 |
TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of February 10, 2009
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members, Peter Hogan, Don Duhaime, alternate, Mark Suennen, and; ex-officio Gordon Carlstrom. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Michele Brown and Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Jim Dodge, Kenneth Kozyra and Steve Anderson, Esq.
Discussion, re: Driveway Regulations
The Chairman asked if Gordon Carlstrom had read a copy of the notes taken regarding the discussion with Dwight Sowerby, Esq., regarding the Driveway Regulations. He had not. The Coordinator explained that she had copied the NFPA sections Town Counsel had referred to as it covered the topics on fire access road information. She added that she had queried information on driveway regulations from 24 other towns and found that the fire chief was only involved in a few cases and those were if a driveway was over 300’ in length. She further noted that the only town that mentioned the role of the fire chief in detail regarding driveways was the town of Webster, NH, where a note was added within their driveway regulations which read “… all driveways
must meet NFPA code requirements, 12 foot in width, anything 15% or greater prohibited…must get to within 50’ of the structure…” and looked like it was added after the fact for some reason as it contradicted items in the body of their regulations. The Coordinator stated that she had many questions based on Dwight Sowerby, Esq.’s points and had split the memo she compiled into sections: things that the Board appeared to need to address, such as getting away from the curb cut permitting process as a whole and leaving it to the Road Agent. She added that the Board had the authority to adopt the regulations but clarified that they could delegate the authority of the inspections and that designee would be responsible for contacting the Planning Board to confirm that a driveway had no administrative issues and the code enforcement official would be responsible for items regarding the interior of the lot on driveways. The Coordinator stated
that her understanding was that there were two ways to move forward with the Driveway Regulations: 1. Keep the Driveway Regulations and put the 10% maximum grade requirement from the Subdivision Regulations into the Driveway Regulations and beef it up so that if there was a time lapse between the approval and construction of the driveway, the driveway would need to be constructed according to the regulations. She noted that there would be separate sections for existing lots and subdivision lots as with existing lots no one was interested in regulating grades but the opposite was true for new subdivision lots. She noted that this raised many questions such as who was qualified or authorized to do inspections such as for slopes, stabilization, etc. and whether the Board would be involved at that point. The Coordinator went on to explain that the second option as explained by Dwight Sowerby, Esq., involved just using the NFPA process which seemed even more
complicated in addition to the fact that two people who were not familiar with Land Use items would now be involved and although their life safety skills were high, the other compliance items that could arise may become an issue. She added that the same was true for Code Enforcement when that entity would need to be familiar with bonding and have the authority to do some other things the Board did like requiring guard rails. In summary, the Coordinator thought that Town Counsel needed to be consulted on the legal sources for these options, who was qualified by statute to do which pieces, etc. She added that the Board first needed to decide which option they preferred. Don Duhaime asked if the Building Inspector or Fire Chief had any input toward having to get involved with inspections. The Coordinator replied that she foresaw some issues with consistency between applicants if the Building Inspector was to become involved with compliance, knowledge base
regarding erosion control measures, etc. She noted that Building Inspector seemed all for being the final authority on driveway compliance and added that for the Byam Road driveway (Lot #2) he and the Fire Chief went out to the site and decided that he would bond the guardrails which was something the Board had been against when it was before them. The Coordinator noted that there were outstanding questions remaining as to who was and was not authorized to accept bonds and that Town Counsel would need to be consulted.
Gordon Carlstrom asked if any consideration had been given to having the Town Engineer do the final check on problematic driveways. The Coordinator replied that it was an option, however, in the past when this came up the Board was less inclined to incur a cost on such a review. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the Town Engineer would be a neutral third party for such issues. The Chairman stated that he was a little confused with having to choose between the two options and thought Town Counsel had stated that the two options could stand and either could be used depending on the case. The Coordinator replied that option #1 involved Driveway Regulations, the Road Agent viewing the curb cuts and the Planning Board still looking at the interior of the lot for subdivisions. She added that option #2 was Driveway Regulations, Road Agent viewing the curb cuts, NFPA handling the interior of the lot, i.e., Planning Board out of the picture. Gordon Carlstrom asked who would
administrate that. The Coordinator replied that was one of the questions and although the Board would still have the Driveway Regulations, the driveway in the interior of the lot, including the width, base, vertical clearance, turn radius, distance from the building to the end of the driveway, would be governed by the NFPA section, i.e., total interior of the lot. Don Duhaime clarified that the NFPA option made the Fire Chief the overseeing entity. The Coordinator replied that the Fire Chief had the authority to delegate responsibilities out but was the final sign off for that information. Gordon Carlstrom thought the Fire Wards would have the final sign off. The Coordinator replied that from what she understood it to be the AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction) where the State Fire Marshall could sign off to the Fire Chief as Town Counsel explained it. She noted that while the Fire Chief had a knowledge base on life safety issues there were
outstanding items such as side slopes and erosion control that were not covered under NFPA. Gordon Carlstrom noted that going this route would mean that the Road Agent, Fire Chief and Building Inspector would be involved in the process. The Coordinator replied that was correct and that the Planning Board would be involved with appeals. Gordon Carlstrom agreed that using NFPA regulations meant that they could be upheld to applicants as non-arbitrary and accepted standards. The Chairman added that the other spin from Town Counsel’s point of view was the authority that would be accepting and validating compliance and it was questionable that the Planning Board had such authority, therefore, the NFPA would allow some town official to be able to enforce those types of things. Gordon Carlstrom was curious who the town official would be in such a case. The Chairman replied that Town Counsel had stated that it would likely be the Fire Chief who
would sign his name on the dotted line. He added that there could then possibly be language to the effect that if a driveway design exceeded the standards in place it would require that the Town Engineer to be the reviewer of the As-Built inspection. Gordon Carlstrom noted that if NFPA standards would be referenced then they would have to be used across the Board. The Coordinator reiterated that NFPA did not take into account side slopes, erosion control, etc., therefore, it would bring in another entity to look at them. She added that it was also questionable who would be approving an initial driveway plan and inspecting the width, grade, topo, etc. The Chairman thought Town Counsel had stated that the Board still approved the plan but the compliance aspect was the issue as it made the Board “judge and jury”. The Coordinator clarified that the issue was that the Board was over stepping anything to do with the interior of the lot,
especially if they went the NFPA route and introduced a more cumbersome, 4 tier process. She noted that for the Board to stay in control of the interior items they would need to add some extra conditions and tighten up some language in the Driveway Regulations. Gordon Carlstrom thought these options could cause a disconnect in some cases. He wondered if the NFPA could be referenced as the basis for defining widths, slopes, access rights, etc. The Coordinator added that the NFPA stated 20’ widths for driveways while the Driveway Regulations stated 12’, although pieces of the NFPA were waivable by the Fire Chief.
The Chairman clarified that if the Road Agent would be viewing curb cuts based on the options proposed, the Board would no longer do site walks for driveways for sight distance, etc., The Coordinator replied this was correct and noted that over time the Board had slowly crept back in to doing so and it was now questionable whether they had that authority per the Driveway Regulations. She noted that while the Road Agent was supposed to be checking sight distance, culvert requirements, rights-of-way, the Planning Board also looked at those things and stopping doing so was a policy decision for the Board to consider. The Chairman stated that question #1 was whether the Board should leave things the way they were and tweak the regulations to match or go by the way the
regulations were written to have the Road Agent doing the checks. Peter Hogan stated that the issue came down to the what the Selectmen preferred and whether they would insist the Road Agent inspect the driveways properly as this was how the Planning Board became involved initially. Gordon Carlstrom noted that they should not put the Road Agent in a “judge and jury” position either. Mark Suennen disagreed that this would be the case because the Planning Board established the guidelines and policies and the Road Agent would then enforce them. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the only code enforcement official the Town had, he believed, was the Building Inspector. The Coordinator explained that the Planning Board enacted the regulation and could then delegate to who they wished to do the check and approve the permit, then at compliance noted that some towns used the road agent (through the whole process) and added in the code enforcement official. Gordon Carlstrom thought this was
how the procedure worked currently. The Coordinator replied that this was not the case and that the Planning Board checked compliance. Mark Suennen clarified that this was Town Counsel’s point of the Planning Board acting as “judge and jury”. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the Building Inspector was also involved at this stage. The Coordinator clarified that in order for the Building Inspector to issue a Building Permit a signed Driveway Permit was needed which was handled by the Planning Board and Road Agent and for compliance the Road Agent confirmed that the driveway was installed where it was supposed to be. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the Building Inspector addressed slopes, etc., for driveways. The Coordinator replied that he did not and if an engineered plan and As-Built plan was done the Planning Board handled it, and if a Stormwater Management plan was done the Building Inspector waited for the applicant’s
engineer to confirm that everything was done correctly. Don Duhaime thought that the Code Enforcement Officer should be looking at completed driveways for compliance.
The Chairman stated that he thought the main question on the table was not the As-Built sign off but who signed off on the initial Driveway Permit and if the Board needed to adjust language in the regulations or leave things as they were which would mean that the Road Agent would do the sign off. Don Duhaime felt that the Road Agent should be the one. Gordon Carlstrom felt that the Planning Board and the Road Agent should be involved as, unless the Road Agent came to the Planning Board meetings to hear rationale for certain driveways, he could be approving things in a “vacuum”. Peter Hogan thought it very important that the Board put into place, for the Building Inspector, that the driveway be to grade and a Building Permit issued only if that was the case as
that was the first item that determined a viable lot. He added that if the Building Inspector signed off on the driveway then the responsibility would solely rest with him whereas if the Road Agent got involved it could tie the hands of the Building Inspector to move forward in some cases. Peter Hogan noted that in some cases the Building Inspector would be familiar with a lot and wouldn’t need to inspect, some would be an issue and some would be grandfathered by law. The Chairman stated that Peter Hogan was still addressing a different topic, although that was fine, but he was going beyond the permitting phase. Peter Hogan stated that he also thought the Building Inspector should handle the Driveway Permit. Gordon Carlstrom thought that as far as the permitting process he felt that the Board should still be involved as part of the Site Plan. Peter Hogan thought the relief provided by an appeal of an administrative decision was the ZBA
which was the perfect hand-off. The Chairman stated that he still wished to return to the issue of the Driveway Permit which was the question on the table, i.e., who signed off on its issuance. He asked if the Planning Board should stay involved with it or if it should go to the Road Agent. Peter Hogan did not think it should just be the Road Agent as they had already been through that experience and it did not work. He added that the Road Agent was not necessarily familiar with the Subdivision/Driveway Regulations, a poor excuse, but a fact. The Chairman clarified that the Driveway Permit involved the portion of the driveway up to the right-of –way and had nothing to do with the interior of the lot. The Coordinator replied that was correct. Peter Hogan felt it depended on how the permit was approved which was his understanding from the discussion had with Town Counsel. He added that there were two sets of regulations involved
and adopted at different times. Peter Hogan felt the Board was certainly delegated by the Fire Department to enforce the regulations. The Chairman noted that that was in regard to the interior of the lot and the Driveway Permit only covered to the setback. Peter Hogan replied that it was dependent on the lot itself. The Coordinator clarified that the Driveway Permit covered the area to the right-of-way and for a new lot the Subdivision Regulations governed from the right-of-way to the house and for an existing lot the construction standards of the Driveway Regulations governed that portion which was a separate item. Peter Hogan asked if two permits for the driveway would now be required on new lots as currently the curb cut and driveway were approved all at once. He noted that As-Builts on current lots were not being submitted as they should because the home foundations were being altered which sometimes affected the proposed grades so applicants
were looking for relief. The Chairman noted that this was an issue from the right-of-way to the house. Peter Hogan reiterated that it was all under one approval on the Driveway Permit as the curb cut and the delivery system to the house. Don Duhaime stated that when the Board looked at driveways they looked at sight distance, access and drainage and did not envision what the site would resemble when finished. Peter Hogan replied that the Board only envisioned the final look of a site when they felt an As-Built was going to be necessary. Don Duhaime felt the Road Agent could do the same. Peter Hogan noted that he wanted to be out of the driveway compliance procedure but historically whoever else was delegated the job did not do it properly which was why the Planning Board got involved. Gordon Carlstrom’s view was that two sets of eyes were better. Don Duhaime added that he liked Peter Hogan’s thoughts on not obtaining a
Building Permit until a lot’s driveway grade was in. Gordon Carlstrom agreed. The Coordinator noted that the Board was waiting to hear back from Town Counsel on this issue, as State law said if a subdivision project was bonded Building Permits could not be withheld and this included the driveways. Mark Suennen thought that subdivisions were a separate issue from the Driveway Regulations where for subdivisions the Planning Board had authority on the whole package where for a Site Plan they only had authority to the right-of-way. He asked if this was a correct statement. Gordon Carlstrom replied that he believed it was. The Coordinator noted that the Board had been under the impression that for Subdivision/Site Plans they were governing from the right-of-way to the structure and for a Driveway Permit under the Driveway Regulations that involved the Board having authority only to the right-of-way. She noted that Site Plan was governed by
the Board as it dealt with Commercial and Non-Residential applications. Mark Suennan asked what the case would be for an applicant proposing a driveway on a long standing existing lot of record. The Coordinator replied that this would be where the Driveway Regulations came into play and beyond the Board’s authority to the right-of-way the grades, widths, base materials, etc., were suggested but not required. She added that NFPA would govern everything: existing lots of record, current driveways, new subdivisions and site plan driveways. Gordon Carlstrom asked why an externally generated set of requirements could not be imposed. The Coordinator replied that this was possible but it needed to be correctly stated in the regulations which was why the Board was working with Town Counsel. Gordon Carlstrom asked if that would mean that the Board could have authority from the right-of-way to the dwelling. The Coordinator replied that this
could be the case if the Board preferred but noted that the last time that option was discussed no one wanted to dictate to anyone what an applicant had to do on the interior of their lot (for existing lots of record).
The Chairman wished to clarify the types of lots: Site Plan=Commercial, Subdivision=houses, and Existing Lots of Record. The Coordinator noted that there was a fourth category which included lots previously subdivided since the date that established Existing Lots of Record, which she believed was 1977, but before the adoption of the Driveway Regulations in 2005, therefore, anything that fell into that gap was considered just a “lot”. Mark Suennen clarified that on an existing lot of record or a regular lot the Board had authority to the right-of-way. He noted that the applicant filed for a Driveway Permit which was checked by the Planning Department who forwarded it to the Road Agent who confirmed the viability of the curb cut via sight lines, sent it to the
Board, they agreed, signed the permit and the applicant had a Driveway Permit and that was the end of the Board’s authority at that point. The Coordinator replied that was correct followed by the Road Agent signing off on the driveway post construction and then the Building Inspector issued a CO. Mark Suennen further clarified that there were two sets of eyes, therefore, looking at the Driveway Permit so if they were not in agreement with the Road Agent this could halt the process. The Coordinator replied that this was true but also not true in a sense as the Board was only supposed to be looking at administrative conditions to the lot, i.e., conditions to the lot posted in the files. She added that Peter Hogan was correct when he stated that Board had gotten too far into going on site and checking the compliance. The Chairman asked the procedure for a subdivision. The Coordinator replied that it all proceeded the same way Mark
Suennen had just described and in addition the Board usually did a site walk to look at the proposed road, etc., then as part of the Subdivision Regulations on driveways and attached to the Driveway Permit, the driveway from the right-of-way to the house is supposed to be 10% or less, 3% negative to the center of the ditch line, etc. She noted that if an As-Built was required the Board went out again to check the driveway once completed and, if not, the final process was the same with the Road Agent checking to the right-of-way and signing off on the driveway and if all was acceptable a CO would be issued. Peter Hogan noted that from its inception the engineered plan is put to the Planning Board when it is questionable that the lot is not viable to support a driveway. He added that issues arose when the driveway then got built but not to specifications due to any number of reasons such as ledge, not stabilizing the slopes correctly. Peter Hogan added that
further issues arose when the As-Built did not necessarily match the engineered plan and the Board dealt with that issue more than any other entity in Town. The Chairman asked what the case would be for a driveway not necessarily built to the engineered plan but which met the Town regulations. Peter Hogan replied that would be an approvable driveway also.
Having run out of time the Chairman noted that the Board had to move on.
The Chairman appointed Mark Suennen a full voting member on the Board in Douglas Hill’s absence.
Informational session with Anderson & Krieger, LLP, for AT&T, to discuss a proposed telecommunications facility on Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot # 6/33.
The Chairman noted that an informational session was an informal discussion on general topics and no decisions on the proposal would be made this evening.
Present for this discussion were Kenneth Kozyra, principal of KJK Wireless representing AT&T Mobility and Steve Anderson, Esq., of Anderson and Krieger, LLP. An interested party present was Jim Dodge.
Kenneth Kozyra stated that they proposed a wireless tower off Wilson Hill Road. He noted that AT&T had leased a small portion of a 150 acre lot from Vista Road, LLC, and hoped to install a cell tower in an effort to improve cell phone coverage in the Town. He noted that several small copies of the plan had been forwarded to the Board and there was a discrepancy on a dimension of 297’ which should be almost 2,400’. He pointed out this location on the plans and distributed a revised sheet. The Chairman asked why the site name was New Boston/Chestnut Hill Road when Chestnut Hill Road was not in the vicinity and also why Hollis, NH, was typed on the plan. Kenneth Kozyra replied that the radio frequency engineers who designed the network chose the
name and in some cases did not chose accurately. Steve Anderson, Esq., noted that the inclusion of “Hollis, NH” was a typographical error. Kenneth Kozyra stated that the proposed lease area was 239’ from the center of the tower to Wilson Hill Road, 1,000’ from either end and proposed as close to the highest elevation possible on the site with a short 12’ wide gravel access road off Wilson Hill Road to a 50’ X 50’ compound at the end of the access road having the tower in the middle, AT&T’s prefabricated equipment shelter and a diesel generator for backup power. He noted locations for two future co-locating carriers in the compound. He also noted that there were several other pages of construction details included in the plans. The Chairman asked how far the site was from River Road/NH Route 13. Kenneth Kozyra replied that it appeared to be almost 1,000’ from that point. The Chairman asked where on the map the end of the Class V portion of Wilson Hill Road was located in
conjunction with the cross roads of Hutchinson Lane and Popple Road. Kenneth Kozyra believed this area was below the map. Mark Suennen pointed out the location on the tax map. Gordon Carlstrom asked the height of the tree canopy on the site. Kenneth Kozyra produced aerial photos and noted that at some point the land owner had cleared some portion of the parcel, therefore, there would be no tree clearing for the tower. He added that the ordinance called for measuring the tree canopy within 50’ of the edge of the clearing and there was no substantial growth in that area.
Peter Hogan asked Kenneth Kozyra if they had looked at any other sites in Town. Kenneth Kozyra replied that they had looked at several sites within the area and surrounding and noted that they would be filing for another site in Town the next day. Peter Hogan thought one of the requirements was that the applicant disclose the other sites they were considering. Kenneth Kozyra replied that once they were in the public hearing portion of the application they could share that information. He added that the site being proposed was one of 11 sites being proposed by AT&T in the area. Peter Hogan asked about the proposed range. Kenneth Kozyra replied that it was approximately 1.5 to 3 miles depending on the topography, however, things like hills, valleys,
leaves, pine needles all absorbed signals. He noted that the cell tower being discussed would improve a portion of New Boston and they would be proposing another cell tower southwest of the center of Town, had just received approval for one in Mont Vernon, NH and one in Francestown, NH near the New Boston line equaling a total of 5 sites that should be able to cover the Town adequately.
Peter Hogan asked if the access road proposed would come off River Road. Kenneth Kozyra replied that it was off the Class V portion of Wilson Hill Road. The Coordinator noted that the road in this location was Class VI. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the Selectmen would need to determine if this was allowable. The Coordinator added that a variance from the ZBA would also be required as the Zoning Ordinance required that development take place on a Class V road or better. Kenneth Kozyra asked if that was unique to New Boston. The Coordinator replied that she did not think that was the case and noted that when AT&T had applied for a cell tower previously they had been required to approach the ZBA for the same reasons. Steve Anderson, Esq., asked if
they should know anything specific regarding the driveway to the site. Kenneth Kozyra noted that it followed the natural grade and was somewhat steeper at the end. Peter Hogan stated that he was not concerned with the steepness as it was not a life safety issue since no one should be accessing the driveway but the employees of AT&T.
Gordon Carlstrom asked what height above the canopy was allowed per Zoning. The Coordinator replied that it was 20’. Kenneth Kozyra replied that it would be difficult to address that issue given the tree clearing and thought it would be difficult to establish a number. He noted that towns had waiver options in their ordinance for such cases as it was a frequent issue. Peter Hogan stated that if it was not visible he did not care how high it was. Kenneth Kozyra noted that no matter what measure was taken half the trees would be taller and half would be shorter. Peter Hogan asked the height of the tower pole previously approved across the street from the site. The Planning Assistant went to check the files in the office. Gordon Carlstrom
asked if the power lines would be above ground. Kenneth Kozyra replied that they preferred to do so based on access to the lines and cost. The Chairman asked why the arrangement of the tower was such that there were trees to be planted on three sides only. Kenneth Kozyra replied that the heavily wooded section in back made it not visible from the road but they could plant trees on all four sides if the Board preferred. Gordon Carlstrom asked audience member Jim Dodge how far off the road the cell tower on his property was located. Jim Dodge replied that he thought it was approximately 1,200’. The Chairman asked Jim Dodge if he had any questions or comments regarding the discussion. Jim Dodge replied that he did not.
The Chairman asked in regard to drawing number G01 (General Notes) that #17 and #18 made it seem like the existing site was up and running and asked if that was because the same template was used over and over. Kenneth Kozyra replied that was the case. The Planning Assistant returned with information on the previously approved tower height and the Coordinator stated that it was 87’ with ground elevation of 422’ to 424’. Peter Hogan thought the intent of measuring the tree canopy was the intent of how visible the tower would be, therefore, one would measure the height of the nearest tree line. Mark Suennen asked what maintenance was required for the tower site. Kenneth Kozyra replied that, conservatively, someone would visit the site once a
month, but if the site was fully functional and without issues, especially in the winter, you may not see someone for 3-5 months and that they did not plow the road but accessed the site by snowmobile or on snowshoes. Peter Hogan asked if the access road would be gated. Kenneth Kozyra replied that they sometimes did or did not and that was dependent on what the landlord or Planning Board wanted. He added that sometimes a gate tempted trespassers. Peter Hogan noted that dumping had been an issue on Jim Dodge’s site. Jim Dodge agreed and felt a gate should be installed where the public could see it.
Steve Anderson, Esq., clarified that plan changes for the next meeting would include tree canopy measurements and trees on all four sides. The Chairman stated that he had just been curious about the trees and that was not necessary. Mark Suennen requested a profile of the driveway grade. The Planning Assistant noted that the applicants were scheduled for another informational session on February 24, 2009. Steve Anderson, Esq., asked the filing deadline for a full application for these items. The Coordinator replied that it was Monday, March 9, 2009.
Steve Anderson, Esq., stated that they would likely file both applications on this date to get on the agenda. He asked if the Board required a balloon test on the site. The Coordinator replied that according to Zoning, this test was arranged after the hearing.
Steve Anderson Esq., and Kenneth Kozyra thanked the Board for their time.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 2009
1. Approval of minutes of January 13, 2009, distributed by email.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the minutes of January 13, 2009, as written. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3a. A copy of a letter received January 28, 2009, from Jed Z. Callen, Baldwin and Callen, PLLC, to New Boston Planning Board, re: subdivision approved May 8, 2007, Moreau, Tax Map/Lot #2/95, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Addressed with item #3b.
3b. A copy of Warranty Deed for Robert F. & Margorie Moreau was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that the property owner should not have subdivided due to a deed restriction that should have been known by the owners but the actions taken had not gone against State law, Zoning or Planning, therefore, the end result was an FYI.
4. Approval of minutes of January 30, 2009, distributed by email.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the minutes of January 30, 2009, as written.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion.
Mark Suennen stated that he was concerned that some language in the minutes ran counter to discussions had with Town Counsel. Peter Hogan noted that there were two sets of minutes from the January 30, 2009, meeting, one privileged from the discussion with Town Counsel and then the regular set of minutes. Mark Suennen stated that his concern was that the language from the meeting prior to the meeting with Town Counsel contained language that made him uncomfortable for the Board regarding the nature of the discussion. Peter Hogan noted that what was verbalized could not be deleted as that was part of the minutes. The Chairman stated that the discussion was had, and in hindsight several discussions were an issue but they had
occurred. Gordon Carlstrom stated that minutes illustrated a point in time.
The motion PASSED unanimously.
5a. A copy of a letter sent to Stephanie and Brian Dubreuil by the Planning Department, re: home business qualification, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Addressed with item #5b.
5b. A copy of a letter received February 10, 2009, from Stephanie Dubreuil to the Board, re: home business qualification, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained in response to a question from Peter Hogan that the Planning Department sent a standard letter to individuals when it was noticed that advertising was being used. Peter Hogan stated that his understanding of Stephanie Dubreuil’s advertisement was that she did all of her work on site or over the internet and he saw her car all over town and felt she was nowhere near the parameters of a home business.
The Board determined that the standard letter of reply would be sent to Stephanie Dubreuil stating that if anything were to change within the parameters of her business that she should let the Planning Board know as a Site Plan Review may be required.
6a. A copy of a letter sent to Robert and Denise Leahy by the Planning Department, re: home business qualification, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Addressed with item #6b.
6b. A copy of a letter received February 4, 2009, from Robert Leahy to the Board, re: home business qualification, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman clarified that if there were no employees, customers on site and the operation fit, basically, in the basement of your home there were no issues. Peter Hogan stated that it was like an under radar approval as it would not be found in any of the Town regulations. The Coordinator noted that such a question could be put to the voters but this procedure had always worked well for the Town as a policy which looked at the criteria that someone would fall under so that no Site Plan was required. Peter Hogan noted that this type of approval did not mean that the individual was approved for a home business and that New Boston had much more leniency in what was allowed to be done on one’s property. The Chairman asked Peter Hogan if he was satisfied with the
way the policy worked currently. Peter Hogan replied that he did not care.
The Board determined to send a standard response letter to Mr. Leahy also.
7. Copies of information from the 2009 Land Resource Management Workshop, February 9, 2009, were distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that several topics had been discussed and that on one point the laws had changed for the Shoreland Protection Act which needed to be addressed if an individual submitted an application for building within 250’ of the Piscataquog River or Bog Brook. Regarding Site Specific Permits some things had been changed that the Board might want to think about as far as possibly changing the Stormwater Management Regulations or referencing what had been changed as it dealt with infiltration now more that detention. She noted that a new Stormwater Reference Manual replaced the “green book” that Town Counsel had previously made reference to. The Coordinator stated that this should be checked against the Town’s regulations as erosion
control measures had been updated. She added that there had been a few changes made for septic design and some ideas for wetlands presented although nothing was yet in place.
The Chairman stated that in regard to waiting on comments from Town Counsel on discussion had at the prior meeting on driveways, he felt that if something came back from him the Board could discuss that at 6:30 p.m. at the next Planning Board meeting, otherwise, they could have a start time of 7:30 p.m. The Board agreed.
2. Discussion, re: Bedford Road traffic study and traffic studies in general, continued from last meeting.
The Chairman stated that he had a hard time arguing the science of the outcome of the study but realized it was an issue of perception. He added that the point of the study had been to provide justification against further development off Bedford Road towards the end of town, however, the results did not help the Board’s cause. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the establishment of an emergency access and getting out of Town by such an access if that end of Bedford Road washed out should have been addressed in the study. Mark Suennen noted that that question had not been asked in the scope of the study and if the Board wanted that answer then a new study needed to be done. Peter Hogan and Don Duhaime felt that the question was asked. Mark Suennen stated that
what was written to SNHPC did not include that question. Peter Hogan stated that the discussion of the Board had been perfectly clear in that they laid out their problem which was that a portion of the Bedford Road was often closed due to weather issues. The Coordinator disagreed and noted that the point Peter Hogan made was brought up afterwards and was not a question asked at the beginning. She added that when the scope of work draft was returned and reviewed by the Board and Selectmen all were in agreement and when the talk of doing the study was presented there had been one rain event wash out on Bedford Road that occurred right before that time and two after the study questions were asked. Peter Hogan thought the question must have been overlooked. Don Duhaime agreed. The Coordinator replied that the two main questions the Board wanted answered was could that end of Bedford Road handle any more subdivisions and was a secondary road feasible. Don Duhaime asked how the
All Boards were involved in the process and whether the Planning Board was left out of the process of determining the scope of work. The Coordinator replied that the All Boards met on the draft of the scope of work and then it was forwarded to the Planning Board for review. She added that the draft was distributed to the Boards that could not make that meeting. Peter Hogan asked if the Fire Department had asked about an emergency access road. The Coordinator replied that the minutes of that meeting could be checked but she did not think they had and that the draft was checked for content and not on questions that had not been asked, therefore, she suggested that the Board take this as a lesson for the future. Peter Hogan was surprised that the question never made it into the scope of work since emergency access was a common discussion had with certain subdivisions like Indian Falls. The Chairman asked the date of the scope of work. The
Coordinator replied that she would have to look up the date. Mark Suennen quoted the summary report: “…The scope of work for the Bedford Road Safety Study was prepared by SNHPC with input from the Town in April, 2007. A meeting of the New Boston All Boards Committee was held with members of the SNHPC to discuss the scope for the study. Draft versions for the scope of work were also reviewed by the Town staff. A final meeting with the Town Administrator and the Road Agent was held immediately prior to the start of work.” Gordon Carlstrom asked what asking the question of emergency access would solve. The Chairman replied that if the road washed out where noted, having an emergency access on the other side may not provide a feasible route anyway if other roads in Town washed out. Gordon Carlstrom thought having such an access was an important piece to that end of Town.
Mark Suennen clarified that the Board was dissatisfied with the original study for whatever reason but the Board would not require a new study because they already knew what they want and had hoped the study would justify that. The Chairman did not think the Board needed a study to demonstrate the issues the Town experienced when the upper end of Bedford Road was closed due to weather issues. Mark Suennen summarized that the Board’s opinion on any further work in this area was that the connection road would be required that they had discussed many times prior for the subdivisions coming in to the area. The Coordinator cautioned that when thinking in those terms the Board pay close attention to the statutes that
governed the issue of the Board being able to deny a subdivision as there were many court cases that overturned planning board decisions made without a reason based in the law. The Chairman wondered if a report could be written analyzing the flooding that had occurred at that end of town. The Coordinator asked why any subdivisions in line for development in that area should be held responsible for the Bedford Road flooding issues as it was a Town wide, State wide, storm event and that was why the Board needed to be careful as to how they proceeded. Don Duhaime noted that the Shaky Pond and McCurdy plans were held up because the Board thought emergency access was warranted in that section of town. He asked if such subdivisions could be held somewhat accountable. The Coordinator replied that this was a legal
question and she was not sure they could be held accountable. Mark Suennen noted that while the Board may not have the authority to ask an applicant to build such a road they had the authority to ask then to dedicate a right-of-way for someone else. Peter Hogan stated that this was no revelation to the developers involved as they had been promising such a connection road for years. Don Duhaime added that he would even be satisfied with a gravel emergency access road. Gordon Carlstrom noted that care needed to be taken when approaching the Bussiere/Indian Falls area regarding road networks. Peter Hogan noted that the subdivisions in that area of town were basically one huge cul-de-sac when you broke things down to the feeder roads. Mark Suennen stated with regard to the Bedford Road Traffic Study that he was not willing to say that if the right question was asked that it would still have given the Board the answer they wanted. The Coordinator
noted that the study had accomplished obtaining a list of projects that netted some money needed for offsite improvements on Bedford Road.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to adjourn at 8:45 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk Minutes Approved:
| |
