board to stop curious traffic so that it would naturally reseed.  Dave Elliot had added that if this was not successful then they would reseed the area in the fall.  Don Duhaime asked if the work on the access road was complete.  The Coordinator replied that it was.  Don Duhaime thought that they should hydroseed the spot now and be done with it.  Douglas Hill had no opinion either way (hydroseed now or wait until the fall to see if it naturally reseeded).  Dean Mehlhorn thought that it should at least be reseeded as the last time it was seeded was likely a year prior.  The Board’s consensus was that the area be reseeded and the posts mounted with further seeding done in the fall if the seed did not take.
The Coordinator stated that the sight distances for the driveways of the subdivision were fine.  The Chairman asked about the culverts.  The Coordinator replied that the Road Agent had viewed them as each Driveway Permit was filed and they were all fine.  She noted that regarding the stump site NHDES had stated that as long as it was actively managed it could continue to stay located where it was until ready to bury.
Douglas Hill recused himself from the Board as he was an abutter to the next hearing.

CLARK HILL TRUST by RR & JH TRUSSELL, TRUSTEES    Adjourned from 04/28/09
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/12 Lots
Location: Clark Hill & Dennison Roads
Tax Map/Lot #8/1 & 4/62
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Jonathan Markey, PE, John Ashworth, Land Use Consultant and the applicant Ruth Trussell.  Abutters and interested parties present were Gordon Russell, Gloria Chandler and Katie Kachavos.
        The Chairman noted that a letter had been submitted to the Board by resident and naturalist Gordon Russell dated May 21, 2009.  He added that in regard to the question raised at the last hearing on frontage requirements for backlots, the Coordinator, in her research had found that the regulations were clear in requiring exactly 50’.  Ruth Trussell noted that she had received copies of this research.  She introduced her new engineer for the project, Jonathan Markey, PE, and noted that he had actively assumed work on the subdivision plan.  Jonathan Markey, PE, stated that he had looked at the previously submitted plans and had taken a lot into consideration to redesign the driveways and keep with the applicant’s wishes for low impact development.  He noted that he had much experience working in Massachusetts on Low Impact Development which had been introduced in that state.  Jonathan Markey, PE, stated that firstly, he had introduced infiltration for roof tops and runoff into dry wells and into the ground.  He added that there were also areas where detention basins were proposed that held decent soils, therefore, he had redesigned these and moved them to a different location using infiltration basins instead, fewer concrete structures for outlets and encouraging the runoff to be absorbed back into the ground.  Jonathan Markey, PE, added that he was incorporating crushed stone infiltration trenches that went with the topography and did not require a lot of tree cutting, therefore, instead of one big detention pond the water could get back into the ground at different intervals.  He noted that he was still finishing these calculations in anticipation of the next meeting if there was an adjournment this evening.
        Jonathan Markey, PE, stated that he had changed some of the driveway culverts as those that were so close to each other could sheet flow from one to the next instead of circumventing sub catches.  The Chairman asked to see such an example on the plan and Jonathan Markey, PE, noted this.  The Chairman noted that he had sheet flow issues with his own driveway regarding winter runoff freezing when it was not generated from his property.  He added, however, that he did see Jonathan Markey, PE’s, point.  Jonathan Markey, PE, noted that he could include a filter strip with pea stone as long as the driveways were paved and the stone ran along the grade.  The Chairman asked if the proposed house locations on the lots were the same as before.  Jonathan Markey, PE, replied that they were.  He added that a big change regarded a vernal pool which he noted on the plan that used to have an infiltration basin next to it.  He added that by regrading the driveway and incorporating low impact development infiltration it eliminated the need for the basin and the closest distance to the vernal pool was 50’ from the driveway.  The Chairman clarified that the way this worked was that if anyone purchased the lot and decided to change the plan they would need to come back for approval from the Board.  Jonathan Markey, PE, replied that was correct.  He added that he was in the process of doing Individual Stormwater Management Plans for each lot.  The Chairman stated that this plan seemed to have a whole different perspective than what they had seen before.  He asked how far in the shared driveway shown on the lower left of the plan went in before it split.  Jonathan Markey, PE, replied that it went in approximately 50’ to the back of the split.  The Chairman asked if this was on the property line.  Jonathan Markey replied that it was not and that it was along the centerline and then cut over to the back.  The Chairman thought the split for each of the shared driveways seemed to measure less than 100’ to their split except for the middle driveway which seemed about 100’.  Jonathan Markey replied that it was actually a little less than 100’.  The Chairman asked if the new set of plans would be available within a week.  Jonathan Markey replied that he would have the Individual Stormwater Management Plans ready.  
        John Ashworth stated that they had looked at the issue of the expanded frontage for the backlot and had tried to reduce Lot #10 to 50’ by creating a wedge shaped easement that would be owned by two different lots (#9 & #10).  The Chairman asked the Coordinator if there were also issues with the base plans.  The Coordinator replied that there were and that the final checklist should be reviewed by the applicant again.  Jonathan Markey, PE, asked what size locus map was preferred.  The Coordinator replied that the Stormwater Management Regulations required 1” = 500’.  John Ashworth returned to the subject of the frontage issue and noted that while another option would be to create two individual driveways there could be problems with sight distance, therefore, he felt that the proposed easement wedge was a better option.
        There being no comments from the Board the Chairman asked if there were comments from the audience.  Gordon Russell asked if in the most current revisions of the plan abutter land was considered or if the drainage was merely redesigned and if this was Jonathan Markey’s area of expertise.  Jonathan Markey, PE, replied that it was and noted that he had inspected all the culverts and offsite flows.  He added that his job was to mitigate development impact and as a professional engineer he was bound to not create any more runoff onto abutting properties that what was flowing there now.  Gordon Russell asked Jonathan Markey, PE, if he understood the impact of vernal pools and why they were there.  Jonathan Markey, PE, replied that he did.  Gordon Russell referred to the location of some catch basins on the plan and asked why they were restricted in a certain area given the slopes on site.  Jonathan Markey, PE, replied that the areas to which Gordon Russell referred had better fill with the topo working better.  Gordon Russell asked where the drainage would go from these areas and Jonathan Markey, PE, pointed this out on the plan.
        Gordon Russell asked how the covenants and restrictions applied to the plan.  Ruth Trussell asked if the Board had copies of the covenants for the subdivision.  The Coordinator replied that they were currently being reviewed by Town Counsel who was in contact with the applicant’s attorney so they were not yet completed.  Ruth Trussell noted that she understood there was a verbal agreement between the attorneys that the covenants were complete and now she was waiting for a formal letter stating the same.  The Chairman clarified that the covenants would be presented at a later date.  Gordon Russell then put up his own map of the subdivision area and noted that when this was first proposed it was reviewed by the Open Space Committee.  He noted protected lands which were all connected and wildlife corridors surrounding the proposed subdivision and felt these trails should be considered because if they were not the subdivision would be another example of negative sprawl.  Gordon Russell noted that protection of rural character in the Town should be considered.  He added that he felt three lots proposed in the lower corner were fine to develop but not the remainder given the protected lands surrounding it.  Gordon Russell noted that the United States Government offered large tax deductions for those who protected and donated their land.  He clarified that the 12 lots proposed would impact wildlife as the subdivision did not accommodate rerouting of animals known to the area such as mink, fisher and deer.  Gordon Russell wanted the applicant to know that there were concerned citizens who cared about what happened to this area.  The Chairman questioned Gordon Russell’s red versus green outlines.  Gordon Russell noted these and pointed out the location of key wetland areas, one which was on abutter Katie Kachavos’s land, as being good feeding ground for wildlife.  
John Ashworth stated that he had carefully considered wildlife trails in the area and noted another wetland that extended into the applicant’s land and was on part of one of the wildlife trails.  He noted that this was a reason that they had moved a proposed driveway away from Katie Kachavos’s property, therefore, they felt they had considered the corridors in their plan.  John Ashworth noted on the plan another wildlife trail that came across the road and wound around a ledge to the edge of wetlands into a bog and uphill toward Christian Farm Estates.  He added that this whole area protected itself and they proposed no impacts to it.  John Ashworth noted another trail that was on the property line on the other side of a stone wall and continued to a bog.  He concluded that these were the three major wildlife trails in the area and the applicant felt that they were not being disturbed by the proposed subdivision.  Ruth Trussell wished to read from the last paragraph of the environmental report from Peter Schauer in response to a letter sent to the applicant by Gordon Russell: “While I can fully understand Mr. Russell’s position as Director Emeritus of the Piscataquog Land Conservancy on the topic of development I strongly disagree that because an abutter chooses to provide conservation easements on their parcels of land that all land owners must also provide the same levels of protection on their lands.  The development of this land will not severely degrade the natural systems currently in place or produce a permanent loss of a significant number of animal species that depend on these connected spaces.  These statements made by Mr. Russell are merely speculative and unsubstantiated by real data.”  The Chairman stated that this was noted by the Board.  Ruth Trussell added that when Peter Schauer wrote this report he was looking at the old Stormwater Management Plan and was not even reviewing the new improved version.
        The Chairman stated that the applicant was on a meeting by meeting extension and asked if the applicant would agree to extend again and how far out they wanted to adjourn based on what they needed to complete on the plan.  Ruth Trussell thought that it may be better to have a hearing scheduled for a month out rather than two weeks as the surveying plans still needed some revisions.  John Ashworth asked the Board’s thoughts regarding the wedge easement to address the frontage issues for the backlot as these would need to be included in the survey.  The Chairman stated that the Board had just heard of this proposal this evening and at this point did not have an issue so if the applicant thought this to be the best approach they should include it in the plan and present it again at the next hearing for further consideration.  The applicant then agreed to a 4 week extension.

Dean Melhorn MOVED to extend the deadline for Planning Board action and adjourn the application of Clark Hill Trust by RR & JH Trussell, Trustees, Major Subdivision, 12 Lots, Location: Clark Hill and Dennison Roads, Tax Map/Lot #8/1 & 4/62, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to June 23, 2009, at 8:00 p.m.  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

VISTA ROAD, LLC (OWNER)                         Adjourned from 4/28/09
ANDERSON & KRIEGER, LLP, for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T)
(APPLICANT)
Public Hearing/Major Site Plan/Personal Wireless Service Facility
Location: Wilson Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/33
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Stephen Anderson, Esq., Shannon McManus, site contractor and Bob Lindgren from the Francestown Planning Board.
The Chairman asked if the applicant had received a copy of the Release of Liability forwarded by Town Counsel.  Stephen Anderson, Esq., replied that they had and that it was acceptable to them.  The Chairman noted that there were several waivers that had been denied at the last meeting, therefore, the information required needed to be on the plan.  Stephen Anderson, Esq., replied that this had been done.  The Chairman added that the Board would run through the items that were missing on the plan and that there was also the matter of the certification from an RF engineer for which the applicant had submitted a waiver but he questioned the factual content and wished to discuss it this evening.
Stephen Anderson, Esq., pointed out the yellow highlighted items on the revised submitted plans which noted new inclusions based on the waiver denials at the previous hearings.  The Chairman stated that the Board had not received this revised set of plans prior to this evening’s submittal and that they were supposed to be submitted at least seven days prior to the hearing for the Board’s review in order for them to consider them this evening.  Stephen Anderson, Esq., stated that he would like go through the changes anyway but noted the Board’s point for future occasions.  He started with the fact that the variance approved by the ZBA regarding the tower height had been included in the list of waivers granted but the Coordinator had pointed out that the variance should be listed separately elsewhere on the plans.  He noted that each time a modification was made to the plan it had been highlighted and circled.  Stephen Anderson, Esq., added that the soil definitions and locations had been added to the plan along with additional features within 300’.  The Chairman asked if physical and natural features had been added.  Stephen Anderson, Esq., replied that they had.  The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she had had time to review the newly revised plans.  The Coordinator replied that she had and noted that the cover sheet information was based on this.  She added that the cover sheet reflected the current checklist.  Stephen Anderson, Esq., noted that even the Planning Department had not yet seen the most recent version of revisions as they were just completed at 5:00 p.m. this evening.
The Chairman asked about the swale on the plan.  Stephen Anderson, Esq., replied that it followed the contours to an existing culvert as explained in a note on the plan.  He stated that directional arrows to denote flow were added and the rest of the plan sheets were unchanged.  He then submitted the most recent plan sets to the Board noting that there had been minor changes to soil types and the addition of K factors although the rest of the Stormwater Management information was being worked on still.  Stephen Anderson, Esq., clarified that regarding plan issues all major points should have been addressed.  Regarding the documents that had not been submitted, he explained that one was the proposed removal bond as this was usually submitted to the Building Inspector after permits were drawn.  He noted that some towns preferred a letter that stated the cost to take the structure down.  The Chairman replied that the Board would need such a letter but also the language for the bond so that it could be forwarded to Town Counsel for review along with proof of appropriate liability insurance.  Stephen Anderson, Esq., replied that they could supply an example of the language for both.  He noted that in regard to the State Historical Preservation office they assured the required items in a report which was not yet back to them, however, they asked that it be considered a condition of approval.  The Chairman asked if this had ever been an issue in the past.  The Coordinator replied that similar submissions had never been an issue and suggested that the wording of the conditional approval could include the term “acceptable” submission.  Stephen Anderson, Esq., noted that the State looked at the NEPA and Historical Preservation Plan first and deemed it acceptable or not, therefore, if it was approved by the State it was likely approvable by the Town.  He added that the stormwater runoff issue was still being addressed by their engineer.
The Chairman asked about the camouflage for ground mounted facilities item where the applicant had requested that the Board decrease, relocate or alter the required buffer based on site conditions.  Stephen Anderson, Esq., replied that a certain amount of tree removal had already been done to the site before the applicant considered their proposal and that the applicant proposed using that area to minimize impacts.  The Chairman noted that theoretically they could not have removed any trees anyway and the Board wanted assurance that when the already cleared brush grew back it would not be cut again.  Stephen Anderson, Esq., replied that Shannon McManus would check with the property owner to see if they would be willing to sign a legal agreement on this in the lease or deed and report back.  The Chairman stated that the regulations called for a 4’ antenna while the applicant was proposing a 14’ antenna.  He noted that he had no issue with the 14’ antenna but that a formal waiver request would be needed.  Douglas Hill asked why there was such a variation in the regulations and if they should be adjusted.  The Chairman thought that this may need to be addressed when the Board reviews the PWSF regulations.  The applicant requested a waiver to the antenna diameter of 4’ to 14’.

Christine Quirk MOVED to grant the waiver requested for the antenna diameter of 4’ to allow for 14’ of diameter.  Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

The Chairman stated that the last issue involved Scenic Landscape and Vistas and noted that this was the same issue as for the Ground Mounted Camouflage and would be addressed at the next meeting.  He noted that as the plan was the official document any revisions, changes, etc., should be included as notes rather than included in the letter referencing the application.  Stephen Anderson, Esq., replied that they could include a table of conditions to the plan based on his March 10, 2009, letter and work with the Planning Department to do so.  
 The Chairman stated that since runoff information was still being addressed by the applicant’s engineer they would need to wait until that information was submitted and defer discussion on the waiver that had been previously submitted by the applicant.  Stephen Anderson, Esq., replied that this was understood and noted that their engineer was still reviewing the Town’s regulations in regard to this matter.
The Chairman stated that another issue was the RF Engineer stamp on the plan.  He noted that he had seen AT&T’s job description for an RF Engineer and arguably the professional who submitted the report did not meet those qualifications, however, the applicant had submitted a waiver as requested and the Board should act upon it as their prior discussion had noted that this professional would be acceptable.

Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the waiver requested in the April 27, 2009, letter, for the requirement that an RF Engineer prepare and submit the radio frequency report for the applicant and allow the CHP, PhD to prepare and submit such report.  Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

The Chairman stated that although the Board was considering approval for three carriers on the structure only one carrier was in the RF Report.  Stephen Anderson, Esq., noted that the report stated that even with 200 carriers on the structure they would still comply with FCC limitations and this could be addressed further in a letter if the Board preferred.  The Chairman acknowledged this.  He then noted that the antenna beam pattern was shown as level whereas there should be a level of depression so it seemed that the maximum would be down six to twelve degrees.  Stephen Anderson, Esq., replied that antennas were capable of some sort of down tilt but they did shoot to the horizon so that phones could reach the signal but he could have his engineer address this.
The Coordinator stated that the plans she most recently reviewed showed drainage going to existing culverts and noted that a previous applicant for the site just across the street had been required to make improvements to Wilson Hill Road to address drainage and not increase flow as a result of their proposal.  She asked if this was discussed on the site walk.  The Board reviewed the latest plans.  The Coordinator asked how the drainage would get to the existing culverts and where it would go from there.  The Chairman stated that he was unsure on this topic as they had just received the most recent revisions this evening.  Stephen Anderson, Esq., stated that he could have this detail expanded on the plan.  He asked if there were any particular points in the regulations that they should focus upon.  Douglas Hill noted that because of the existing swale the runoff was likely to channel down and if not caught properly, would wash the road out every time, therefore, the runoff needed to go under the new proposed access road.  The Coordinator noted that on the other side there needed to be further details on the outlet.  She added that the Planning Department would need a large set of plans for the office and the size submitted to the Board tonight would be acceptable for them.
The Chairman asked if the applicant would agree to an extension and reminded them that any submissions for consideration at a hearing needed to be submitted seven days prior to the hearing date.  The applicant agreed to an extension.  Shannon McManus thought that an adjournment two weeks out would be enough time to have all items addressed.

Christine Quirk MOVED to extend the deadline for Planning Board action and adjourn the application of Vista Road, LLC (Owner), Anderson and Krieger, LLP, for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T) (APPLICANT), Major Site Plan, Personal Wireless Service facility, Location: Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/33, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to June 9, 2009, at 8:00 p.m.  Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

THOMAS LORDEN (OWNER)                           Adjourned from 4/28/09
ANDERSON & KRIEGER, LLP, for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T)
(APPLICANT)
Public Hearing/Major Site Plan/Personal Wireless Service Facility
Location: Old Coach Road
Tax Map/Lot #8/132
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Stephen Anderson, Esq., Shannon McManus, site contractor and Bob Lindgren from the Francestown Planning Board.  
        The Chairman stated that the same issues existed with this plan as for the previous application regarding the Release of Liability and clarified that the applicant would use the Town’s model to draft one.  Stephen Anderson, Esq., stated that the points were the same for this application as the previous one.  The Chairman stated that the Board would take the word of the applicant for now on this but that next time they would like some details on the Stormwater Management Plan.  He read from the plan that the applicant was planning to grade the road and that there should be no changes in the flows.  Stephen Anderson, Esq., noted that they were also checking local regulations on this for the next scheduled hearing.  The Chairman stated that as with the last hearing they would delay consideration on the waiver regarding runoff until the applicant’s engineer had completed his review on the same.

Dean Mehlhorn MOVED to grant the waiver requested in the April 27, 2009, letter for the requirement that an RF Engineer prepare and submit the radio frequency report for the applicant and to allow the CHP, PhD to prepare and submit such report.  Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that as with the last hearing the same information applied regarding the Historical Preservation Plan and NEPA Report and that they were looking at the 150’ buffer zone requiring an easement to prevent any regrowth from being cut.  He noted that the same waiver request applied regarding the antenna diameter.

Dean Mehlhorn MOVED to grant the waiver requested for the antenna diameter of 4’ to allow for 14’ of diameter.  Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

The Chairman noted that the same information applied regarding bonding and the language for the release of liability.  He added that a big issue for this plan had involved the Society for the Protection of NH Forests and the right of way easement that had to be amended to include the cell tower.  Stephen Anderson, Esq., noted that they were 99% through their dealings with the Society who did not accept monetary considerations but accepted donations, therefore, they had submitted an appraisal of the value of the land to determine this.  The Chairman asked if the Society would have reached a decision before the next scheduled hearing with the Board.  Shannon McManus replied that the Society had meetings every other month with the next one scheduled for July, 2009, therefore, she was unsure that they could sign off on the easement without such a meeting but would check into this.  The Chairman stated that as long as there was some indication from them they would be all set with that issue.  Stephen Anderson, Esq., suggested that the Board could consider this as a condition of approval based on their discretion.

Douglas Hill MOVED to extend the Board’s deadline for action and adjourn the application of Thomas Lorden (Owner), Anderson and Krieger, LLP, for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T) (APPLICANT), Major Site Plan, Personal Wireless Service facility, Location: Old Coach Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/132, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to June 9, 2009, at 8:30 p.m.  Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

  • A copy of a memo dated May 26, 2009, from Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Driveway Regulations, Temporary and Permanent Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that the above noted memo regarded the issue of temporary versus permanent mulching.  She noted that in her research there was nothing in the BMP manual that stated stump grindings/mulch could not be used and if the Board felt differently they should consider calling it out in a regulation.  The Chairman stated that he was going to ask questions regarding this at a seminar on erosion control he would be attending soon in Keene, NH, and depending on the feedback he got he agreed that a change to the regulations might be warranted.

Douglas Hill recused himself from discussion of the following item.

  • A copy of a letter dated May 26, 2009, from Kevin Leonard, Northpoint Engineering, to the Board, re: Christian Farm Drive road bond reduction, was distributed for the Board’s action.
The Board had no objection to the recommended reduction.

Don Duhaime MOVED to reduce the bond for Christian Farm Estates based on Northpoint Engineering’s recommendation to $73,831.86.  Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Douglas Hill resumed his seat on the Board.

  • A copy of a memo dated May 20, 2009, from David Preece, SNHPC, to the Board, re: Invitation to a showing of Liquid Assets, was distributed for the Board’s information.
9.      A copy of the updated Flood Plain Development Ordinance was distributed for the Board’s information.
        
The Coordinator noted that the election of Officers to the Planning Board had been postponed from the last meeting to this evening’s when more Board members would be present.

Don Duhaime MOVED to elect Stu Lewin as Chairman of the Planning Board.  Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Dean Mehlhorn MOVED to elect Douglas Hill as Vice Chairman of the Planning Board.  Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Douglas Hill MOVED to elect Don Duhaime as Secretary to the Planning Board.  Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.


MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn at 9:40 p.m.  Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it
PASSED unanimously.

Respectfully Submitted,                                         Minutes Approved:

Suzanne O'Brien
Recording Clerk